Tancredo Withdraws from Race

Tom Tancredo dropped out of the race on Thursday - some old news that I'm finally getting around to posting something on. You can read the story here.

Interesting that he's throwing his support behind Romney. I think Romney needs guys like Tancredo. As a matter of fact, I think a Romney-Tancredo ticket would be pretty formidable. I think it'd be safe to say that such an administration would have the border and immigration as one of its top priorities, as it should be for any administration.

We've discussed before here and over at Webster's, immigration is probably the issue facing this country. It has enormous domestic implications; it has national security implications; and it on some level it addresses our long-term survival from a cultural standpoint.

That it has been a major issue thus far is thanks to the efforts of Tancredo, largely. The country owes him a debt of gratitude.

Tancredo vs. Geraldo, Tonight!

If you're a Tom Tancredo fan like I am, you'll want to know about his appearance on Fox's Hannity and Colmes program at 9:00pm this evening, or, between 9:00 and 10:00 pm Eastern time, more precisely.

The subject? Immigration, of course. Tancredo will be debating none other than our favorite hispanic and staunch advocate for mass migration and national suicide, Geraldo Rivera.

And btw, if you can't make the live showdown, be sure to check your local listings for the replay of the show later tonight.

-TM

So Long, Farewell

Well, looky here. One down, 17 million more to go.

Why did the Tribune reporter say that the agents were screaming at the top of their lungs? Isn't that a little editorial and, well, just plain weird? Couldn't be a bias there, you don't think?

Later in the article, an activist asks if we want America to be the kind of country that does things like arresting people who come here illegally. The obvious answer is yes, we want the government to arrest people who break the law. As far as her boy goes - a U.S. citizen, as Alderman Munoz points out - perhaps if we adhered to the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment, the boy wouldn't have been a citizen and no one would be worrying about his fate at this moment - he'd be going back to Mexico with his mother.

There's a lesson to be learned here, and it's a fairly simple one: don't break the law.

P.S. Unrelated note: we may soon have a fourth joining us on the blog, which me and the boys sure are excited about.

Time to Discharge Your Civic Duty

Brought to you by the good folks at the Patriot Post, see this link for a petition to "free the Texas three."

(But for Heaven's Sake, let's all just please keep quiet about our 16th President, and we'll all get along fine.)

Laura Ingraham had Johnny Sutton on her show today; it's nice to see this story isn't dying and people are still concerned enough about our border and those guys who were doing their jobs that this is staying in the public conscience.

What are you waiting for? Go sign the petition!

Governor Pressured Into Signing Bill

This immigration deal ain't over yet by a long shot. But in the meantime while the federal Congress regroups and recollects its thoughts on the late nightmarish attempt to impose its 'comprehensive' will on the governed whose consent is THE prerequisite for its authority (DoI), concerned citizens at the local and State levels are demanding their Legislatures and their Governors impose their will on illegals, and on those who assist them in breaking the law.

Case in point? Border State, Arizona, whose Legislative and Executive branches have apparently been embroiled in a three-year-long battle over tough legislation intended to make the State less inviting to illegal mexican immigrants. Below are some excerpts from the AP story which you may read in full here: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Employer-Sanctions.html

PHOENIX (AP) --

Arizona's governor signed a bill Monday that prohibits people from hiring illegal immigrants and requires businesses to verify applicants' employment eligibility, saying Congress was apparently ''incapable'' of helping.

The bill's approval by Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, marks the end of a three-year fight at the Republican-controlled Legislature to create state-imposed employer sanctions. The goal is to weaken the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak across the border and to lessen Arizona's role as the busiest illegal gateway into the nation.

But the governor said that the bill she signed had major flaws, and that she was willing to call a special legislative session to address them.

''Immigration is a federal responsibility, but ... it is now abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive immigration reforms our country needs,'' the governor said in a statement. ''I signed it, too, out of the realization that the flow of illegal immigration into our state is due to the constant demand of some employers for cheap, undocumented labor.''

I guess the 'major flaws' inherent to the bill Gov. Napolitnano signed Monday are what kept her from signing earlier, but apparently those flaws don't rise to the same level that they once did when she thought our saviors at the federal level were going to get her off the hook. Apparently the legislation has been sitting there prepared and waiting for the governor's signature for some time now, if I read the story right. But the governor was withholding her signature in hopes that the feds would release her from the responsibility.

Like so many others, Governor Napolitano is working under the false impression that 'immigration is a federal responibility,' in exclusion of any independent responsibility from the States which make up this federal union of ours. But even if her view were the correct one, it wouldn't take away from the fact that it is a flawed and an improper view, which ultimately leads to improper manifestations thereof. Speaking of which, I reckon that at least some of the flaws contained in the bill she signed would be more rightly denominated 'perceived flaws' based on her incorrect view of the subject.

On the one hand it's worrisome that we have governors of States who fallaciously believe as Napolitano does. On the other, I'm encouraged that despite their reticence to sign the appropriate legislation into law, we've been given yet another example, in the State of Arizona, of representative government working as it should.

Don't be surprised when the feds, the pundits, and the talking-heads start throwing a fit about the dangers inherent with 'allowing' the States to decide the question of immigration reform. And don't let that influence you. You can chalk it up to one of two things; either they're simply misinformed, or they fear a diminution of the federal government's power and influence over the States. In either case they should be called on the carpet at the very moment they begin shouting their declamations.

"Anything worth having is worth Working for."

That's one of the many verses of guiding wisdom that my dad used to offer up to me occasionally during my upbringing. And in the tradition of ol' dad I too have found very creative ways in which to share with my children, my employees and friends, and at times strangers with whom I converse on occasion, the truth in the words, and of course what the phrase itself leaves unsaid yet clearly implies - a thing isn't worth having if it isn't worth working for.

The phrase came to me as I was reading this morning's AP story on the defeat of the amnesty bill and what the next move is for Congress on the heels of that defeat:

WASHINGTON (AP):

Hours after a massive immigration bill collapsed in the Senate, lawmakers and lobbyists began seeking ways to pass bits and pieces of the measure important to their constituents.

A priority for many farm groups is the ''Ag jobs'' component, one of several programs now needing a new legislative vehicle. It would legalize about 1 million undocumented agricultural workers in the U.S., a key goal of growers whose crops can rot in the fields if not harvested at key times by people willing to work hard at low wages.

The program is considered relatively popular, as is another piece of the stalled bill: the DREAM Act, or Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act. It would create a path to legality for illegal immigrants planning to attend college or join the military and who came to the United States with their families before they turned 16.

Some lawmakers said they hope Congress will enact such programs as stand-alone bills fairly soon. Others, however, said it will be difficult to pass even noncontroversial parts by themselves. Backers of items likely to be left out, they said, will resist losing the political leverage that a multifaceted package can provide.

In an interview earlier this week, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. -- a backer of the sidetracked immigration bill -- said the one-at-a-time approach may prove impossible, even for tougher border-enforcement measures that now seem popular.

''The only way we're going to get Ag jobs or DREAM Act'' or pathways to legal status for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, Graham said, ''is to do it together. This idea of 'Just do the enforcement,' there are no votes for that.''

Other Republicans, especially in the House, disagree. All immigration-related proposals should be postponed, they said, until the Mexican border is secured.

''The American people believe that until we're able to secure our borders and enforce our laws, taking additional steps is really not in the best interests of the country,'' House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said after Thursday's crucial Senate vote that derailed the bill.
Some lawmakers immediately urged President Bush to accept defeat on the wide-ranging bill and ask Congress for an emergency spending bill for more border enforcement activities. ''That would be a great next step after this vote,'' said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who opposed the bill.
Some lawmakers said it hardly matters, however, because enough money and authority already are in place to do the job.

There should be ''a very strong sense of urgency in this country to simply carry out the law, the mandate, for 854 miles of fence that we passed'' in the 109th Congress, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told reporters Thursday. ''They've only built 13 miles of the fence so far. Let's get it built before the next hot season.''

While the security debate simmers, the farm lobby will push for Ag jobs, immigrant advocacy groups will fight for the DREAM Act, and other interest groups will seek avenues for similar pet projects. Some legislative leaders Thursday were noncommittal on how they might fare.
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., was asked if his caucus would support Ag jobs by itself. Most Republicans would back a similar program, he said, but he added: ''The concern that House Republicans have and have had for some time now is the order in which these things are accomplished. You have securing the border, being sure that workers who are here appropriately are here with ID that's verifiable, that's reasonably hard to duplicate.''
Paul Schlegel, public policy director for the American Farm Bureau, said in an interview, ''It's a little soon to handicap'' the Ag jobs program's future. ''The administration has said all along they want a comprehensive approach,'' he said, and the bureau has worked in concert with the White House thus far.

The immigration bill's collapse forces all key players to rethink their next moves. Individual components may gain support in the coming weeks, but it won't be easy, several lawmakers said.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said in an interview before Thursday's vote: ''I think it's pretty hard, the way things are set up here, to get anything done on immigration that's not part of a package.''

Note the refrain among our lawmakers that it's easier to pass a multi-faceted ('comprehensive'?) immigration plan than it is to pass singular and popular aspects of the bill. Note how that they tend to favor the 'easy,' as opposed to the more difficult pathway to properly dealing with the immigration situation. And I guess it's obvious why, because a packaged deal appeals to more folks than do singular aspects of the deal. But to paraphrase President Lincoln: "you can please some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time; but you can't please all the people all the time."

I'll admit that I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the farm lobby and others who always fall back on the tired old retort that crops are going to rot in the fields if we don't legalize millions of aliens who, unlike Americans, are willing to work hard, and for beans too. It should be pretty obvious to reasonable persons that the claim falls way short of exhausting the options.

There's a point here that I think really needs to be driven home. Americans will work low-paying jobs if the feds'll keep their noses out of private business and the private affairs of individual Americans. But it's not just the feds that are culpable in this, private businesses invite impositions from the government by doing just what they're doing in this case. Individual Americans invite those impositions by asking their government to inject itself into that which should be kept strictly between the negotiating parties.

Another thing that'd be extremely helpful in solving this crisis (if it truly rises to the crisis level) is if welfare and assistance programs were abolished. Not that I'm saying we should abolish them immediately, but I am saying that we need to be working toward that goal. Assistance programs create dependency in those benefiting from them, not to mention that they create unhealthy attachments in the recipients toward those they perceive to be their saviors - the government. One may as well sell his soul to the devil himself if he believes the government to be the savior of he and his family.

Beyond that we have Senators like Graham insisting that to get border and law enforcement we have to go for amnesty. I would simply ask Senator Graham, why is this the case? There are no votes for enforcement? Perhaps the Senate oughta put its collective head to the task of offering the American People a non-comprehensive alternative now that the amnesty deal received its proper death blow.

As MT suggests in our position on immigration reform, we should take ordered, measured, and quantifiable steps in any and all future efforts to correct this situation. The first step is to seal the border. The legislation has already been passed, and the funding is there to build 800+ miles of fence. Get 'er done. In the meantime the States can determine for themselves what the best course of action is regarding the immigration problem. And as it becomes more of a problem for certain States than it currently is, don't think for a second that the citizens thereof won't pressure their Congresses to get something done.

A Slap of Friendship

Great story: there was this kid who lived in our neighborhood back when I was in junior high. He allegedly got into some tussle with, of all people, a girl in the neighborhood; and further, he allegedly slapped her. Now, I don't remember all the people involved in this tussle. I just remember being there when the explanation was offered: it was a slap of friendship.

Can you think of a more absurd or ridiculous thing to say?

Still thinking?

OK, enough suspense! The Senate hands Bush a major defeat, how about that?! Yes, God help me for I think I have wet myself, that's actually the title of the Reuters headline!

And there's this gem from the article...

"No one benefits now, there is nothing to look forward ... it's very disappointing," Rosa Rosales, the national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, told Reuters.

Oh, my goodness people! Let's get a few things straight.

1) Reuters: Your knee-jerk hatred of Bush is positively hysterical in this instance, because everyone with nominal brain activity knows that what actually happened was that regular Americans told the elites that there'd be hell to pay if this monstrosity got passed. Regular Americans defeated the Senate elites and Bush. Credit where credit is due, right?

2) Hey, Rosa Rosales! You know who benefits now? Regular American citizens, my favorite people in the world!

Commence the happy dance.

A Federal Case for Sane Immigration Reform

A key vote is scheduled today on the Senate's amnesty bill. And by the way, it has ever been and remains a bill designed primarily around the intention of determining a national policy on immigration which grants amnesty to 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants already in the country, and to open the door to millions more. These are the fundamental principles which yet undergird the Senate's bill.

If passed the bill would effectively kill all efforts initiated by individual States in this union intended to deal with the growing threats of open borders, and a lack of will at the national level to enforce existing immigration laws to the respective states themselves. Thus killing in effect the vital guiding influence of the States upon the national entity regarding this question of immigration reform.

In contemplating what the better route would be in determining national policy on this important question, I'm increasingly of the opinion that the States should set the standards for the national government around which to mold and shape a federal policy. After all, a national policy on immigration should reflect the will of the whole People of these United States, not of a few rogue representatives of States directly installed by the People thereof who themselves wish to impose their will on the rest of the nation. Oh how I long for a return to a proper balance of powers among the States in this union; how I long for the day when the sustaining influence of federalism experiences a rebirth in this faltering Republic.

My friends, the federal principle is key to the survival of this Republic. I am convinced now more than ever, and in light of recent developments regarding the amnesty bill that in the absence of the re-establishment of the federal principle, we are effectively doomed as a nation unique to the world. We must at some point halt encroachments upon the federal principle, and to begin restoring it to its rightful place in this (Federal) Representative Republic.

I've mentioned on a few occasions now that the legislature of my State has indeed taken aggressive steps with regard to the growing immigration problem here. And as I've said before, this legislation is due to take effect Nov. 1st of this year. The Senate's amnesty bill would, for all intents and purposes, overthrow what the People of the State of Oklahoma through their legislature have determined to be the proper and right course of action for themselves.

While I appreciate the need for a national policy on immigration, much more appreciative, as well as cognitive am I of the need for a sane national policy on the immigration question. And it's my firm belief that the national Senate is too disconnected from the general population to get a sane national policy on immigration reform from that body of miscreants.

No; this Senate amnesty bill needs to be killed now. It is, as is the body proposing it, too wrought with disease to admit of any immediate change or alteration capable of rescuing it from the depths of utter contemptability. And when it's finally put to death, for once and for all, then the States who have yet to do so need, as a matter of responsibility, to take up the question and determine their own policies regarding immigration reform outside the coercive influence of the national government. That appears to me to be the only route available to us by which we may get a sane national policy on the immigration question.

Within the ranks of the GOP it seems like there's a growing fear that the party will suffer immensely if it doesn't rally around the President and his determination to get the Senate bill passed. Personally I don't give a hoot about whether the party lives or dies. All latinos and all latino sympathizers can go on over to the extreme liberal party for all I care. It's not my purpose or my intention to alienate any conservative from the conservative party. But first, I don't think the Republican can any longer claim the attribute of conservatism except perhaps in a sort of 'relative to' kind of way. Nor do I think that any true conservative could ever lower himself to joining ranks with the democrats and what they represent overall.

There's also a growing fear within the ranks of Republicans and democrats alike that if something (the Senate amnesty bill) isn't passed now, the national policy on immigration will be determined by the next President and the next Congress. I have to wonder what exactly the problem is there. What's the rush to get this bill passed? Where exactly are the opposing parties coming from which has them agreeing that it can't wait till 2009? The answers are fairly obvious to my mind.

As I've said, it seems to me that the State legislatures are much more likely than is the national legislature to put together immigration packages closely resembling the general sense of the citizens thereof. And that a proper national policy might better be guided thereby than by their elected officials at the national level whose relative disconnectedness from the general sense of their respective constituencies must be evident to any reasonable person.

The fact of the matter is, my friends, that if you can't trust your State governments to determine a policy on immigration closely resembling your own, then you certainly can't safely entrust that responsibility to the national government which is much more distant from you geographically as well as philosophically. And seriously folks, why would any of you wish for a single State, or a combination of States, to determine national policy on this issue if in fact the opinions and the policies of those States does not comport to that of the majority of States in this union?

Revolutionary Concept

So here we are. The sell-out of America continues, as the amnesty bill is back in play. And this AP article almost speaks glowingly of Bush - which should be a very large, very bright, red flag when the President's agenda fits nicely with the MSM.

Yes, we need to call, fax and e-mail our "representatives." As a smart fellow (you know who you are; and where ya been?) once suggested, a good-old fashioned tar-and-feathering probably wouldn't hurt either.

A caller to the Hugh Hewitt show last night who hates the bill wondered aloud if the best thing for America might be having the bill pass. The American people would soon bear the brunt of this foolish and destructive bill, and in utter disgust, roundly turn out all of the crooks who voted for it. Dean Barnett (sitting in for Hugh) doubted this "winning-by-losing" outlook, but I can think of examples of great wrongs (Kelo, as a prime example) resulting in positive ends (the states taking aggressive action in the aftermath to protect private property rights).

Of course, "winning-by-losing" may just be wishful thinking, and shouldn't stop people from burying their "representatives" in calls, etc. Yet, hasn't history proven to us that all things serve the Lord? Even great evils, although unwittingly, work towards His purposes.

Taxation without Representation, anyone?

The Immigration Question, Part II

TM, you know, the "squandered inheritance" line of thinking in your post jogged my memory a bit. I went back and found this piece that I read recently by the incomparable Mark Steyn. You can read the whole thing here, but I'll excerpt the best of it below.

Says the man:

Faced with a sustained systemic assault on US sovereignty, the federal government simply surrendered - and, in effect, sued for terms. Last year’s offer was rejected as being unacceptable to the vast legions of the “undocumented” and so, for example, the requirement to pay three out of five years’ back taxes was replaced by a total tax amnesty.

But just so we’re all clear what happened: An army of peasants defeated the soi-disant hyperpower. America’s closest allies - the Australians, say – periodically seek some modest advantage for their citizenry in return for their steadfast support, and generally get nowhere. But a population the size of Australia’s simply moved across the border and, despite huge public hostility to the strains imposed on local education and health care, the US government simply shrugged: There’s nothing we can do except give in.

Steyn goes on to discuss our problem as the template for subverting a nation's sovereignty, and makes the same point you make, TM: that those who are smart enough to recognize this aren't recognizing it.

But they're not stupid, the elites (well, those that think being "compassionate" to invaders is more important than American sovereignty are stupid). They simply have sold out American sovereignty for cheap labor. It's pathetic, and part of the problem is the enormous mountain of restrictions and government interference in how a business operates in the first place. Also, courtesy of the elites.

Anyone surprised that in the latest Gallup Poll Americans gave Congress a 14% approval rating?

The Immigration Question; a question of "Easy-Citizenism?"

VA did a piece the anti-amnesty majority over at his blog on Friday that, though judging by the comments to it (there are none as I write), might cast an appearance of being less than interesting, is indeed a well written thought provoking piece on the question of whether immigrants and Americans with shallow immigrant roots truly wish to preserve the unique opportunities this country has provided them and their families as opposed to preferring their native brethren over their adopted American family and country of residency.

I didn't lose ya with that last part did I? Let me rephrase:

Are first and second generation Americans and newly-come immigrants, as is assumed and purported to be the case by many, committed to this country, its laws, its institutions, its structure and framework; its uniqueness to provide numerous means and avenues to great opportunities and great achievements to any qualified individual who has the motivation, the drive, the discipline, the work-ethic and the spirit to achieve them? Or is preserving and maintaining those characteristics and qualities possessed of this great country secondary to preserving their blood-ties to their native lands, customs and peoples? These are extremely relevant questions, particularly in these times, but...

Do these questions ever even occur to immigrants? Are they even aware of them; that they are of the highest import, even to themselves? The same questions might be asked of our illustrious 'leaders,' who it would seem would (or should) be more prone than the average guy to give them their due consideration given the nature and importance of their jobs, not to mention the design of their workplace environment to spawn and encourage proper deliberations on such subjects of high national import.

It seems to me that this is a question of the first magnitude whenever a nation contemplates a policy on immigration. Do these migrants come to this country with deep familial roots, blood ties and preferences to the 'native country,' or do they look to the United States as a beacon of light and hope to themselves and their families, the very elements of which is in their very interests to prefer over the other; to preserve, protect, and defend against enemies foreign and domestic? Again I ask you: Does this ever occur to them? Does it ever occur to most of us? Does it ever occur to those supposedly working to secure our interests? Sometimes I have to wonder.

On just a little reflection it would seem that in answering the question one would need to delineate between what is in their true interests and what is in their imagined interests. The same applies to their American hosts, btw. What are our true, as opposed to our imagined interests on this question of immigration? And to borrow a phrase from the Federalist writers:

"Happy will it be if our choice should be decided by a judicious estimate of our true interests, uninfluenced and unbiased by considerations foreign to the public good."

Within my own field of work, I can't tell you how many contractors I know of personally who have numbers of illegal mexican immigrants working for them because they imagine that this is in their interest. In fact, don't be surprised if you go to the "Immigration Reform" page on this blog in the near future and find pictorial documentation of this very thing. I see it day in and day out on virtually every (if not every) job that my 'native' crew and I work on these days. And I'm thinking that it's time I start to document it.

Not so long ago it was a rare occurance indeed to run into these immigrant workers, but no more is that the case. Indeed, in my neck of the woods it is now a rare occurance not to work side by side with them if in fact you're not trying to compete with their non-contributionary cheap, second and third-rate labor.

But it seems to me to be highly disingenuous of our so-called 'leaders' to fuel an assumption with no basis in fact to support it that these immigrants have any real appreciation for this country or this people who've so nonchalantly and inattentively left the door open to their migration here. And a great many of us, it would appear, would prefer to wedge that door wide open to them, as opposed to closing and locking it from the inside to be opened by and only by the owners thereof at their own pleasure and will. I for one wouldn't be caught dead in that crowd of self-deluded deceptive miscreants.

What appears to be happening here, and it's becoming more and more prevalent I'm afraid, is that Americans from differing walks of life and a variety of backgrounds are increasingly sacrificing their true interests and the long-term public interest for the sake of their immediate, personal, and imagined interests. That is, at the expense of liberty herself many of our own people have effectively sold this country out for the sake of lining their own pockets completely unaware it would seem that by these very acts they destroy the very engines which have propelled them to a higher standard of living.

But back to this question of what is in the true, as opposed to the imagined interests of Americans and immigrants alike. And yes; you read me right in that I hold and maintain that these true and imagined interests are exactly the same for both groups. This is why it is so vitally important that we establish whether or not a prospective American resident and citizen understands and truly appreciates from whence these uniquely American opportunities emanate before we make him a permanent resident, and/or a citizen with equal rights under our Constitution. There's plenty of confusion to go around on the part of Americans without our continuing to bring in hordes of immigrants who in the main must have a very defective view of the subject, even by comparison; if the subject even occurs to them at all.

I for one reject out of hand the idea that we're just lucky; that our good fortune and the successes that propelled us to enjoy the fruits of that good fortune is, as is implied so often, not a product of the design of our framework and institutions around a common idea and interest to 'secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.'

Truly, my friends, we need to get a grip here! What in the name of all that is good and holy are we thinking when we so blasphemously attribute to luck and good fortune that which took so much sacrifice on the parts of our predecessors to secure to us!?

If there's any 'luck' or 'good fortune' to be found at all, it is in that we've been riding on the backs of our forefathers and mothers so long; that it's all been so effortless on our parts that we simply cannot fully appreciate how much effort it took to establish, nor how much effort it takes to maintain it. In that regard I suppose one might say we've been lucky if you consider it luck to inherit such a valuable gift in exclusion of an understanding of how very valuable it truly is. And as is generally the case with such inheritances, they are taken rather lightly and squandered away because the recipients of them more often than not have invested little if any personal sacrifices to the creation or the perpetuation of them. I guess that's just a lesson we're gonna have to learn the hard way.

Truly, my friends, it shows a very lackluster appreciation on our parts for the inestimable value of that precious gift we've had passed down to us, to offer it so very freely to those who are unworthy or ill-prepared and ill-equipped to receive it without a second thought on either of our parts as to the price paid for it by our worthy and venerable predecessors. But as they so often say: "Easy come, easy go."

Lest I Forget...

Just a couple of unrelated things I wanted to touch on tonight, so bear with me.

Have we mentioned the "Subjects of Interest" page we've created? And by "we" I mean our Chief Technology Officer? LOL. It's along the left of the blog, and we've decided we'll maybe dedicate some more items to that page. Right now, all you'll see there is our position statement on the border/immigration, plus a pretty eye-opening video.

If our CTO keeps up all these cool innovations, I might just have to double his salary.

Not that anybody cares, but I'm leaning towards Duncan Hunter. I think he's my guy for the primary. He's right on all the issues, including the border. BTW, sign his petition on border enforcement! Thank God my state isn't the lowest for petition signers. I'd like him to abolish the Department of Education, but maybe his "streamline" is just that. I'll probably link him up on the site, if for no other reason than I can, LOL.

To Accomplish Real Immigration Reform

The subject of immigration reform is a hot topic these days. As of this writing on the 20th of June 2007, the U.S. Senate is working on what some have described as a "backdoor" deal on Immigration Reform. Many in the Legislative Branch believe that we must put together a 'comprehensive' Immigration Reform package that is best for Americans and for Mexican Immigrants. President Bush supports this comprehensive approach as well.


We disagree with the so-called 'comprehensive' approach because we disagree that it's best for Americans. We concern ourselves with what is best for immigrants after, and only after we've determined and secured what is best for Americans. After all, this is our country.


Though it is a complex subject in some respects, we believe that fundamentally it is fairly simple; and that by taking quantifiable, measurable steps, we can accomplish real and enduring immigration reform.


Step 1: Our borders must be secured. In a post 9/11 world there can be no question about this, and it is appalling that our "representatives" fail to treat this seriously. We believe the best method of securing our open southern border is in building a fence. In his recent book, State of Emergency, Pat Buchanan suggests how a fence could be built: dual fences with a 2-way road in between them for border patrol to use, monitored by cameras and motion sensors. The fence works in San Diego; the Israelis could also teach us a thing or two about how a fence works. That there will always be a way to break in for the most determined and enterprising invaders doesn't negate the fact that a fence would halt nearly all illegal immigration. Nor should that fact be a deterrent to building the fence.


Step 2: No Amnesty for illegals. Upon securing our borders, no illegal alien should be granted amnesty. While the fence will prevent more illegal aliens from entering the country, we strongly oppose any legislation that rewards breaking the law. We are either a nation that respects the rule of law, or we are not. Furthermore, and immediately, every illegal alien in our prison system should be deported to his/her country of origin, or the south side of the border fence minimally. It is insult on top of injury that US citizens are supporting illegal aliens who have come here and committed felonies.


Concurrently, we insist on no fast track to citizenship. American citizenship is an honor that is to be bestowed upon persons meeting certain qualifications. We believe that all prospective American citizens have the responsibility to apply legally and in a manner consistent with existing laws. A prospective American citizen is one who respects Americans and American laws, and who honors that respect by applying for citizenship through official and legal means pursued by himself/herself, on his/her own merits.


Step 3: Enforce existing immigration laws. As illegals are caught - be it through workplace enforcement, traffic stops, whatever - they should be treated as an illegal alien and deported.


Step 4: No "Anchor Babies": It is our firm position that children born within these borders to illegal immigrant parents do not qualify for automatic citizenship status under the fourteenth amendment. Someone who is here illegally is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States; logically, neither are their minor children. This was the spirit and intent of the 14th Amendment, which can be readily seen by studying the drafting and passage of the Amendment.


Step 5: Limited Services for Immigrants and Welfare Reform. Taxpayer provided services such as health-care, food and housing assistance programs, wic, welfare, and etc., are provided by the American taxpayer and intended for the use of American citizens. With the exception of limited emergency care our position is that all taxpayer provided goods and services are to be withheld from immigrants in compliance thereof.


Furthermore, while we are reminded constantly that there are simply jobs that "Americans won't do" we would be remiss to not add that federal welfare should be abolished. This is perfectly acceptable for the states to provide, as it falls under their sphere of responsibility. The dual benefit of finding out just how many jobs there are that Americans won't do is that, as Benjamin Franklin believed, leading people out of poverty is the morally right thing to do (decreasing a person's dependence on government is increasing a person's liberty).


Step 6: lastly, have real open and candid legislation created on how many people we are going to allow to come to the US annually and from where. Whereas the "comprehensive" crowd would like to do this concurrently, there is no logical justification for doing so until the previous steps are completed.


We firmly assert that the steps as detailed - in order of execution - are critical to creating lasting and meaningful immigration reform. The problems we have today are the result of well-meaning but poorly crafted policy. The time is right for well-meaning and well-crafted policy.

MT ADDS 7/21/07: This was written back in June and never posted as a blog post, but as another link to the Interest section. It's being posted to the blog today as another means of linking up our recommended solutions to our readers.

INHOFE ANNOUNCES ONLINE PETITION FOR AMERICANS TO SUPPORT

(JUNE 15, 2007) - U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) today announced “Secure Borders Now” ), http://www.securebordersnow.com/a new website for Americans to urge the Senate to consider immigration reform that focuses on enforcing existing border security laws and opposition to amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.

Unfortunately it appears many in the Senate remain deaf to the voices of the American people, as yet another backroom deal has emerged designed to revive the fatally flawed immigration bill and its immediate path to amnesty. The ‘Secure Borders Now’ petition gives Americans an opportunity to voice their opposition. I hope my constituents and citizens from all across our country will take action, sign the petition and show how many Americans are strongly opposed to this bill.”

“Despite the promise of increased funding for border security and additional votes on a handful of amendments, the proposed legislation will continue to shortcut the current naturalization process and grant amnesty to 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants currently in our country. That is a trade off that I simply cannot support.


“The first step in any significant immigration legislation must be securing our borders and enforcing existing laws. It is unconscionable to make border security conditional on the guarantee of amnesty. Even with the promise of additional funding for border security, the Senate bill focuses far too much on controversial and irresponsible programs such as the ‘Z-visa’ (which I voted to eliminate), and far too little on ensuring that our borders are no longer porous.


“I have stated from the outset of this immigration debate that I will vehemently oppose any legislation that guarantees amnesty for illegal immigrants, unfairly burdens taxpayers or fails to secure our borders.


“It is time that we deal with real immigration reform beginning with border security. This is the best way to restore trust with the American people and facilitate future improvement of our immigration policy.”


On Tuesday, Senator Inhofe joined eight Senators in writing a letter to President Bush urging him to fulfill the border security provisions listed in the Senate immigration bill whether the legislation passes or not. Each border security trigger in the bill can be implemented under current law without any need for new legislation from Congress.


A Rasmussen Reports national phone survey conducted June 11 and 12, found that only 20 percent of voters wanted Congress to try and pass the Senate bill that failed last week. Sixty-nine percent favored an approach that focused “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.”

The Sell-Out of America

The filthy, self-serving elites in the Senate are at it again, as the amnesty bill that was temporarily knocked down has been regenerated like some ghastly corpse from a George Romero movie.

Time once again to get on the phones and fire off e-mails to our "representatives" and let them know how we feel. They heard from enough of us last time to shelve the issue. This time, it will go to a vote. I'm sure Ted Stevens will have an amendment for some of yours and my tax money to go to Alaska in exchange for his vote. There's a good chance they'll get the 60 votes they need if we don't do our job and flood them with feedback about how much this legislation stinks.

The disgusting and shameful sell-out of America continues. See my post here for what real immigration reform should look like: phased and measurable, not "comprehensive."

God save these United States.

A Balanced Approach to an Immigration Nightmare

Over at VA's blog I ran across this link he provided and decided to check it out.

http://immigrationstance.diggersrealm.com/

If you're confused about where your representatives stand (not necessarily where their rhetoric is) on the vital issue of immigration reform, this is a wonderful resource. And it's easy to use. No longer do you have to go to your representative's voting record, the people at immigration stance have done all the work for you. They've rated each House and Senate member from the various States on a spectrum ranging from "highest ranking" to "lowest ranking." You can figure out the rest.

I did my own quick survey of a few selected States finding results not too surprising, but interesting nonetheless. I think my investigation included such States as Oklahoma, Illinois, Kentucky, Wisconsin...you know, those States represented by our readership. Oh yeah, a few others like Kansas, California, and Massachusetts - not that Kansas belongs in that latter group. I also did a quick compare/contrast study of the various representatives, and the States and districts which they represent. Again, my findings didn't surprise me much -all the usual suspects taking all the usual positions- but I found them to be pretty interesting in one particular way - if the positions of the respective representatives from the various districts and States were put in map form, it'd probably look a whole lot like the county by county red and blue map of the 2000 Presidential election. In other words, we definately occupy the vast extent of the territory, yet, if their representatives are any indication of where the actual constituents stand on the issue, which would include the all too common "I don't really give a hoot," they've almost got us outnumbered.

Speaking of which, what is it about living in huge population centers near large bodies of salt water? Does the combination kill an inordinate number of brain cells or what? Ultimately I'd like to do a more exhaustive study to include every representative from every State and district in this union. So I'll be visiting the site again....and again I'm sure.

The real point?...

It seems to me that a return to proper balance in this government might well work in the interest of the American population on immigration reform. Specifically, as has been mentioned before, our national government has improperly moved into the realm of providing services that would be best provided at the local and State levels, if government is to provide them at all. If the American people need more government than they once did (and I don't think there's any question about that), it's ok, that's where we're at, but we're going to have to make some changes in the way that authority is delegated so that the national government can concentrate as it should, on the national business, e.g., on sealing our borders as one immediate and prime example.

Now, I've stated before that if this massive influx of immigrants and illegal aliens, particularly from the south, is what it takes to wake the American people up to the fact that they're going about tending to (or not) their government all wrong; that if inaction, or action contrary to their interests from their representatives in Congress on this issue is what it takes to make them realize that they need to restore some foundational Constitutional Principles (not to mention some semblance of common sense to their government), then I'm all for it. And I haven't materially changed my position on the subject yet. To paraphrase VA in a conversation between he and I over at his blog: "it may take a loss, or a near loss of our way of life before we decide to do something about it." I tend to agree. However, if we can offer up a viable, and a preventative governmental solution that most can get onboard with, then we oughta, right.

Why don't we start by educating folks on the governmental imbalance that has precipitated, and actually brought on some of our more striking and dangerous tendencies as a nation, including this one...