May 30 2007
Poor Judgement Is Not The Same As Patriotism
I watched Special Report with Brit Hume and it was great to see the Immigration Hypochondriacs running amok again. Laura Ingraham was especially sad, and helpful to Bush’s cause. So was Rush (I bet you I lose my top 13 listing over this one). When Bush points out how heated rhetoric (like the word ‘amnesty’ and calling people “RINOs” and “Traitors) would only continue the status quo Ingraham felt her patriotism was being questioned. No dear, it was just your poor judgement. Stiff upper lip time.
The rantings by the far right on Immigration follows a long line of dissention with Bush, and all along the way the dissenters questioned everthing from Bush’s patriotism to his respect of life to his intelligence. It started with Harriet Miers (questioning his respect for life), went onto Dubai Ports (questioning is patriotism and protection of our nation) and now is onto Immigration (all of the above).
The fact is the far right has become intolerable of tolerance. They have been on a tear for purity, sacrificing progress at every turn. The examples they throw out of criminal elements inside the immigrant community are the kinds of concerns this bill will fix, yet the peddlers of those horror stories stand firmly against doing anything about them! Sorry folks, but poor judgement is not the same thing as being patriotic. The Liberals feel it is patriotic to surrender to al Qaeda. The far right is the same way about stopping the documenting of undocumented workers.
The far right has completely split the conservative coalition on many topics – the latest being immigration. The conservative coalition has been torn apart by these obstinate hardliners. Now it is patriotic to leave us with the very dangerous status quo, but unpatriotic to want to fix the problems. That is some crazy pretzel logic. Bush’s Sister Soldjah moment is working quite well, because he has the far right just babbling incoherently, and dangerously.
The schism started by the far right is now for real – and escalating. Rush Limbaugh is saying the far right will not back Bush on Iraq because he called them all their exaggerations. Hopefully for American, and the GOP, Rush is dead wrong. The Far Right staged their big pout in 2006 and left the nation with a Democrat Congress hell bent on giving al Qaeda their first win in the War on Terror. If the far right thinks they can stage another big pout and cement al Qaeda’s win, simply because many of us are tired of the endless excuses to not act on immigration, then they are treading on political extinction. Rush better rethink his comment. Blackmail doesn’t go over well with people. epecially if the blackmail entails letting al Qaeda win in Iraq so they can come after us here. That is as close to a death threat as I ever want hear.
If Laura and Rush want to now say they are withholding support for our efforts in Iraq until they get their silly way on immigration then we WILL call into question their patriotism. Right now it is only their judgement on this ONE issue that is lacking. They can be wrong on one issue and be forgiven. We are all human. However, they cannot hold a nation hostage with the threat of letting al Qaeda win Iraq and ever be forgiven.
The far right does not have the support they think they have. They have their echo chambers, but they do not have the poll numbers. I am one of a few willing to speak out clearly and passionately that the Conservative movement, on this one issue, is being led astray by the vocal talking heads – while the voters head towards another path. Laura and Rush can pout and confuse their judgement with patriotism all day long. But do not threaten us. That is a line that you will never cross back over. America is truly ready to dump the hot heads and support the hot ideas. The DC swamp needs to be drained. We can start with those making not-so-veiled threats against this nation.
Terrye, I’m probably going to shock you here, I’m all for a guest worker program. I always have been and have stated that here many times. But I have spent several years in the middle east and I think the kind of guest worker program that could work is like the one they use in Qatar. They have a system where they put out a job notice and the employer pays the wages, housing, health care, etc, (all expenses) for the guest worker. Since the worker gets all of these expenses paid, minimum wage laws do not apply. The guest worker has a tamper proof ID card and if they get pregnant they go home. No foreign babies are ever citizens. If you break the law, or the program rules, you are sent home. There is no such thing as unregulated borders so you stuck there. If you keep your nose clean and follow the rules, you can stay on for another term. You never become a citizen unless you go through the legal immigration channels, you never are eliglible for any social programs, ie. welfare. But what the guest worker gets out of it is a great job, compared to where they live, a steady income, health insurance for the worker and family. It’s a good deal for someone in a bad situation. Of course it is indentured servitude, (slavery light) but isn’t that exactly what you are advocation with a “guest worker” program?
The difference between that and what we have here is that we have millions of people coming across a pourous border, some working, some not. Even the ones working will qualify for every social program because they can’t be asked about their citizenship. (Makes it real easy to get lazy and work under the table). If they can collect welfare and work under the table, that can be extrememly lucrative compared to what they could make in Mexico. They use our emergency rooms so much that they have closed down over a dozen emergency rooms in the last few years in LA. LA county alone figures they spend 4 Billion a year on benefits to illegals.
Most of them will stay under the radar because once they get the cops off their back, they will continue to work under the table. Did it ever occur to anyone that if all of the illegals are legalized, “temporarily” with the right to work, that there is no such thing as having illegal workers anymore? That is the FRAUD that I’m talking about that is all over this steaming pile of legislation.
Have any of you even thought about what this will do to intelligence collection and anti-terrorism operations withing the US? Get a clue, it would damn near make them illegal.
But hey, AJ will get his gutters cleaned cheap!
I hear a lot of people talking with a lot of emotion but very little logic. Simmer down the need to extract a pound of flesh and think. What is better for the country in the long run. Boomers have already started to retire at a trickle (1946 boomers reached 55 in 2001 and some are able to retire early) in 4 more years they start to reture IN DROVES as the 1946 born boomers reach 65. We don’t have enough kids in high school right now to replace them in the workforce. We are getting ready for a serious shrinkage of available labor and that is going to result in massive inflation as businesses start raising salaries to get workers and start raising prices to pay for it. Salaries will go up but our standard of living won’t change. We NEED those workers.
Crossp
This bill, if you are not here on a work permit, says that you SHALL be deported. It also explicitly ends “catch and releaseâ€.
clearly you have not read the bill.
But everyone is given an immediate work permit, so there will be no one to deport. Sure it ends catch and release. Stop the catching and you’ll have no one to release.
Really, when you’re going to comment on a specific aspect of the bill you should at least see what the bill has to say. You’ve stated several things about the bill and haven’t gotten any of them anywhere near correct.
Read up.
AJ, Doing something is not sloving the problem either. What you want with a lot more promises (trust) we tried in 68 & again in 86 with the weasel (swimmer) leading the way. I don’t deal with weasels just to do something. I think Sen Kyle is starting to think twice-forget about Tancredo who did not flip. AJ get smart, if we stop aborting our population away we won’t need 12-20 million Illegals to shore up S/S for the short term. In 20 yrs. that figure will be 80-100 million with your grandchildren and mine paying the benifits needed. Secure the borders within 1-2 yrs, lets slove the problem for the 12-20 Illegals even if they boo America at every chance.
I don’t know…all this name calling on all sides is tearing the country apart, I can’t help but wonder if it would not be better to make this a discussion by the presidential candidates of 2008. We’ve waited this long …another 18 months would not make that much of a difference.
Let the people around the country vote for the presidential nominee and the congressional and senatorial candidates that represents their point of view. Make it a national referendum on immigration policy. Then whoever wins can implement the plan he or she ran for office upon. No one can then complain because the people will have chosen the plan they prefer with their vote.
Why are people afraid to have the electorate chose how we want to solve this and how we want to pay for it since we will all pay for the solution …one way or another…
Apache:
I was being sarcastic, of course you can pass judgment on the bill. Whether you have read it all or not. I was a farmer for years and I got used to people passing judgment on the farm bill whether they had any understanding of what was in it or not. Subsidies, bad. That was pretty much the rule.
Bikerken:
Canada has an interesting program that sounds a lot like the one you are talking about.
So, I have started reading the bill and I found this, which I thought was worth noting:
Detention and Removal of Aliens. The bill authorizes, subject to appropriations, DHS to
build 20 new detention facilities that could together hold 20,000 individuals at any one time for
removal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)
mandates the release of a former criminal alien detained for the purpose of deportation if his
deportation cannot be secured within six months. (Note: many countries refuse to accept some of
their own citizens or otherwise make it very difficult for DHS to deport them home.) The bill
provides authority to detain beyond the removal period aliens ordered removed who are
inadmissible; who are removable as a result of violations of status requirements or entry
conditions, violations of criminal law, or reasons of security or foreign policy; or who have
otherwise been determined by the Attorney General to constitute a risk to the community or to be
unlikely to comply with the order of removal. (Sections 137, 202)
3
Last year’s Senate-passed immigration bill, S. 2611, would have increased the number of Immigration &
Customs Enforcement agents by 2000 per year for four years. The bill mandates each State to have at least 40
immigration enforcement agents, and at least 15 service personnel (the Secretary of Homeland Security may waive
this requirement for states with smaller populations).
4
It also creates a new crime for: (1) trafficking in passports and punishing those who unlawfully produce, issue,
transfer, forge, or falsely make passports, as well as those who transact in passports they know to be forged or
counterfeited, and those who prepare, submit, or mail applications for passports that they know include a false
statement; (2) completing, signing, or submitting a passport application knowing that it contains a false statement or
representation; (3) knowingly and without lawful authority producing or issuing a passport for or to any person not
owing allegiance to the United States; (4) knowingly and without lawful authority transferring a passport to a person
for use when such person is not the person for whom the passport was issued or designed; (5) knowingly using a
passport to enter or attempt to enter the country, knowing that the passport is forged or counterfeited; (6) knowingly
using a passport to defraud an agency of the United States or a State, knowing that the passport is forged or
counterfeited; (7) knowingly executing a scheme to defraud any person in connection with any matter arising under
the immigration laws or that the offender claims arises under the immigration laws; (8) knowingly using any
immigration document issued or designed for use by another; (9) trafficking in immigration documents; (10)
knowingly and without lawful authority, producing, obtaining, or possessing various papers, seals, symbols, or other
materials used to make immigration documents; (11) entering into multiple marriages to evade immigration law; and,
(12) arranging, supporting, or facilitating such multiple marriages. The bill renders inadmissible and removable any
alien convicted of a passport or visa violation under Chapter 75 of title 18
I gotta leave again, I don’t suffer idiotic rhetoric well. I will go back to playing with my friend’s propane thingy that shoots fire 60 feet in the air. It’s a lot more fun.
Jaqui:
Well you see, we already did that. Bush ran on immigration reform and the ownership society. When he tried to bring private accounts into social security, you could have heard crickets chirping among the fiscal conservatives. Some supported it, but by and large they just ran away.
And it seems they thought that he was just kidding about the whole immigration thing.
I like your idea Jacqui, that is what this country is supposed to be about. Unfortunately, what we have is a bunch of people trying to cram this thing through before it is even known what is in it. They are still making changes to it while it is debated, but the changes that are making, they are trying to keep quite. That demands a quick and forceful reaction from the American people who are getting a pig in a poke here. If we don’t say anything and let this steaming pile of legislation go through, it will be the most dramatic legislation of this decade in it’s effect and most of us will be asking, “When the hell did they do something stupid like that?” after it’s too late.
Retire:
Oh come on, there are 300 million people in the United States, I think the government can come up with a few thousand border agents,if they can’t, the bill is not to blame for that.
Terrye, you missed the most inportant three words in that entire post, right near the beginning, “Subject to Appropriations”. That is the snake in the oil.
Also, and this is what an FBI agent mentioned to me that you have overlooked. Asylum. Anyone who is up for deportation can claim asylum and (According to some of my friends at FBI), they pretty much just have to approve them.
Also, “Creates a crime”, what the heck do you think crossing the border illegally, using fake id’s, stealing SSN’s, falsifying applications for social services is? What’s the diff if you create a new crime if you don’t give a damn about enforcing the laws to begin with?
Bikerken:
“Those people” are the elected representatives of the people of the United States. If we wait until the next election, what will they be if not more elected representatives? and if they come up with something you guys do not like you will not just accept it then anymore than you do now. Chances are we will have more Democrats.
A.J., I had many of the same thoughts watching Brit Hume tonight. Just wrote this to a Republican friend who is even more ill than me over the insanity:
Jim, tonight Brit Hume had a story featuring Rush and Laura Ingraham. In the Rush clip I heard him basically threaten (in very carefully worded sentences) that if GWB doesn’t capitulate to the immigration nuts, he risks losing support for the war, and further reducing his ability to get anything done in the remainder of his term.
So there we have it.
The Cannibal Cons are now completely on par with the equally dangerous Lefty Lunatics. Both are essentially an enemy now, and both would hold our troops and our nation hostage to their demands.
I am actually physically ill over this. I cannot separate the truth from the noise, or begin to predict what will happen. There is nowhere to run.
Off. The. Rails.
Sally, evidently you interpeted what Rush said as a threat. I listened to his show today and watched that same Brit Hume show you did. Rush has repeatedly said that he does not want to cause problems for the president on the war. He said he “feared” that Bush’s speech would alienate some republicans and they would desert him on the war. Rush also said he would not want that to happen. Why is it everytime someone disagrees with you people that you have to paint it in the worst possible way? You obviously don’t listen to Rush or have any idea what he was saying. The “Cannibal Cons are enemys?”
Get real, you know what made me physically ill? Watching the Miss Universe Pagent clip of the Mexicans booing Mrs. America. I wonder how many of them will coming be here and living off of my tax dollars in the next few years.
Good God, everything is subject to appropriation. That is how the government works. If that is your reason for not supporting the bill, then it goes for just about everything. Social Security is subject to appropriation, the war funding, veterans affairs, education, the NSA program, medical research, highway funds…. etc. That is the function of Congress, to write legislation and appropriate funds.
As for asylum, they can ask for it but they may not get it. One reason we have that kind of law is Cuba. Remember a few years ago when Reno sent that boy back to Cuba and the right was pissed because they said he should get asylum?
The chances of a Mexican roofer claiming asylum is pretty damn slim I would think.
As for Mexicans booing someone at a pageant, what has that got to do with anything? I can promise you Americans get booed in Cuba, but we don’t keep them out. The contrary in fact.
I have to hit the hay, I have a job. Need sleep. |
Well all I did try to find a way to get national consensus on this…
The only issue I have with this bill is that it is full of legalistic promises and goals. There is no funding for resources to implement ANYTHING in this plan because it is a Senate bill and all funding and tax bills need to originate in the House THEREFORE we have no guarantee any of this will be funded.
I read some time ago that illegal entry is a misdemeaner and if deportation is all the penalty needed why did the House try to make it a felony a couple of years ago? If I remember correctly that kind of got a lot of this started.
It’s called a deterrent! If your border is as porous as can be, and you want to stop people from entering the country illegally, what do you do?
You can either –
A. Secure the border
B. Create a strong deterrent to entering illegally
Since we aren’t having a lot of luck with securing the border, they went for option “B”.
Deportation, when our Government eventually gets around to it, isn’t that much of a deterrent. The illegals just come right back. But if you make it a felony, they go to jail. That is what we call a “deterrent”.
Why, oh why, is this so difficult to comprehend????
Hey, but go ahead deport them. Fine by me.
Find one single post where I have advocating deporting them. Just one. Take your time.
I can save you the trouble if you want. You want find any.
Personally, I want to deport them. But I realize that just isn’t going to happen. So I haven’t even bothered with arguing in favor of that position.
I am willing to provide a pathway to citizenship, after we agree upon eligibility standards, for those already here. That is my compromise. I don’t want to do it, but I will compromise and agree to it.
In exchange for that compromise, I want to make sure that we aren’t enticing even more people to make a mad dash across the desert. If you have even one ounce of humanity in you, you too would be against enticing people to risk their lives in a mad dash across the desert.
To ensure that we don’t have people making a mad dash, we need to secure our borders BEFORE we enact a “path to citizenship”. That’s just common sense.
And before we enact a “path to citizenship”, we need to make sure that all of the government agencies responsible for dealing with this are up and ready PRIOR to enacting the “path to citizenship”. It doesn’t make any sense to “open the doors” for this path to citizenship, PRIOR to having the government agencies in place to deal with all of the applications.
If you would be willing to agree to the above, then I would be willing to listen to what you consider important.
I am willing to compromise. Are you?
The only issue I have with this bill is that it is full of legalistic promises and goals. There is no funding for resources to implement ANYTHING in this plan because it is a Senate bill and all funding and tax bills need to originate in the House THEREFORE we have no guarantee any of this will be funded.
Ding. Ding. Ding.
We have a WINNER!! Jacqui wins the “find the gaping hole big enough to drive a semi-tractor trailer through” award.
Way to go Jacqui!
Imagine, instead of alienating base conservatives, what if Bush had put forth a bill that dealt with border security only? Or, a “comprehensive” bill that had clear provisions (i.e., metrics — like number of border agents added, miles of fence/wall built, a percentage of acceptable legal vs illegal entries, etc. ) that actually show clear proof of successful security measures, prior to implementing procedures for processing illegals & potential path to citizenship? In other words, a logical and reasonable bill that vast majority of voters favor. Not only would this help Bush’s poll numbers, it would stengthen his base support and Repub support in general. It would corner the Dems to go along with the bill, or risk getting them very unfavorable polling as voters saw them blocking important and common sense national security legislation.
Unfortunately, we get this dreadful bill that is unworkable and defies logic as it seeks to repeat, only harder, the mistake of ’86. And lest we forget, anyone who disagrees is a hard-right extremist or bigot/racist.
To answer AJs question — unless changes are made, it would be better to do nothing (as far as new legislation) than pass this bill. After all, there’s nothing stopping us from enforcing current laws and increasing border agents and improving the procedures, competencies and efficiencies of the agencies that already deal with immigration.
RUSH: Royal Oak, Michigan. This is Warren, and I’m glad you called, sir. Nice to have you with us on the EIB Network.
CALLER: Rush!
RUSH: Warren!
CALLER: (Laughing.) Hey, longtime listener, fourth time caller. I want to tell you, you had me dancing for joy the other day. I spent a lot of time shouting at the radio, wanting you to get it right, and when you said that they’re letting the immigrants in to pay the Social Security, it came to me about six months ago why both parties want these guys to just come in here, they want the tax money. They want to line ’em up, give them a number, and have those taxes pour in to keep the Ponzi scheme running.
RUSH: That’s part of it. There’s no question. I mentioned this last week. You’re nice to remind me of it. We’ve been aborting 1.2 million babies a year in this country since 1973. That’s quite a drain on citizens. Now we need bodies to pay the Social Security taxes for the baby boom generation, they start retiring. We don’t have enough bodies to do it. And, of course, Washington is not going to reform entitlements. (Gasping.) Too big a risk. So just get these bodies in. The dirty little secret is that they’re going to be a net drain on Social Security because while they may be contributing Social Security taxes, to help defray some of the Social Security of other baby boomers they’re going to have to also receive their own transfer payments because they’re not going to have access to health care, not going to have enough money for kids to go to school, this sort of thing. It’s easier to import the bodies here than to take on the serious task of reforming these problems, which, by the way, is not going to be solved by these people coming in. If it even works, it’s a temporary fix.
But the second reason — it’s very close. The Democrats, by the same token, don’t discount the fact that this to them is a golden opportunity to expand the welfare system. Look, I’m going to stop saying this. I’m sure you’re getting tired of me saying this. I never get tired of hearing myself say things, especially when I’m right, but I can imagine them that after you heard them enough, “Okay, Rush, move on.” But the point is that what is at stake here is the Democrats see a golden opportunity to create a whole new subculture of dependents that are going to vote for them forever. The Democrats, the liberals in this country resent conservatism and its success and its power, they want to take on the traditions and institutions that have made this country great, tear ’em down and rebuild the country in the liberals’ own image, which is a giant governor government, whole lots of victims, people dependent, can’t get by on their own. That’s nirvana for liberals, and that’s part and parcel of this whole thing. Lance in Sonora, California, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi. How are you?
RUSH: Fine, sir, thank you.
CALLER: Major Tom Sullivan dittos from California.
RUSH: Appreciate that.
CALLER: Hey, I have another take on this, and maybe you can set me straight or not, but I have a feeling that the state department writes position papers on every type of scenario known to man. If someone blows their nose they have a position paper on what to do and what kind of response we may get. I’m just afraid that the United States may have gotten ourselves into kind of a jam with the amount of influx of dollars that is sent to Mexico, that they are scared to death that if we shut down the border completely, without the influx of dollars, that that will destabilize the country and the last thing we want is a revolution to our neighbors to the south.
RUSH: We’ve been through periods of time where the Mexican economy was in dire straits, and so we bailed ’em out. I have received calls from government officials during this period urging me to support the, quote, unquote, Mexican bailout. You know, strip all this away, however it’s resolved, that’s true, too. But it’s only going to perpetuate the problem. None of this is solving anything. It is just delaying the day of reckoning. I appreciate the call, Lance. You’re on to something. There’s probably a whole lot of little reasons here that they’re not ever going to tell us that inspire their support for this, because you know there have to be, folks, because they’re not listening to you on this. They’re going to ram this through. They’re not listening to you. Your opposition doesn’t matter to them. They’re willing to risk your wrath at the expense of getting this done, and there’s got to be reasons that we don’t know because they won’t tell us for this to be the case.