Obama II: The Wish List

Some of you may have heard there’s an election coming up in November. That’s on Tuesday November 6th for Republicans and Tuesday November 11th for any Democrats who may read this. And Wednesday night we will be covering the debate here with an open thread. Bring your friends! In the meantime, here’s something interesting: the Democratic Wish List for Obama’s second term.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A DREAM That Is All Wet

Pictured are young immigrants paddling their way toward American citizenship (or at least toward Obama-ordered two years of amnesty). These are the DREAMers whom Obama has exempted from any immigration enforcement and whom he has granted the easy road (or river) to permanent residence and citizenship. Don't ask, don't tell is back. If an illegal immigrant says he's a DREAMer, then he is, period.

President Obama has ignored the Constitution and slapped Congress in the face. Though Congress rejected the so-called DREAM Act, Obama has, by executive order, implemented a major portion of that rejected act. For those who have dried off from their swim to citizenship, DREAM workshops have already been set up in most of America's major cities. The workshops help the applicants fill out the forms from DHS. In Chicago and Los Angeles, the crowds of DREAMers were so great that additional workshops designed to teach illegals how to become legal had to be set up. The course teaches them how to avoid the pitfalls of admitting they're here illegally under any definition, including but not limited to claiming they are DREAMers without having to explain how they fit the all-new and improved definition.

The DREAM program is open to all illegals between the ages of fifteen and thirty-one who entered the country before they were age sixteen and have lived here for at least five years. The application form requires no proof. Just say you fit, and you do. You can say I'm a DREAMer, but I'm not the only one. In fact the estimates of those who would semi-legitimately fit into the unconstitutional parameters is between 1.7 million and 3 million. It doesn't take a genius or a demographer to figure out that number will undoubtedly double or triple almost overnight as more illegals catch onto the scam.

Several TV and newspaper reports indicate that the workshops have told the illegals that if the Republicans win in November, their executive order amnesty would be revoked. Well, I certainly hope they're right. But they also know that the thing is that once that semi-legal status has been established, it will be well-nigh impossible to undo it that quickly, if it can be undone at all. So, sign 'em up! The executive order, aka The Democratic Voter Registration Project, throws a huge monkey wrench into the machinery of genuine comprehensive immigration reform.

There simply can't be any question that Obama's order is just another Democratic tactic for influencing the outcome of the presidential/congressional elections. Once young Juan and young Juanita are signed up for the program, Hispanics would take serious umbrage at that legal status being revoked. Convince enough Hispanics that this is going to happen and there could be the double benefit for the Democrats of illegal voting, and voting by angry legal Hispanic voters who encouraged their friends and relatives to come here illegally in the first place. The DREAM Act and the DREAM order are nightmares.

And not to put too fine a point on it, the order applies not only to illegals already in the United States, but also to those attempting to cross into the country. Under the Obama order, Border Agents are no longer allowed to arrest or detain those caught entering the country illegally once the magic word “DREAMer” has been pronounced, in Spanish or English. Are you pissed off yet?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Snakes In A Hissing Contest

The green mambas at the US Department of Justice and the spitting cobras at the California State Bar have gotten into a hissing contest over admissions policies for illegal immigrants. The dumbed-down, y'all come California Bar has provisionally admitted one Sergio C. Garcia after he passed the Bar exam in 2009. He has been in lawyer limbo ever since.

But he won't be practicing law in California or anywhere else until the conflict with the feds is resolved. Oddly, Garcia is a victim of the Obama administration's order-imposed DREAM Policy.

Without considering the DREAM Act in either its actual or fantasy version, a 1996 federal statute denies public benefits to illegal immigrants. Those few courts which have addressed the issue have declared that a license for a professional practice of any sort is a public benefit. DOJ officials who are involved in the Garcia dilemma have stated: “The 1996 law was drafted to preclude undocumented aliens from receiving commercial and professional licenses issued by states and the federal government.” The case is presently pending before the California Supreme Court.

There are multiple ironies involved in this case. To start with, the California Supreme Court is quite conservative, unlike every other branch of government in the state. But what does that mean for this case? One conservative view would be to hold that a non-citizen has never enjoyed the right to a professional license in California, and shouldn't now. That would put California on the same side as the DOJ. But the other would be to hold that under the Tenth Amendment, California has the sole right to determine the qualifications of its own professionals, and that the semi-independent State Bar has determined that Garcia should be allowed to practice law. That would put California on the side of the State Bar Committee of Bar Examiners and state Attorney General Kamala Harris. I won't even hazard a guess as to which way the state high court will go.

Then there's Garcia himself. He would seem to be a perfect candidate for DREAM Act treatment. California has actually formally approved a DREAM Act of its own, in advance of any Congressional action on the matter. But the devil is in the details. Garcia was brought to California illegally by his parents when he was seventeen months old. When he was nine, they went back to Mexico just ahead of the [then] INS agents. They came back in again when Garcia was seventeen years old. His father applied for citizenship, which was ultimately granted, but the parents didn't at first do anything to get citizenship proceedings instituted for the children, include young Sergio. In 1994, his father finally applied for a green card for Sergio. Garcia is now 35 years old, and under the arcane terms and mathematical formulas of the California DREAM Act (as well as the fantasy federal DREAM Act), he doesn't qualify for the exception.

Given the nature of the immigration services and the backlog of immigrants awaiting legal status, it is unlikely that Garcia would be able to get full legal American citizenship any time before 2021 or 2022. The procedure in California is that the State Bar certifies a candidate to the State Supreme Court, which then determines whether or not to issue a license to the applicant. In Garcia's case, the Supreme Court reviewed his file, and put his application on hold, resulting in the current litigation.

By the calculations of the Obama administration (and therefore the DOJ), Garcia wouldn't qualify for expedited citizenhip and “public benefits” even under the fantasy federal standard. Technically, Garcia [re]entered the US when he was seventeen. Obama's order says “before turning sixteen.” Deportations are halted and “public benefits” bestowed if the applicant is age thirty or under. Garcia is thirty-five, and will be in his mid-forties by the time the immigration authorities are likely to grant him citizenship.

Even Garcia's supporters, such as the political hack attorney general, admit that Garcia is not eligible under either state or federal law to be licensed at the present time. But then they pull out the liberal catch-all: “Allowing him to become a lawyer would be in keeping with the spirit of the new policy.” Note that the federal standard is indeed a “policy,” but California's DREAM Act is cold, hard law. It was designed to get rafts of illegals into the professions, but in Garcia's case it has had exactly the opposite effect.

State AG Harris said that “Garcia exemplifies the kind of self-sufficiency that Congress has stated should be a basic principle of immigration law.” True or not, it's irrelevant, since Congress has never passed a DREAM Act. Harris is arguing against a federal policy that she thinks ought to be interpreted differently in each case, totally ignoring the fact that the state she represents has actually passed a DREAM Act, under which Garcia still doesn't qualify. As I mentioned earlier, she's a political hack from San Francisco taking a purely political position on a legal matter.

So my final question is, “why is the Department of Justice attempting to force federal supremacy in a case that is in direct opposition to its position of 'putting undocumented aliens on the fast track'?” I think the answer may be simple. Obama has taken a position that he is a strict enforcer of immigration law (even though we all know that's a lie). But Garcia is just one hapless pawn in the political game. Obama and Attorney General Holder can express their deep sympathies for illegal immigrants in general, but use this specific case to point out their spurious dedication to strict enforcement of the law. Typical and cynical Obama smoke and mirrors.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Biting The Hand That Feeds Them

It came as no surprise that the illegal immigrant-needy Justice Department fought to keep Arizona from defending its borders when the feds wouldn't. That pleased the open borders crowd no end. He may even have picked up a few votes for his boss with the action. What did come as a bit of a surprise last week was that Attorney General Holder then decided to go after his buddies in the sanctuary movement.

Sanctuary cities are largely populous urban crime centers, but there are small enclaves of yuppie political-correctness as well. Sanctuary as a genuine policy largely ceased to exist centuries ago with the decline of the supremacy of the Catholic Church. The rules were pretty stringent. Sanctuary had to be sought within a consecrated church, and it usually applied only if the person seeking sanctuary was holding onto the altar or some religious icon particularly identified with that church or cathedral. Even to our medieval forebears, a sanctuary city would have been an odd concept indeed.

American law does not recognize sanctuary at all—in any state or the federal jurisdiction. It is pure politics, and it has been rather successful as a means of keeping illegal immigrants out of the hands of immigration authorities. Federal law clearly allows the central government to withhold massive federal funds from cities which refuse to cooperate with the federal immigration authorities. So far, almost zero funds have been withheld despite a serious spike in crime committed by illegal immigrants.

Some of this action is predictable as hell, the rest somewhat surprising. First of all, I'll believe it when I see it. It's one thing in an election year to say you're going to prevent government waste by cutting off large sums of money to sanctuary cities. It's quite another to set the legal process in motion. But what is truly surprising is that the Justice Department has asked Holder to pursue Cook County, Illinois. For those who may not know, that's basically Chicago and the Obama suburbs.

In a fit of spite, Holder cut off all federal/state cooperation with Arizona, even after winning a landmark case against Arizona and the Tenth Amendment. At this point, Arizona can do next-to-nothing on its own to protect its borders and its citizens, and Holder doesn't want any illegals turned over to ICE or the Border Patrol even when they are captured under the current crippling standards. If this is a move to get back the votes he lost in Arizona by picking up votes in Illinois, it's a very strange way of doing it.

It may just be a matter of slapping the troops back in line. Even early sanctuary city San Francisco will turn over habitual illegal immigrant felons to the feds. According to John Morton, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement: “Right now, it's not a question of Cook County releasing some individuals to us. They are releasing no individuals to us, including very violent offenders, and I just don't think that's good policy.”

Even Let 'Em All In DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has jumped on the enforcement bandwagon against Cook County. The pressure on Holder and President Obama from his own people is growing, and with it a political dilemma. Holder and Obama are both products of the Chicago/Cook County Democratic political machine. The current mayor of the Windy City, Rahm Emanuel, was an Obama confidante, and is facing an unprecedented (yes, unprecedented) murder rate on the streets of Chicago. Even though he has not yet weighed in on the problem, Emmanuel is aware of the fact that the high murder rate is being enhanced by the activities of illegal immigrant gangs. But Cook County, among all the sanctuaries, has been the most combative about turning illegals over to the feds.

I guess you would have to call this a falling-out among thieves. Cook County claims that it has received no special demands or interrogatories about its sanctuary policies from the federal government. Spokesman for both Chicago and Cook County say that they have not been told their federal funds might be withheld, and that if it should happen, they would fight tooth and nail.

Cook County is not yet covered by the Secure Communities Act which requires that the fingerprints of all arrested illegal immigrants be turned over to the feds for determination of deportation status. Among the provisions of the Act is that if a prisoner's fingerprints submitted to the FBI pop up on the federal immigration deportation database, the city or county involved is to “detain” the arrestee beyond the time allowed for citizens charged with similar crimes. Thus far, Cook County (which includes the largest Chicago jail) has refused to cooperate. It will be covered by the Secure Communities Act early next year. But that's after the Justice Department puts on its pre-election dog and pony show.


Director Morton apparently attempted to salve wounded feelings at the Cook County offices by trying to work out the fingerprint issue before the Secure Communities Act goes into effect there. Even that effort was rebuffed, so there are some egos involved here as well. This could be a battle royal. Chicago/Cook County is in the same desperate financial condition as all Democrat-controlled big cities. It's broke, and so is the state that might help them out. Under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Act, Cook County has received $13 million in federal assistance money. That is not the only money-for-nothing program that transfers tax money from Washington DC to friendly cities and counties, but it is one of the largest. It's impossible to justify that expense when Cook County refuses to cooperate in even the most minimal way.

This may all be a big ploy to gain the votes of anti-illegal immigrant activists. Holder will likely make big speeches and assign multiple political lawyers to the matter, then make more speeches in the Hispanic communities telling them he won't really interfere with their support of open borders. Nothing will actually happen until after the November election. I still remain mystified by the move, however. Cook County and Chicago are the last places on earth that Obama wants to offend, even a little.

If you have an opinion about why this move at this time, I'd be delighted to hear it. Your theory will probably turn out to be far better than mine.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama’s “Week From Hell” Coming Up

Everybody’s had one of those weeks, where everything goes wrong. Obama is about to experience a big one! Indeed, this week will likely be the week which will define his Presidency as a total failure in the history book. And it starts with ObamaCare.

Obama bet his entire Presidency on ObamaCare, and that’s going down in flames this week. Yep. Sometime this week, the Supreme Court will finally issue its decision. We’ve discussed that a lot, including the likely outcomes (LINK), but any way you slice it, this will end poorly for Obama. At the very least, the individual mandate will be struck down. But more likely, the Supreme Court will strike down the entire law. Either result, however, will be seen by the public as a complete reversal of ObamaCare, and with it, a complete undoing of his entire term in office.

My biggest concern here is if only the mandate gets struck down. That could kill the momentum for a repeal of the entire bill, which is what is truly needed. Indeed, the individual mandate is the least harmful of the provisions. The rest of the bill raises taxes, hands out favors, reshapes how hospitals function, limits the way doctors can arrange their businesses, slashes Medicare, subsidizes some people’s healthcare, imposes requirements on insurers, and forces states to create these massive insurance exchanges which will never go away. That is the real heart of ObamaCare and that’s what needs to be eliminated. On the plus side, once people think ObamaCare is gone, it will be hard to stop the Republicans from repealing the rest. On the downside, once the pressure is released, Washington tends to return to rest and let things stay as they are. Let’s hope the Supreme Court does the right thing and kills the whole bill.

But ObamaCare is just the beginning. This week the Supreme Court will also uphold Arizona’s law to let its police enforce the nation’s immigration laws. If immigration truly is THE issue for Hispanics, and this bill is as bad as the left claims, then Hispanic won’t be too happy that Obama proved impotent on this issue.

More importantly, as more and more states pass these laws, the ability of the Democrats to ignore the illegal immigration problem by sabotaging ICE efforts in Washington will vanish. Instead, the states will start taking care of these issues, with a likely first round resulting in a demographic shift as illegals flee to welcoming states like California. . . which can’t afford them.

On Thursday, Obama’s lawyer, Attorney General Eric Holder, will find himself held in contempt of Congress for lying and withholding documents from Congress related to his “Fast and Furious” program which resulted in thousands of weapons being given to drug cartels in Mexico. Interestingly, even the left is mocking Obama’s claim that Holder has the right to withhold the requested documents under Executive Privilege. Apparently, young Barack Obama once said Bush’s identical claims were illegal.

On Friday, Obama’s latest effort at a stimulus bill, a $109 billion highway bill, will probably fail in the House. So much for spreading around a little bribe money before the election.

Finally, student loan rates will double unless action is taken by June 30, and the House Republicans don’t seem all that interested in stopping this. This will upset yet another key Obama demographic, students. This one might pass, but we’ll see. But it won’t help the mood on college campuses that Obama let this happen.

That’s a big week for Obama and from the looks of it, it’s all going to go wrong. :)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Gets There Firstest With The Mostest

Magic Man Barack Obama seems to have lost a great deal of his mojo since the Hope, Dope and Change campaign of 2008. His well-organized fund-raising and internet campaigning that made the difference against John McCain are coming unglued. But he hasn’t lost his ability to pander to “victim” groups, and for the first time in awhile his timing, however cynical, was excellent.

His method may be called into question, but his executive order to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was truly good timing. Figuring he won’t lose a single black vote no matter what, Obama has concentrated his demagoguery on the next largest ethnic voting bloc—Hispanics. He was losing support among Latinos for having done nothing to move the immigration debate along. Even with solid majorities in both houses of Congress, he couldn’t get his beloved DREAM Act passed.

So by fiat, El Presidente has changed the rules in the middle of the game. Napolitano has been ordered to cease all deportation proceedings against any illegal immigrants under the age of thirty who were brought to the United States by their illegal immigrant parents before age sixteen, have been in the US for at least five years, have no felony record, completed high school, gotten a GED, or served in the US military. An accelerated path to citizenship is not addressed in the order, cleverly avoiding the word “amnesty,” but the very nature of the executive order presumes that will come soon.

This move was both good strategy and good tactics. He couldn’t have picked a more sympathetic or blameless group than these particular shuttlecocks in the badminton game of immigration reform. Even those who are harshest on illegal immigration (myself included) have been trying to figure out a way to accommodate this particular immigrant demographic without rewarding them for their illegal status. “It’s not their fault” has to be balanced against “but nevertheless, they are here illegally.”

This was clearly a preemptive strike, and a good one at that. It is well-known among political insiders that Republican candidate Mitt Romney has been looking for a way to address this very narrow immigration issue. Senator Marco Rubio, considered to be a front-runner for the Republican vice presidential spot, had already proposed something similar to Obama’s executive order, albeit with more restrictions, emphasis on not creating a fast track to citizenship, and an act of Congress rather than an executive decision.

Obama took a position that has enthusiastic support among a large segment of the population, and little angry opposition on principle. Those who oppose the action entirely are comprised mostly of those who don’t want to discuss any kind of immigration reform beyond “deport ‘em all.” This is not the DREAM Act in disguise, but rather a bowdlerized version of one small portion of the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act was/is quite simply a complete large-scale rescission of existing immigration law replacing the law with the legalization of 12 or 13 millions illegals and putting them on a fast track to citizenship.

Obama’s executive action is both cynical and effective. It sends the message to the Hispanic community that he is finally addressing their issues. It’s a small but very highly visible step. And as always, he avoids proposing anything truly radical, having found one small niche in which he could operate while leaving the issue of massive changes for a later day.

It serves another purely political motive. He has managed to steal Romney’s thunder, and to a lesser extent, Rubio’s. Obama can now point out Romney’s stand on securing the borders and deporting (or "self-deporting") illegal immigrants while at the same time turning Romney’s potential views on this specific issue into a “me too” position at best. Obama can wink at Hispanics, indicating that this reasonable solution to a thorny issue is just the beginning of his slow-motion war to enforce complete illegal immigrant legalization. At the same time, it allows him to say that what he has actually ordered is simply fair and reasonable, without any serious implications for the immigration issue at large.

I have to give the devil his due. He has shored up his Hispanic base while at the same time putting his Republican opponent on the defensive. Romney accurately reacted to the news of Obama’s move, but it was just that—reaction. “First of all, we have to secure the borders; we need to have an employment verification system to make sure that those who are working here in this country are here illegally; and then with regards to these kids who were brought in by their parents, through no fault of their own, there needs to be a long-term solution so they know what their status is. This is something Congress has been working on. And I thought we were about to see some proposals brought forward by Sen. Marco Rubio and by Democratic senators. But the president jumped in and said ‘I’m going to take this action (emphasis added).’”

Romney also said accurately but reactively “I don’t know why he feels stop-gap measures are the right way to go.” Well, let’s hope he does know, or we’re in for a rear-guard action on immigration throughout the upcoming campaign season. He has to come up with something better than this: “If he felt seriously about this, he should have taken action when he had a Democrat House and Senate. But he didn’t. He saves these sorts of things until four-and-a-half months before the general election.”

Romney got the thrust right, but failed to hammer at the real issue in a way that non-political junkies and non-constitutional scholars would easily understand. Not only did Obama have those majorities, but if he had really cared about his Hispanic base, he would have gone the proper route of getting Congress to act on this single, sympathetic issue rather than trying to ram blanket amnesty down America’s throat. Instead, he has used a highly-questionable and possibly unconstitutional executive order to accomplish a goal he should have been able to accomplish with the consent of Congress.

This is not a permanent victory for Obama, nor a serious loss for Romney, but it is a strong hint as to how this campaign will be conducted. Obama cannot run on his record, so he needs to attack Romney and put him on the defensive. Painting Romney as a “me too” candidate has a long history. Kennedy used it successfully against Nixon, and Obama used it successfully against McCain. Romney needs to get aggressively in front of these issues and present the real version of his agenda and platform before Obama can define them for him.

For one thing, Romney needs to work with his team and his PACs to hammer home the idea that the greatest critic of using an executive order to advance immigration reform was, you guessed it, Barack Obama himself. He told his Hispanic base that he had to work with Congress, blamed the Republicans for derailing immigration reform, but justified his own inaction by saying that a president doesn’t have the power to accomplish these goals by executive order. In fact, he said that such an overreach by the executive branch might be wholly unconstitutional.

Obama is going to try these same tactics with foreign affairs, race relations, expansion of government and the economy (I put the economy last because it is obviously the biggest issue of the campaign and Obama’s weakest position). But this preemptive attack on Romney’s immigration position is a very good thing to be used as a learning experience for Romney and his handlers.

Obama’s action, Romney’s position and Rubio’s proposals on this small part of the immigration debate are not really about blanket amnesty, or even about passing portions of the DREAM Act by stealth. They are about the cynical manipulation of a portion of the minority population by a master demagogue using extra-legal means to enhance his own image at the expense of his opponent’s. Romney needs to make that the issue rather than let Obama define the debate.

My advice (for what it’s worth) to Mitt Romney: “Attack, attack, attack. Never take a defensive position, and never allow yourself to be put into a defensive position.” Obama is a master at pointing out his opponents’ weaknesses while hiding his own. If Romney plots out an aggressive ahead-of-the-pack strategy rather than using defensive tactics, Obama will finally have come to the end of his political career. Let it be, dear Lord, let it be.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

It’s Because You’re Stupid

The MSM has finally found a narrative they can all get behind: criticism of Obama by conservatives is racist. Forget that they’ve leveled plenty of their own criticism, because hypocrisy doesn’t matter to them. Any conservative who criticizes Obama is a racist.

The line that criticism of Obama is racist goes way back. Jimmy Carter whined in 2009 that the entire birther movement was racist. Then he claimed Republican Joe Wilson shouting “you lie!” during Obama’s campaign speech to Congress showed that there is “an inherent feeling in American that a black man should not be President.” In September 2011, MSNBC claimed that all criticism of Obama was because of “the color of his skin.”

Calling Obama “cool” was declared racist the other day. Before that the words “cocky”, “flippant” and “arrogant” were declared racist “code words.” Last month, Team Obama themselves said that trying to link Obama to Jeremiah Wright was racist and hate-filled.

Now we have Neil Munro, a reporter for the Daily Caller, interrupting Obama during his latest campaign speech from the White House where he tried to buy Hispanic votes by proposing amnesty for young illegal aliens. The MSM was immediately outraged, and quickly decided this was racist. Said MSNBC:

“I think it's a very important question because I think this is the first African-American president. We've never had a white president been told by the opposing party to shut up in the middle of a major address to the Congress. We've never had a president like this heckled so disrespectfully. We've never had this otherness afforded to any other president and I think the right wing has some explaining to do because to me it's patently obvious.”

Well, actually, that’s not true. Indeed, as the Daily Caller immediately pointed out, Sam Donaldson used to do this to Ronald Reagan all the time, and yet the MSM never accused him of even bad manners.

Naturally, the MSM went to Sam Donaldson and asked him if this was true. Guess what he said? He lied about doing this to Reagan. Indeed, he said, he “never once interrupt[ed] a president in any way while he was making a formal statement, a speech, honoring awardees or in any other way holding the floor.” Of course, that’s a lie, but no MSM reporter can be bothered to go find the dozens of example disproving this.

Then Donaldson said exactly what you would expect from a leftist hack. He charged racism:

“Let’s face it: Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American!”

This is pathetic. Do I think Munro should have interrupted Obama? No. It pissed me off when Donaldson and the rest did it to Reagan and I don’t think anyone should be doing it to Obama either. But it pisses me off even more that the MSM is pushing this crap about this being the result of racism.

People criticize President "Downgrade" Obama because he’s incompetent. They criticize him because he’s an arrogant ass. They criticize Obama because he’s ruining the country and trying to destroy large parts of our economy. It doesn’t matter what color he is, the man is a menace to our nation.

Moreover, the real racists are on the left and within the MSM. It’s the leftist media which sees the world through the prism of race, not the rest of us. The rest of us have moved beyond race. We now judge men and women by the content of their characters and the competence and quality of their actions, and in that test people like Obama fail miserably. Race doesn't factor into it for us, that only matters to the race-obsessed MSM.

So in the spirit of providing proof, give us your Top Three Biggest gripes with Obama without mentioning his race?


OT, For those who regularly visit Patti's site, she's talking about my book today and there's a Q&A! Check it out! LINK

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Fixing Immigration

A couple weeks ago an issue came up in the comments, which I think should be officially raised in an article: how to fix immigration. This may be the most pressing issue of our time for a number of reasons and fixing the problem will prove to be incredibly difficult. But it can be done. Here’s what I recommend.

For starters, let me point out that there is no silver bullet to resolve this problem. Sealing the borders won’t work as most illegal immigrants find other ways here (plus the real problem is those who are already here). It’s a logistical near-impossibility to deport eleven million people. Big business wants workers and will fight anything which reduces illegal immigration, so will the Democrats who want voters. The public no longer trusts the political class because they’ve lied about this too much. Hence, an amnesty won’t work because no one trusts the promises that will be made to justify it.

All in all, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t and no one. . . no one is going to let you try anything.

That sounds bleak. But it doesn’t mean we can’t fix the problem, it just means it requires a more careful plan. Indeed, any effective plan will need to be done quietly at first, so people don’t freak out, and the goal must be to build the trust needed to implement the harder parts to come.

With that in mind, I think the best strategy would be this. . . spread over two Romney terms:

Step One: In the first week in office, Romney (and the Republican Congress where needed) should slash the number of legal immigrants allowed into the US each year in half. This shouldn’t be too difficult as Obama raised the number and Romney can explain he is simply reversing that, giving new immigrants time to join the melting pot, and preventing the environmental problems of importing enough people to populate Denver each year. He can also use high unemployment as a reason. The idea here is to reduce the number of immigrants who would otherwise be in the country over the next four years by about two million. I’ll explain why in a moment.

Step Two: As soon as possible, end all payroll deductions for any business which doesn’t use the eVerify system. This would provide a strong incentive for businesses to use the system, but wouldn’t freak out big business by making it a criminal offense to hire illegals. This “voluntary compliance” would go a long way to making it harder for illegals to find work and many will leave.

Step Three: Fix Mexico. This would take several years, but the idea would be to provide military and police assistance and heavy financial aid in exchange for more libertarian economic policies along with deregulation and the busting of massive corporate empires. The idea here would be to get Mexico on its feet and turn it into a magnet for workers from all over the Americas, i.e. instead of us. If this works, and it should, then Mexico could become the destination of choice for Spanish-speaking illegal immigrants and it could draw back a large chunk of the eleven million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Step Four: Fix the guest worker program. One of the problems which has arisen is that with American paranoia over 9/11 and the border with Mexico, it has become increasingly risky for guest workers to leave the country again because there is a significant chance they won’t get back in come the next season (they are mainly farm workers). As a result, many of them have left Mexico permanently, even though they don’t want to, and brought their families here so they don’t need to run that risk. We need to make sure these people understand that they will be able to return to the US each season when needed. That way they have no reason to stay here illegally. Moreover, fixing this program will be essential to getting Big Business to stop fighting the other reforms because they can get the labor they need through this program.

If everything goes right, by the end of Romney’s first time, this program would have born the following results:

1. A reduction in the number of legal immigrants on the order of two million from those who would have otherwise been here.

2. A reduction in the number of illegal immigrants because of reduced job opportunities because of the eVerify system, improving conditions in Mexico, and the clean up of the guest worker program. Judging on the effects of the last recession, this could be anywhere from (rough guess) one to two million.

3. The pacification of Big Business as an opponent.

This means Romney can tell the public that his policies have reduced the number of “immigrants by up to four million” in his first term. This should buy him some good will with the public, for what is to come. Moreover, he can then show how the eVerify system worked, and he can make the case that those who are left likely are here for reasons other than just economics and probably have ties to the country. Thus:

Step Five: At the beginning of the second term, Romney makes the use of eVerify mandatory and imposes criminal punishments for employers who hire illegals.

Step Six: Romney proposes a long-term amnesty as follows: (1) Illegals will be required to report themselves within a month. Anyone who fails to report will be ineligible for the amnesty, as will anyone who arrives after the amnesty date (and those with criminal records). Those people will be deported immediately and local police will be required to report them to ICE. (2) For those who did report themselves, they will be issued a new “green card” which lets them act like citizens, except voting. They may work and must pay taxes. They can get drivers licenses, insurance, report crimes to the police, etc. (3) If you recall in Step One, we cut the number of legal immigrants in half. Now we do that again and allocate one half of those slots for legal immigrants and one half for converting illegals into legals, who can then apply for citizenship just like other legal immigrants. The goal would be to make them all legal over a decade long period.

Step Seven: Follow through and deport everyone who didn’t register.

Honestly, I think this is the only solution. Whether conservatives like it or not, there needs to be some way to make these people legal. Right now they can’t report crimes, can’t get car insurance (making them a road menace), and don’t pay taxes. And there just is no way to deport them. Making them legal fixes all of that -- it might also endear them to the Republican Party for making that happen. Not to mention, it will let them get on the social ladder to become property owners and stakeholders in the community, which will lead them toward conservatism.

Who would be upset by this? The left would be upset at the drop in immigration numbers, but the public won’t have a problem with that. The left will certainly be upset by the stepped-up, zero-tolerance deportations program, but they won’t have a leg to stand on since this will be given in exchange for making millions of illegals legal. The public be upset at the amnesty, but not as much as you might think because this method softens the blow considerably by reducing the number of immigrants overall to offset this amnesty. Indeed, at the end of his second term, Romney could report a “drop” (non-increase) of four million immigrants plus whatever illegals left because of eVerify and the stronger pull of Mexico. That should reduce the opposition to amnesty because it shows the public good faith that the political class is finally doing the hard part first.

Thoughts?


P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Obama Game: Winning the Election

All right, let’s play a game, shall we? This game is called “Win the Election” (I would have called it “Win The Future,” but no one would be stupid enough to use that acronym). The goal of this game is to influence various segments of the population. Here’s how we’re going to play.

Step One: I’m going to name various segments of the population.

Step Two: For each group, tell me something Obama has done which you would use to try to sell Obama to that group.

Step Three: Then, for each group, tell me something Obama has done which you would use to try to get them to vote against Obama.

Here are the groups and some suggestions:

1. Women. Nothing good comes to mind. But. . . He insulted women, especially mothers. He didn’t help them on the jobs front. He endangered their healthcare with Obamacare.

2. Gays. Ended don’t ask don’t tell. But. . . Did not extend government benefits to gay partners. Copped out on gay marriage.

3. Blacks. Nothing positive comes to mind, except Holder suing various states over civil rights issues to help black-racist groups. But. . . Black unemployment is at a record high.

4. Hispanics. Nothing positive comes to mind except he sued Arizona. But. . . He continued a record number of deportations. He also used the DREAM Act and promises of immigration reform as a political football.

5. Environmentalists. He regulated carbon. But. . . He failed to pass a global warming bill like cap and trade. At Copenhagen he surrendered to China. His carbon regulations can be undone by Romney on day one.

6. Union workers. Most of the stimulus money went to unions. The auto bailout. Giving GM to the UAW. Tried to impose a union on Boeing. But. . . On the downside, he failed to save state employees from a mass wave of layoffs and the Boeing decision and card-check fell through.

7. Small business. Nothing good. But. . . Tax hikes, failed to free up credit for small businesses, added excessive regulation, and created unaffordable Obamacare requirements.

8. Big business. Opened the Treasury to his friends, passed toothless regulations of banks, allowed big business to write regulations to stymie small business, and did the bidding of big business on China, on healthcare costs, and on stimulus spending. Can’t really think of any negatives.

9. Religious believers. Nothing good. But. . . Obama has waged a war on religion for quite some time now, trying to force religions to accept positions that run contrary to their beliefs.

10. The Military. Not much good here. But. . . He showed he cared more about an Islamic terrorist than American soldiers. He didn’t end the wars, nor did he win them. He picked a pointless war with Libya. He’s been taking credit for killing bin Laden, which the military did.

11. Senior Citizens. Nothing good. But. . . Obama robbed Medicare of $500 billion.

12. Homeowners. Nothing good. Obama spoke of several ideas to fix the housing market and get homeowners out from under upside-down loans, but ultimately did nothing. On the plus side, he didn’t do anything stupid. :)

Anything I missed? Do tell.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Media Finally Spots Flaw In Democrat's Hispanic Strategy. . . Sort Of

We at Commentarama like to keep you ahead of the curve. So while others are worrying about things that will never happen or missing both forest and trees, we’re busy trying to let you know exactly what is going on and what the world will look like in the near future. And that brings me to the issue of immigration. It turns out, the Mexican invasion is over. And while you knew this already two years ago (Link), the public is only now getting hints of this. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to panic?

The idea that Hispanics (particularly Mexicans) will take over the United States has become an article of faith on the left. Indeed, the Democrats are counting on it. Their electoral strategy involves pandering to minorities and trying to get overwhelming support among them to offset their near-total collapse of support among whites. To achieve that level of support, they are working hard to scare these groups with claims of racism and to enslave them with poor education and by ingraining hobbling ideas like group rights.

But this whole idea relies on a faulty premise. Indeed, it depends on immigration from Mexico remaining at the same levels it was during its peak period in the 1980s/1990s. In 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority group shortly after.

Sounds simple, but here’s the problem. That growth has nothing to do with births of Hispanics in the United States. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was purely illegal immigration. And the vast majority of that comes from Mexico. Ergo, if immigration from Mexico slows, then the minority take over of America is over.

And guess what? Immigration from Mexico has all but stopped. Starting in 2007 (before the recession), immigration from Mexico began dropping. Within the last few years, it’s actually reversed itself, as the number of Mexicans returning to Mexico has exceeded the number of Mexicans who have come to the United States. How much? Well, according to Pew and the Census Bureau, the number of illegal immigrants in the US fell by one million in the last five years while the number of legal immigrants rose only by 200,000.

Why is this happening? Partially it is the sad state of our economy. But even more importantly, it’s because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 births per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico’s birth rate is now just over 2 children per mother, almost identical to the birth rate in the United States, and it’s still falling -- it will soon be at European levels (around 1.4). Because of this, Mexico’s population is estimated to peak in 2043, though I suspect that will happen much sooner, as it has in other countries. And that means Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades because they can find the jobs they want at home. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

I told you about this in May 2000 and again last year. The LA Times first hinted at this yesterday. Neither the Times nor others on the left have yet fully grasped the meaning of this, but it will come as they realize what this means for the Democratic strategy.

And falling numbers aren’t the only problem. Look at the concentration of Hispanics in the United States. That is not a map which affords Hispanics political power. As California has learned, anything above 50%+1 is a waste in our system. So piling millions upon millions of Hispanics into the same 3-4 states means their influence will always been small compared to their numbers.

Further, there is this point I mentioned last year. According to the Census, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black. And American- born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.” This means Hispanics are doing what every other ethnic group except blacks has done -- they are joining the melting pot.

The Democratic dream of an angry racist Hispanic majority which supports their socialist ways is over. This wave of Hispanics is not coming, they are not going to the right states, and those that are here are leaving the race-reservation. The LA Times has finally put its finger on this, but hasn’t grasps the full implications yet. But that will come as the Times article is now getting widespread publication. Any guesses what the Democrats will do about their mistake. . . or if they'll put this together?


And don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Warm And Fuzzy Sunday Story

I try to make Sunday my day to feel good towards my fellow man and think pleasant thoughts about how America is such a wonderful place to live for people of all races, creeds, national origins and sexes. So imagine the surge of good Christian joy I felt when I read that ICE and HHS now have a policy of providing free hormone therapy for transgender illegal immigrants in their custody awaiting deportation proceedings.

Ya can’t make this stuff up. It reminded me of the jokes about famous early transgender icon George Jorgensen, who traveled to Sweden, had surgery, and returned as Christine Jorgensen. “He went abroad, and came back a broad.” OK, it was crude, but it was funny. In our current situation, the illegals in custody came to America part-way through their “gender reassignment,” and ICE (under orders from HHS Secretary Napolitano) will make sure that nature doesn’t intervene and reverse the process.

The HHS/ICE manual states: “All illegal alien detainees shall be screened by a specially trained detention officer within 12 hours of their arrival at the detention facility.” The operations manual specifically states that the "screening shall ... inquire into a transgender detainee's gender self-identification and history of transition-related care, when a detainee self-identifies as transgender." In the event that the detainee is found to be taking sex-change hormone drugs, ICE shall continue the treatment at no charge to the detainee.

That’s comforting. We wouldn’t want Juanita morphing back into Juan while awaiting deportation, now would we? As the Democrats would say, “leaving transgenders helpless while in custody is part of the Republican war on [almost-] women.” Nearly all of the detainees undergoing treatment are male to female “reassignments,” though a few female to male types have shown up as well, prompting Chaz Bono to wonder if they’d like to dance with the stars.

The manual goes on to state: “Transgender detainees who were already receiving hormone therapy when taken into ICE custody shall have continued access. All transgender detainees shall have access to mental health care, and other transgender-related health care and medication based on medical need. Treatment shall follow accepted guidelines regarding medically necessary transition-related care.” Nobody at ICE or HHS is allowed to suggest that “transition” is a choice, not a right, and therefore should not be paid for by the taxpayers and performed by the government.

It is also comforting to know that as part of the program, ICE must also provide pregnancy counseling and support for pregnant female illegals, including routine and extraordinary prenatal care, adoption counseling, post-partum follow-up, and lactation services. This is a situation we don’t often see. The federal government encouraging live birth rather than abortion.

But fear not, abortion services are also provided, including a trip to a local hospital for a free (in other words, taxpayer-funded) abortion if the fetus is the result of rape or incest, or to protect the physical survival of the mother. Now why an illegal immigrant would want to abort or give up an anchor baby born on US soil is utterly beyond me. It’s her best guarantee of being allowed to remain in the country.

For the illegals, unlike Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, the ICE/HHS emphasis is on bringing the baby to full term, providing a healthy delivery, and keeping the baby. The manual allows for easy and free abortion, but objects to what conservatives have tried to provide for American citizens when the mother is making a choice. “In this instance, or in a situation where a female detainee opts to fund the termination of her pregnancy, ICE shall arrange for transportation at no cost to the detainee for the medical appointment and for access to religious counseling, and non-directive (impartial) medical resources and social counseling, to include outside social services or women’s community resource groups.”

So rest well tonight. The gummint is on the job, providing services for future drag show stars and plantation Democrats.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Y'All Come! Si Se Puede!

At the end of the Bush administration and for the first few months of the Obama administration, illegal immigration from Mexico was on a downward spiral. It was a combination of better border enforcement and the calamitous downturn in the American economy. Those illegals who came here for work began to realize jobs were few and far between. Fewer illegals came, many returned home.

Yet with little change in the economy, the numbers are creeping back up. If jobs aren’t the reason for the increases, something else must be. The biggest reason is the illegal-friendly Obama administration and the Democratic Party’s pandering to Hispanic voters. The administration has dodged or reinterpreted Congressional action to set up a lengthy series of rules which make crossing the border illegally easier and staying less uncomfortable. What it couldn’t get in Congress with the proposed comprehensive immigration reform (aka “amnesty”) and the Dream Act it is accomplishing administratively and bureaucratically.

The administration talks about its achievements in deporting illegals, but the record hardly supports the claim. While talking deportation numbers with one side of his mouth, President Obama talks “prosecutorial discretion” out of the other side. Under current law, deported illegal immigrants must remain outside of the United States for a minimum of three years before returning under some legal plan. The administration has acted to change that rule using a “hardship” exception. If the illegal already has legal relatives living in the United States, he can claim his absence would pose a hardship for the family. It’s an Alice in Wonderland kind of reasoning, but you can bet that immigration authorities will find the exception nearly every time as long as this administration remains in power.

Another new rule imposed is that once caught, a large majority of illegals who have not run up a criminal record will go to the end of the deportation line. And while remaining in the country they can build up “longevity credits” putting them closer to the magic legalization goal. In major cities, where most illegals end up, this will mean a large number of very dangerous people being allowed to stay. Most of America’s big city immigration magnets are “sanctuary cities,” or cities so overwhelmed by crime that they simply can’t keep up. In sanctuary cities, criminal activity is not reported to the federal authorities unless there has been a conviction. In San Francisco, youthful offenders are rarely reported at all, and adults are reported only after being convicted of major violent felonies.

And then there’s the simple issue that if you can’t get in through the door, sneak in through the window. The Government Accountability Office reported that in 2011 only 15% of the border with Mexico was under full Border Patrol control. Another 44% is not under full control, but is counted as being under “operational” control. That means that 41% of the border is under minimal or no control. That’s about 800 miles of unprotected border. That would be bad enough. But when individual states have attempted to assist the federal government in enforcing border control, the feds have either ignored their efforts or sued the states for interfering in a federal prerogative.

Arizona has been a primary target of administration ire. While the state is losing $2.7 billion in enforcement and public services losses during the period from 2009 to the present, it has been the whipping boy for the Obama administration for simply passing legislation which is designed to do the job the feds either can’t or won’t do. Yet the Arizona statutes take no power from nor do they create parallel immigration power with the federal government. They simply create the mechanism by which the state can turn illegal immigrants over to the federal authorities.

Still, the Obama administration felt it wasn’t doing enough to support illegal immigration and fast-track legalization. It remedied that lack by appointing immigration enthusiast Andrew Lorenz-Strait to the post of public advocate for the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Another czar. And it’s the first time ever that an administration of either party has created a position which essentially advocates for illegals. The very agency charged with the enforcement of immigration law will effectively have a man who will act as a taxpayer-funded lobbyist for illegals.

Lorenz-Strait previously advocated for cuts to the ICE budget of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program which helps states cover the cost of jailing illegal immigrants. The President’s crazed budget announced just after his State of the Union address includes this cut—to the tune of $170 million. Lorenz-Strait is off to a good start.

The pandering appears to be paying off. Obama won about 67% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, and his reelection campaign committee is predicting that number could increase to 73% in 2012. I think that’s an exercise in radical optimism, but surely the pandering isn’t hurting his popularity among Hispanic voters.

Immigration will not be the big issue of the 2012 campaign, but it can’t be ignored. Any Republican presidential candidate is going to need good answers to questions about immigration. A “get ‘em out now” approach may appeal to many nativists, but it could be utter disaster in the general election. Comprehensive immigration reform is an important issue, but the Obama administration will try to paint anything short of amnesty as racism and jingoism. It must be addressed, but in realistic and humane terms. It is quite possible to reassure Hispanic voters without caving in to the open borders crowd.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

You're Not The Boss Of Me

In some ways, I guess I’ve enjoyed the spectacle of a pseudo-intellectual, gussied-up, pretentious Chicago politician trying to pass himself off as a sophisticated man for all seasons. The man is flawless, incapable of making a mistake. He has even managed to convince a large segment of the American public that he is unflappable and tolerant of criticism. He proved otherwise this past Wednesday in Arizona.

On that day, the sweet-tempered, the ever-smiling president landed in Arizona and exposed himself for the ill-tempered and thin-skinned creature he really is. He was greeted by the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, who is not known as being a fan of The One. In fact, the confrontation turned into an Obama review of Brewer’s book Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America’s Borders. The governor was there in her official capacity as state greeter, but she was also there to plead with the president for more border security.

Unfortunately for Brewer, Obama knew that she had written some unkind words about He Who Cannot Be Criticized. The conversation, largely out of earshot of the public and press and beneath the wings of Air Force One, was obviously heated, complete with some very visible finger-wagging on both sides. After a short exchange, the president turned his back on the governor and stormed off like a child who lost a playground match and grabbed his marbles and left.

Before he was able to get to a refreshed TelePrompter, Obama let it be known that the governor had not “treated him cordially.” Well, you have to admit, she forgot to kiss his ring as they approached each other. It was obvious that he knows that he is King of America and she is merely a provincial governor. One does not lecture the king of kings, nor write a memoir that does not sing his praises.

The governor says that before she could start a conversation, Obama stated that he was disturbed about her book. She never got to make the case for more border security. She asked him if he had read the book, but after responding that he had read “an excerpt” and stating categorically that she had committed lese majeste, he walked away from her while she was still in mid-sentence attempting to respond.

So what did the mainstream media pick up on? Pictures of Brewer’s “disrespectful finger-pointing.” The best they could say is that if she didn’t respect the man, she should at least respect the office. Well, the man has sullied the office, so I think she can be at least partially forgiven if she didn’t do proper obeisance. She is an independently-elected leader of a sovereign state, equally deserving respect which he did not grant her. Governors are servants of the people of their states, not subordinates of the emperor. If she had given him the finger instead of pointing one at him, he might have been justified in feeling he had not gotten due respect for his office.

Governors are heads of state as much as the president, and they are not in the military where his position as commander-in-chief might make the man/office mantra appropriate. The governor was there as head of her government to seek help in stopping the massive flow of illegal immigration, crime, and drug importing on the border between Mexico and Arizona. The president was there to campaign for re-election and to ignore his administration’s Mexico-US gun-running operation. Which deserves more respect?

This kind of regal displeasure treatment of his “inferiors” is getting to be a habit with Obama. After being greeted by Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Obama stormed off within less than half a minute when Perry raised the issue of border security. He fumed and fretted publicly after Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana dared to write the president a letter asking for some genuine work instead of talk during the Gulf oil spill disaster. He actually called Jindal a “whiner” for asking for emergency food programs while the residents of the gulf recovered.

Obama is completely incapable of understanding federalism. He sees the states as branches of the national government and governors as his lieutenants. Any word of disagreement by one of those lieutenants must be treated as disrespect for the glorious leader and rank insubordination. Well, this god has feet of clay and this emperor has no clothes (how’s that for mixing my metaphors?). Obama deserves the title of King of Cool about as much as Rosie O’Donnell deserved the title of Queen of Nice.

Update Well, I suppose this was inevitable. Now Al Sharpton, the NAACP, Joe Madison, MSNBC and a raft of left wing talk-show hosts have declared that Brewer's actions were not only disrespectful, but racist. One says that Brewer's actions were the natural fear that white women have of black men. The rest are absolutely convinced that Brewer would never had behaved this way if the president were white. One black contributor on Fox News says that she doesn't believe Brewer is a racist, but her actions are typical of white behavior toward blacks. "Typical white woman" anyone?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Kagan Sets Up The Sucker Punch

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the upcoming appeal of the State of Arizona challenging the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which struck down the major enforcement provisions of Arizona's tough immigration enforcement law. She has done the right and ethical thing.

Simply put, Arizona's law included among other things a provision that during the course of a lawful stop or arrest, the police officer could inquire into the individual's immigration status if he had a reasonable suspicion that the person was in the country illegally. The police could then hold the suspect pending determination of his immigration status. If the person turned out to be in the United States illegally, the Arizona authorities would then turn the suspect over to the federal immigration authorities. The Obama administration successfully took Arizona to court, claiming that this was unconstitutional interference with the federal government's sole authority over immigration.

Arizona argued unsuccessfully that it had a compelling state interest in protecting its lawful citizens, and that the new law merely provided a means by which the federal authorities could be made aware of an illegal immigrant by use of ordinary and established state and local police procedures. The law did seem to grant power to the state to establish its own rules on immigration, and did provide for certain non-investigatory detention beyond the initial inquiry into the person's immigration status. The law did not allow or require the state to take any further action against the detainee such as deporting him from the United States, but there were some criminal sanctions for being present in Arizona illegally. Arizona argued that its law merely reported illegal immigration, while the Obama administration argued that it regulated immigration, a solely federal prerogative.

The law does make it a crime for an undocumented worker to be present in the state. And the law makes it a crime to fail to register with the federal government or attempt to take work or hold a job without government authorization. Unlike the "reasonable suspicion" provision, these provisions do seem to skate very close to the edge of federal supremacy. In any event, all the provisions mentioned were stricken by the federal judge, and his ruling was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It will be up to the Supreme Court to sort these provisions out.

A federal judge and ultimately the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found against Arizona. Arizona appealed, and the US Supreme Court has now granted certiorari (agreed to hear the case). Justice Kagan immediately recused herself and made a public statement as to why she was doing so. As a senior attorney at the Justice Department (Solicitor General), she had played a major role in the early litigation against the Arizona law. Good for her. She did the right thing. Why she did the right thing may yet turn out not to be quite so honorable.

Caution: What follows is comprised largely of my opinions about anyone or anything having to do with the Obama administration, combined with a healthy dollop of paranoia and suspicion. I'm not stating anything except the jurisdictional matters as fact, and if this turns out to be a debate over Kagan's intentions versus my wariness, that would be a good thing.

I'm sure that every one of you is sophisticated enough to know that the state challenges to Obamacare will be wending their way to the Supreme Court. Different appellate districts have made diametrically opposite decisions, and it's up to the Supreme Court to resolve them. Mounting evidence shows that Justice Kagan was deeply involved in the preparation and final versions of Obamacare while she was Obama's Solicitor General. In fact, within just a few days before the passage of Obamacare, Kagan wrote to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that a lawsuit was being prepared to block the House from "deeming" the measure passed by a quirky procedural rule if it didn't get enough votes. She not only alerted them, but made suggestions as to how to defend against the lawsuit.

She even went so far as to alert the Office of Legal Counsel of all the arguments which were being prepared against the procedural trick (by a former Tenth Circuit US Appeals Court judge who is now Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University). During her confirmation proceedings, Kagan was asked for a written response to the following question posed by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee:

"Have you ever been asked about your opinion or offered any view or comments on the underlying or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including, but not limited to Pub. L No. 111-148 PPACA (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?" Kagan answered "no."

Kagan's early opinions of the efficacy of socialized medicine offered as a professor of law at Harvard (pictured) would not automatically require her to recuse herself from considering the Obamacare cases at the Supreme Court. Every professor of law (except possibly Barack Obama) has legal opinions. They'd be pretty dumb if they didn't. Most prominent law professors have written law review articles (again, except Barack Obama, editor of the Harvard Law Review). Those articles frequently go against current prevailing law. But those opinions are largely political abstract law in nature until they start coming down from the bench. So her early legal career was important to the process, but not necessarily to her ultimate confirmation.

So where am I going with this? From everything I've seen and read, Kagan's involvement in Obamacare was at least as deep as her involvement in the Arizona statute controversy and litigation. Her self-recusal from the Arizona case leads me to think that doing the right thing in that case was a red herring, designed to draw attention away from Kagan's personal views and actual involvement in the preparation of the Obamacare legislation.

She, her liberal Democratic friends and their errand boys in the mainstream media can now point out how upright, honest and ethical she is about not hearing cases in which she has been personally and professionally involved. When she refuses to recuse herself from the Obamacare decision, as I expect she will, they can all say "why look, she recused herself in the Arizona case, so if she doesn't recuse herself here, it's because her hands are clean and she is justified in hearing the matter."

Along with her "recusal credentials" she is likely to claim that if she has to recuse herself, the same should be required of Justice Clarence Thomas. Well, hooey. Thomas had no personal or professional involvement in passing or litigating Obamacare. His wife is an ardent anti-socialized medicine advocate. So what? She's not sitting on the bench, he is. And unlike Obama, Thomas does not allow his wife to make his decisions for him. Double red herring.

Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical. But I suspect Kagan's self-recusal in the Arizona case is even more cynical. Sorry, folks, I just don't trust their phony good intentions. So, what do you think?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hispanics Foil Democratic Race Dreams

You’ve all heard America is destined to become an Hispanic country, right? The Democrats are in fact counting on that to stay relevant. They’re hoping to get Hispanics to buy into racial identity politics and then vote exclusively for their race-hustling party. But there are three flaws with this plan.

Flaw One: Bad Demographics

The argument works like this: in 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority. But as I first mentioned in May of last year (LINK), there are serious flaws with this.

First, this assumes Hispanics are having huge numbers of children. The truth is that most of the population growth in Hispanic ranks has been the result of illegal immigration, not from births. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was pure illegal immigration. So it’s immigration that matters.

But illegal immigration can’t continue at this rate because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico accounts for most illegal immigrants. But Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 birth per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

Flaw Two: The Race Baiting Ain’t Working

But even beyond the pending illegal-immigrant-supply shortage, something interesting just happened with the last Census. To the race industry’s horror, “whites” suddenly jumped by 12.1 million people (to 223.6 million or 72% of the population). What could account for this?

What happened is the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as Hispanic went down 5% and the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as “white” increased 5%. Overall, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black.

What this means is that Hispanics are doing what the Irish, the Jews, the Polish, and everyone else who is now considered “white” did -- they are identifying with the larger group and trying to fit in. They are joining the melting pot. And American-born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.”

This is horrible news for the Democrats, because the whole idea behind racial identity politics is to make people think they are part of an oppressed group. If people see themselves as black, white, Hispanic, etc., then it’s easy to get them believing in group rights. But Hispanics aren’t buying it.

Flaw Three: Escape The Plantation

Finally, there have been a number of articles lately by shocked journalists who can’t understand where all these conservative blacks have come from? It turns out the racist Tea Party got them all elected. Oh my! In fact, these articles have pointed out that in each case where a black (or minority) candidate won a Republican primary, it was with Tea Party backing over an establishment Republican honkey.

In effect, genuine diversity has finally arrived on the right and it’s the Tea Party that caused it because. . . imagine this. . . Tea Party people vote for people whose ideas they like, not people whose color they like! The Democrats are shocked.

This is a huge step toward smashing the idea of racial identity politics in this country. As more and more conservative blacks, Asians, Indians and Hispanics get elected into office, the idea that you need to be a Democrat if you are one of these people will simply fall apart. And that will be the final nail in the coffin of the Democratic Hispanic-America strategy.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

California Does It Again

California is one of the states suffering from a huge illegal immigrant problem. California Democrats generally refuse to admit that there is such a problem, or even such a thing as an illegal immigrant. But on those rare occasions when they do admit both, their focus is always on businesses which hire illegals rather than the illegals themselves.

They are at least partially wrong philosophically, but punishing employers who hire illegals and taking steps to prevent further illegal immigrant hiring are excellent ideas. Cut off the potential of employment and you eliminate one of the major sources of illegal immigration. The broadest and most effective way of doing this is E-Verify. Legislation is pending before Congress to establish nationwide mandates requiring employers to utilize E-Verify.

In California, fifteen cities and counties have enacted mandatory E-Verify since 2007. The governmental agencies instituted the requirement from as little as using it solely for city/county employees to revocation of business licenses for private employers who do not use E-Verify. The cities are Mission Viejo, Temecula, Murrieta, Riverside, Santa Maria, Lake Elsinore, Wildemar, Lancaster, Palmdale, San Clemente, Escondido, Menifee, Hemet, San Juan Capistrano, Hesperia, Norco, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Simi Valley. San Bernardino County is the only entity to require E-Verify on a county-wide bases.

In addition, six other cities have drafted legislation requiring E-Verify and were ready to vote. Then the boom fell. Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown and the open borders Democrats who run the state passed a statewide law prohibiting governmental agencies at any level from mandating E-Verify. After all, what's the point of being an illegal immigrant getting in-state tuition, grants and scholarships if you can't get a job after graduation because of E-Verify?

Ted Wegener, who played a major role in getting E-Verify passed for San Bernardino County, says: "It is very disappointing when you spend all the time, you go to your elected representatives and you get them to do something, and then at the higher level they squash you." Wegener's group, the Inland Empire Conservative Activists, was on its way toward getting E-Verify passed for Riverside and Orange Counties as well.

The open borders crowd reached down and pulled up its usual arguments. Sara Sadhwani of the California Immigrant Policy Center said "while a handful of cities in California and a handful of states across the country have moved to mandate the use of this kind of program, it's very misguided." In other words, an effective means of drastically reducing the incentive for errant employers to hire illegals is "misguided."

Assemblyman Paul Fong (D-Sunnyvale), introduced the bill to halt E-Verify because he believes it is an unnecessary burden on business. I'd like to know what "business" he is referring to. The burden is making sure that the company has at least one person (who could easily be an already-existing employee) who has access to a computer and a minimal knowledge of how to use the Internet. There are costs of E-Verify that are minimal compared to the private background checks any diligent private employer would use to determine the immigration and criminal status of a potential employee. But that doesn't stop Fong: "It is costly, time-consuming. It's unfair for big businesses and definitely for small businesses. Why make a flawed system mandatory?" Well, I guess we wouldn't want to be unfair, would we?

Naturally the supporters of the bill cited examples of how the E-Verify system "often" misidentifies U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. And of course they pulled out a poster girl named Jessica St. Pierre who was allegedly fired from her job because her name was not correctly entered into the E-Verify system. Anecdotal evidence aside, E-Verify claims to have an error rate of about 1%. Independent agencies make it more like 6% and dropping as data banks are constantly updated and improved. The concept that legitimate employees are being denied employment willy-nilly because of E-Verify is about as believable as Barack Obama's claim that his mother died because of a lack of medical insurance coverage.

I simply find it hard to believe that any reputable employer would fire a good employee after an E-Verify notification without first thoroughly checking the employee's own proof. If the employee is in fact a legal immigrant or American citizen, that's easily proven, and the information can be sent off to DHS and E-Verify for correction. A valued employee is unlikely to lose a job permanently because a clerk at a computer somewhere made an entry error.

Beside the alleged "financial burden on business," there are other costs to be considered and weighed against it. How about the cost of Medicaid and welfare programs for illegal immigrants? How about the loss in state tax revenues resulting from employers who hire illegals and pay them "under the table?" How about the cost of jobs lost for American citizens and legal immigrants? For that matter, how about the human cost of allowing unscrupulous employers to hire illegals and pay them less than minimum or comparable wages while putting them into working conditions that no citizen or legal immigrant would tolerate?

Brian Ambrose, who is an analyst in the Murrieta city manager's office, is perfectly happy with the voiding of his city's E-Verify ordinance. Says Ambrose: "We have not received a single phone call [reporting illegal immigrant hiring]--we did not believe there was ever a problem with illegal immigration here in Murrieta." Who is this mysterious "we?" The city manager system frequently ends up with the city manager's office being at odds with both the citizens of the city involved, and often misguiding the city councils which pass the ordinances. Concurrence is not causation. A lack of phone calls could mean a great many things, including the likelihood that illegal immigrants facing E-Verify knew the jig was up and it was time to get out of Dodge before they got caught.

So now, it's up to Congress. The left won't like it, but if the bill requiring E-Verify nationwide is passed, they can't complain that the states are interfering with the fed's sole power over immigration matters. Not unexpectedly, the E-Verify bill in the House of Representatives is being advanced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). But I take pride in pointing out that the former mayor of Simi Valley and now longtime Republican Representative Elton Gallegly of California is the co-sponsor.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Immigration: Reality Strikes Liberals Again

If you haven't seen it yet, my latest article is up at Big Hollywood (Click Me).

Sometimes it’s amazing how daft leftists can be. We spent more money than we could afford and now we’re broke? How did that happen?! We tax rich people and they send their money overseas. Nobody could have seen that coming!! We let criminals out of jail and somehow the crime rate soars?! How? Now liberals have discovered that massive immigration depresses wages. Ya think?

While Britain’s Labour Party was in power between 1997 and 2010, they threw open the immigration doors to let pretty much anyone who wanted into Britain into the country. Part of this had to do with new European Union rules which allowed free movement from Eastern Europe and part of it was leftist political correctness which sought to de-British Britain.

To give you a sense of how open the doors got, consider these figures:

● Between 1980-1991, the UK lost an average of 42,000 people each year.
● Between 1992-1995, the UK gained 9,200 immigrants per year.
● Between 1996 and 2010, under Labor, the UK gained 178,000 per year.

A couple weeks ago, a report was released, which had been commissioned by Labor when it was in power and then suppressed, because Labour didn’t like its conclusions. In fact, they ran around telling the public the exact opposite of what the report found. But now the truth has come out.

According to this report, this wave of immigrants flooding Britain depressed British wage and “undercut” British workers. You don’t say?! It was so bad in fact, the Labour Party has had to admit Labour “got it wrong” on immigration and concedes this “had a big effect on people in Britain.” Great. . . now explain why you kept lying about it?

But can they seriously claim they had no idea this would happen? Assume you make widgets and you need a new worker. In Room A, there are two potential employees. . . they look surly. In Room B, there are 500 potential employees. Do you think you will end up paying more if you hire from Room A or Room B? It’s pretty obvious isn’t it? Yet, somehow it was never obvious to liberals that flooding Britain with workers, i.e. turning Britain’s labor market from Room A into Room B, would have a negative effect on the workers already in the country? How stupid do you need to be not to see that coming? Oh, that’s right, liberals don’t think about the future, they assume there are no unintended consequences.

Britain has shown that the consequence of importing a ton of labor are very clear. It will increase the competition for jobs, which will result in wages being depressed because there are more people bidding for the same number of jobs.

Now let's look at America. We are letting people in at three times the rate the British were when they “got it wrong”. . . we are letting enough people into this country every year to populate Denver, Colorado. That’s unsustainable.

The Democrats support this because they think these immigrants will vote Democrat, which will overcome the white flight their party has experienced. But what do they think the effect will be on the wages of blacks, Hispanics and uneducated whites.... the very groups the Democrats claim to want to help? The fools currently squatting outside Wall Street want this too (check out Bev’s article on their list of demands). Those idiots want both (1) a hike in wages and (2) open borders. But of course, those are contradictory demands because once you open the borders, wages will crash. Not surprisingly, Big Business wants this too because it keeps their costs down.

Talk about an unholy alliance!

I'm all for immigration, but there need to be limits. Clearly, three times the British level is too much.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Did Aliens Take All The Aliens?

Omigod! The entire Hispanic population of Albertville, Alabama has disappeared overnight. Streets in Hispanic neighborhoods all over the state are empty. What could have happened? In order to find out, I consulted the New York Times. I now know it wasn't space aliens who absconded with the earthly aliens after all. It was the Hispanic Rapture.

In the wake of a federal court decision upholding Alabama's tough new immigration arrest, detention and reporting statute, Times reporter Clay Waters rushed to Alabama to say good-bye to his Hispanic immigrant friends, only to discover that they had all disappeared before he could get there. Says Waters: "In certain neighborhoods the streets are uncommonly quiet, like the aftermath of some sort of rapture."

Waters reports that "the vanishing began on Wednesday night (after the court decision), the most frightened families packing up their their cars as they heard the news." And these were not insubstantial Hispanics who were vanishing. Waters goes on to say: "They left behind mobile homes, sold fully furnished for a thousand dollars or even less. Or they just closed up and, in a gesture of optimism, left the keys with a neighbor. Dogs were fed one last time; if no home could be found, they were simply unleashed."

(Give me a moment to stop sobbing over this tragedy, and then I will choke back the tears and continue writing)

It's a good thing God knew in advance what the court decision would be. That way, He could cause the Hispanics to vanish before the law enforcement agencies could arrive. Oh, the humanity! Where God has plopped them down, Waters can't say. "Two, five, ten years of living here, and then gone, to Tennessee, Illinois, Oregon, Florida, Arkansas, Mexico--who knows? Anywhere but Alabama." Now I'm not on personal speaking terms with God, but I did notice that overnight the Hispanic population of Los Angeles increased by several hundred thousand, so maybe He transported them to California.

In Albertville alone, 123 Hispanic students did not show up for school the next day. A local real estate agent reported that his Hispanic occupancy had suddenly dropped by twenty-five percent, and might drop further. Waters did not report that the number of Democratic voters throughout the state had declined in approximately the same numbers as the vanishing Hispanics. Coincidence?

Says Waters: "Near the plant that is the largest employer in town, in the Hispanic neighborhoods, it is hard to differentiate the silence of the workday, the silence of abandonment, or the silence of paralyzing fear." Waters is apparently unaware that it's also hard to differentiate between purple prose and plain bulls--t.

Perhaps Waters will do a followup article in which he breathlessly describes how he found Hispanics all over town who had mysteriously not been taken up in the rapture. Why were only some of the Hispanics taken, and the others left behind to go on with their lives as usual? Perhaps it will turn out that it has something to do with how the remaining Hispanics got here in the first place. Ya think?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...