Apr 19 2008
Michelle Malkin Balks At Her Own Handy Work
It is rare when I take on the far right. It is usually a waste of time since they refuse to listen and then I get a bunch of blow back for daring to point out their mistakes. But I am a glutton for punishment, and I have to point out things that are just blatantly misguided.
When the far right tanked the last chance for immigration reform last year I went on record that they now OWNED every result of that short sighted act. If there was something in the laws they blocked – like the immediate deportation of aliens who commit violent crimes -those acts are now on their shoulders. I have posted on this responsibility shift forever – it is no longer a Bush or Congress responsibility for these problems, they had a plan in place and heading for passage.
So when I see Michelle Malkin holding up an example of a problem with immigration which she and her Amnesty Hypochondriacs are responsible for, I have to point it out.
WRAL reports on a new statistical breakdown of illegal alien drunk drivers in North Carolina. It’s a blood-pressure-raising look at the deadly revolving door, catch-and-release, the deportation abyss, and the danger of sanctuary policies embraced by those sworn to defend and protect the public:
And the deportation abyss is because the laws did not get passed and there will be no new laws for years to come. This is as much Michelle’s fault as those she lambastes – she just won’t admit her efforts to stop the legislation kept the status quo in place. I want to remind people why I call Michelle and Tancredo and their ilk Amnesty Hypochondriacs:
The far right literally lied when they claimed all we had to do was exercise current law and we could fix our immigration problems. They crafted this lie because there was a chance the comprehensive immigration bill would pass the senate, and those here illegally for a long time would only be punished by a fine and back taxes, and held to the promise to stay crime free and register with the new immigration system. They called this less-than-deportation punishment “amnestyâ€. That is why I call them the Amnesty Hypochondriacs. There never was Reagan-style amnesty on the table – but they lied about that too.
As people know I will not debate on false pretenses and lies. As the comprehensive immigration reform got closer to reality some panicked and started to believe exaggerated and extreme theories. They became invested in myths just as the left has invested in myths that Iraq is a defeat.
I have no choice but to remind people that actions have results, and you better take responsibility for all the results of your actions, not just the ones you wanted but all those you did not think through. That is the essence of law and order: ignorance is not an excuse. You cannot say I had not realized that would happen and get a pass on vehicular manslaughter. You can only get the lowered punishment for negligence verses premeditation.
Michelle and the Amnesty Hypochondriacs traded endless drunk drivers for the opportunity to try one more time to deport the illegals, either directly or through coercion from lost wages, etc. There never was going to be the removal of 10-20 million people who have lived here for years, but they were not thinking straight, they had to stop the bill which would not have provided the punishments they wanted. They did not care the vast majority in this democracy did not agree with them, and therefore they should have accepted the fact they did not have the numbers and let as much reform get passed as was possible.
The fact is we had two choices and they gave us the worst of the two. Choice one was (a) comprehensive reform passes with its imperfections, (b) the long term illegals get a process to prove they should, and then pay, to stay, and (c) we get to deport the violent criminals without minimal resistance from the judicial branch (there would be some test challenges, always are.
The second choice is where we are: (a) no immigration reform, (b) long term illegals get to stay and (c) we still cannot deport violent criminals. The lie back then was we could fix our problems with current law. I have many posts on why that was a lie and is a lie. So when Michelle holds up these examples of what she and others wrought last year when they killed immigration reform I can only shake my head and ask “what were you thinking?” Remember Michelle, all those dead children might have been alive if the Immigration Reform package had passed and these criminals would have been deported instead of given a second chance. You all own this issue now, since you left us with this mess.
Update: Pam over at Right Voices is hosting a neutral debate corner – I suggest folks also comment there as well as here and at Michelle’s site. As Pam notes, it is a debate worth having.
Crosspatch,
“And people who think that migrants work for “slave wages†have their head squarely in a very dark place. Around my house most of the roofers, drywall hangers, and painters are foreigners.”
Obviously, you haven’t seen the incomes of some of those roofers, drywall hangers and painters. Those who aren’t paid cash “under the table” and actually receive a paycheck are paid pretty poorly and those paid cash even less. Many of these people work 2 and 3 jobs to make the incomes that we would consider subsistance levels. When compared to what they would make in their countries I’m sure they’re happy as can be…but for this country…pathetic.
Good plumbers and good roofers around here can make 6 figures if they’ve got a good client list, and they’re always in demand. And you can almost *never* find a good drywall hanger who isn’t spoken for, so when you do he can name his price.
Painters *would* make more except I’ve used a bunch over the years, and they’re all nuts. (with a very few exceptions) Must be the paint fumes or something.
LOL! 75 it is a golden opportunity and it is not being wasted. It is just out of the far right’s clutches. Which is what I predicted would happen if they did not stop their purity wars on fellow conservatives. But why listen to an independent conservative – what does he know?
I argued at the time, and I still argue, that thee were multiple problems with the bill. First, it was crafted in the dead of night and the proponents rewrote in the dead of night and really didn’t want anyone to see the actual internals. Secondly, I argued there was not a convincing, good faith effort, to prevent further border crossings. While I have notproblem with amnesty or a path to citizenship, I was against doing little or nothing to prevent us being in exactly the same situation. The immigration bills starting with Kennedy in, what, 1966, and the second one in the 1980’s did nothing to prevent a reoccurrence of the the problem. This bill also did nothing.
My belief was that if we allowed that bill to pass, nothing would be done for another 20 years and we would face exactly the same problem. And, it would have been the third bill (at 20 year intervals) that, once agian, failed to address the accumulating problem. It was better to reject this bill and hold the politicians feet to the fire to produce a bill that would give full measure of attention to preventing a continuation of the problem.
AJ, in all your pontificating and name calling, you failed to ever address the fact that this bill did little or nothing to stem the continuing stream of illegal immigration. Even, this last screed ignored that problem. I am guided in my opposition to the prior bill by Milton Friedman: “you cannot have open borders and a welfare state”.
Let me know, when you have managed to withdraw the welfare state and I will be happy to reconsider my opposition. But, failing that, name calling is still nothing more than name calling.
Rick C,
If you are waiting for perfection in legislation give it up – never happens. And the legislation would have put a lot of good ideas in place. Not only did all the long term illegals here have to come forward, pay back taxes a fine and prove they were free of violent crime convictions, all recent arrivals were outta here. Also, all new temporary workers were going to have to register and could not overstay their visas, to that end had to check in regularly. And, there was no path to citizenship for these short term workers. And there were increased penalties for employers who violate the law. And there was a registry of valid temp workers so employers could check so they had no more legal excuses. And any alien (legal or otherwise) who committed a violent crime was booted ASAP. And there was plenty of money for border enhancements and border agents. And there was more.
Perfect? Get real. Better than what Malkin and the Amnesty Hypochondriacs left us – without a doubt. It was a disaster and everyone knows it, which is why hyper partisans on immigration have lost their political power. Duh.
WWS,
The drywall guys or painters that you know who make 6 figures…Are they the owners of the company, either here legally (Other than born here a citizen of course) or illegally or the workers they pay to work.
Have you actually seen their paystubs or tax returnsor financial records or met with them in an environment where their actual financial situation needs to be disclosed truthfully? I’ve been seeing them for over 20 years and it’s a very rare circumstance to see what you describe…and when I do see it it is always the owner, not the workers.
Rick C: I had the same concern. The vile Democrats were more than willing to throw in the appearance of border security even though their objective was to secure their future voting base.
Who honestly believes that the Democrats would stand by the committment to defend the border? if you did you’re a fool.
Didn’t Congress vote late last year to remove authorization or funding for major parts of the fence?
AJ,
You are assuming that the new law, had it passed would have been enforced. Considering there are already laws pertaining to illegal immigration on the books that have now been enforced why do you believe that by adding 10-20 million illegals to our citizenship roles now would prevent 10-20 million more in 10-20 years?
Yes Whippet1 because people want solutions. And it would have been enforced.
What is wrong with today is there are no stiff laws to enforce. They are all weak and full of holes. I have a post from Malkin were she laments the same problem – before she went on her propaganda run.
And for you are anyone to assume the laws would not be enforced is ridiculous and a slap at our law enforcement and security people who have been begging for laws with teeth.
Prove to me the laws would not be enforced. Don’t rationalize. And BTW – once the laws were passed we could hold people accountable who did not enforce them. Now they are not accountable because the rightfully note current laws don’t do what we want.
If people have no faith in our government then they should have let it pass – what harm would that have done? None! As it is we are left with repeat criminals able to game our system legally and kill our people. Wow – now there’s a solution!
Don’t try and impress me with talking points. You will find I have little patience or respect for them, and I will let people know it. I am not shy as you must have guessed by now.
This is slightly OT however it fits nicely into everything we have talked about over the last few days and it also addressed immigration and sums up some of our feelings nicely. By the way, I’m sure it will surprise no one but I really liked what DC had to say.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/192366.php
AJ, w’ve discussed this before. And I know you find it funny but it’s hardly a laughing matter. History certainly doesn’t support your case. Gerald Ford, George Bush the first, and Bob Dole were all moderate republicans. All three lost to leftist Democrats which cost or country dearly. It seems the only thing moderates have learned over the years from rejecting conservatism is to blame them for that very rejection. Shooting the messenger is hardly a sign of wisdom on your part.
AJ,
“Prove to me the laws would not be enforced. Don’t rationalize. And BTW – once the laws were passed we could hold people accountable who did not enforce them. Now they are not accountable because the rightfully note current laws don’t do what we want.”
Sorry, AJ the proof is in the history. You would have to give me some proof that the laws would be enforced. You’re being optimistic that they would be. I’m being realistic that they would be ignored by many just as they are now. Sactuary cities come to mind. Not many conservative sanctuary cities now are there. I wonder why those liberal cities like to thumb there noses at the law…it’s called re-election.
And exactly what did I say that you consider a “talking point?”
Laws full of holes? Give me an example of any law that some lawyer doesn’t poke full of holes when it suits him. And it works. Sad but true…
Whippet1,
Your mind is closed so I will only do this one more time. The laws on the books have been weakened by challenge cases and precedence. It happens. The new laws would have limited the ability of the judiciary to ‘interpret’.
But of course you knew that, right?
AJ,
“Don’t try and impress me with talking points. You will find I have little patience or respect for them, and I will let people know it. I am not shy as you must have guessed by now.”
First of all, I do not care to or care if I impress anyone. I care to state my opinion as the rest do and that is all.
Tell me exactly what you mean by me repeating talking points. If it is my experiences that I described to Crosspatch and WWS then please give me your email address so that I can prove to you that I am speaking from experience… I do not make up stories to support my position.
Whippet1,
I cannot give out someone’s email address and clearly I was not talking about your experiences but the talking point that the laws, if passed, would not be enforced. It is a bogus statement.
Whippet1,
I cannot give out someone’s email address and clearly I was not talking about your experiences but the talking point that the laws, if passed, would not be enforced. It is a bogus statement.
AJ,
Elaborate, please.
Until Immigration is taken seriously as a morale, economic, and legal issue rather than as a political football, it is going to continue to be a major problem in our country. Democrats and to some degree, independents have always seen it as a political fight. Conservatives, of course, have always seen it as something much larger and until you understand that it’s not a tax cut or an earmark that you can wheel and deal for, the closer you’ll be to understanding and solving the problem. Apparently, with these candidates, you’ve opted for the status quo.
and AJ, please don’t change my words. I did not ask for “someone’s” email address I asked for yours. If you don’t want to give it out I understand completely.