No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for the 'Immigration' Category

January 4, 2011

My Old Kentucky Home – No More!

by @ 21:10. Filed under Immigration, Politics - Kentucky.

As many of you know, after spending my entire life in Minnesota, (except for the year that all Minnesotans are required to spend in Iowa for penance) Mrs. Shoe, the Things and I loaded up the Beverly Hillbillies truck and moved to Kentucky.  As attuned to Minnesota politics as I had become, I am nearly as untuned to the political scene in Kentucky.

Reading a few web news stories I came across this from my own new backyard:

Ky. Republicans file immigration bill as promised

Kentucky Republicans are attempting to pass an immigration enforcement law ala Arizona. The Kentucky version would allow law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants for trespassing if they are found on
“any public or private land in this state.” As the article notes, that should cover all property in Kentucky. Even though the Democrats here tend to be of the blue dog variety, I’m not placing a lot of money on the final passage of this bill given the Senate (where the bill was introduced) is controlled by the Republicans and the House is controlled by the Democrats.

Regardless of whether the bill passes, I find some of the comments and arguments against the bill illuminating.

The local representative of the Catholic Church, similar to how this issue is handled everywhere by the Catholic Church says this about the bill:

“It’s much broader and much more harmful than the Arizona law,” said the Rev. Patrick Delahanty, head of the Catholic Conference of Kentucky, which is opposing the bill. “This bill does nothing but turn people who are generally hard-working and law-abiding into criminals and drains resources from local governments and police departments that ought to be put into protecting citizens from serious criminals.”

(emphasis mine)

Um, Rev. Patrick, doesn’t the fact that they broke they law to get here and continue to break the law to stay here, fly in the face of your assertion that they are “generally…law-abiding?” Haven’t they turned themselves into criminals but not following our immigration laws?

The good Reverend goes on to display his ignorance of all things not theological with his follow up statement:

Delahanty said Republicans are trying to solve a problem with illegal immigrants that doesn’t exist in Kentucky. The Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center estimated last year that Kentucky has about 30,000 illegal immigrants.

I wonder at what level Reverend Delahanty believes the law should be enforced. Should one person speeding be OK but two not? How about drunk drivers? Vandalism; how much should be OK?

More and more I see Catholics at least talking about (I can’t say I’ve actually heard that Pelosi and others have been denied Communion) not conveying Communion to a Communicant who lives in unrepentant sin. I can only assume that Reverend Delahnty follows the Catholic Church in this regard. Isn’t it ironic that when dealing with issues of eternal life the Reverend likely believes that unrepentant sin has consequences but in our momentary, earthly life it shouldn’t?

December 14, 2010

Tuesday Hot Read – Pamela Gorman’s “The Dream Act- Unsafe for Children”

by @ 11:51. Filed under Immigration, Politics - National.

(H/T – Brian Fojtik)

Pamela Gorman found a rather disturbing loophole in the DREAM Bill (unless it becomes law, it’s not an Act, except in stupidity):

The bill has a section that specifically allows the offspring of illegal aliens to opt out of the military and education requirements for citizenship. And, if you actually read it, you would see that the opt out requires little more than a letter stating that fulfilling the requirements of the law would present a “hardship.” Because the bill offers no definition of what is means by “hardship,” it is virtually impossible for a court to later have clear direction in determining what constitutes a life situation that prevents the young person from properly meeting the requirements of the law. Additionally, it could be determined on a subjective case-by-case (read: politically motivated) basis by the government agency employee who receives the letter of excuse.

Yep; you read that right – pure, no-committment-required amnesty.

July 14, 2010

Excuse Me?

by @ 19:21. Filed under Immigration, International relations.

The AP is reporting that Bejing(that would be in China) is creating gated communities.  While in the US, when you say “gate community” you think of opulence, in China, gate communities are done to keep the low income, undesirables from running amok in the neighborhoods.

OK, China has a horrible record on human rights and they are still a Communist country so abusing some folks isn’t new.  What is new is how this is perceived and accepted by our left intelligentsia:

“In some ways, this is like the conflict between Americans and illegal immigrants in the States. The local residents feel threatened by the influx of migrants,” Huang Youqin, an associate professor of geography at the University at Albany in New York.

Huh?  What?  Excuse me?

What China is doing is nothing like the Arizona situation!  First, China is doing this to their own residents, not illegal aliens.  Second, last I looked, I’ve seen no ghettos set up for illegal aliens.  In fact, we have a bunch of sanctuary cities that opening welcome illegal aliens.  Finally, the only “gating” done in the US is for illegal acts.  That said, I’m betting there are some countries that the illegals have left who think and act upon their residents in the same fashion that China does!

Moral equivalency my butt!

June 1, 2010

Another Arizona Boycott

by @ 12:54. Filed under Immigration, Politics - National.

After Arizona passed its “we’re going to enforce the law if the Feds won’t enforce the law” immigration law, numerous members of the politically correct class called for boycotts of doing business with Arizona.  It got so ridiculous that MLB continues to be challenged to pull the All Star game from Phoenix and the Arizona Tea company, whose products have no affiliation with Arizona other than their name, have been suggested as a possible boycott target.

After the initial calls for boycotts, President Obama was queried as to whether he believed boycotts of Arizona were appropriate.  His response was that while he didn’t agree with the law, yet understood the frustration of the Arizona people:

“I’m the President of the United States. I don’t endorse boycotts or not endorse boycotts.”

So, President Obama has a dilemma. He doesn’t support a law that has been enacted by Arizona but obviously wants to do something about the problem because he also understands the frustration of the Arizona people (Oh, by the way, the people of Arizona are frustrated by the lack of effort, focus, urgency by anyone at the Federal level).

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, while approving of the Arizona law, also fees the frustration of the Arizona people.  As an executive leader who takes her position as one of action and not just show, she reached out to the White House in an attempt to meet with President Obama about their law and to discuss a future course of action supported by both Federal and State authorities.  Obama’s response? I’m too busy!

Too busy?  Doing what?  Dealing with that oil spill in the gulf?  Nope, he’s got a host of his lackey’s running interferenceso that Governor Jindal can’t do what he believes is right for his state!

Busy dealing with the events involving Gaza and Israel?  Nope, in fact, now has time on his calendar as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cancelled his visit to return home to deal with the issue himself.

Oh, I almost forgot. I’ll bet President Obama is working on that Korean issue. Opps, nope, he’s farmed that one off to the UN.

Early in his presidency, when one of his community agitator friends got in a tussle with the local police, President Obama, along with Vice President Biden, cleared their schedules to allow for a beer tasting photo op. This, over an issue that should never have elevated itself above the local community police/college relationship. Now, on an issue that clearly has national significance, President Obama is too busy to meet with Governor Brewer.

If I were the synical type, I’d think that President Obama’s shunning of Governor Brewer was in fact, his own, private boycotting of Arizona!

May 7, 2010

Another Right Wing News blog temperature check – Immigration edition

by @ 7:27. Filed under Immigration, Politics - National.

Once again, John Hawkins provided an outlet for some of the most influential bloggers on the right side of the blogosphere, as well as Shoebox and me, to weigh in on the issues of the day. This time, the poll concerns immigration. Let’s run through the questions and answers (my choices underlined):

  • Do you approve of Arizona’s new immigration law? (49 votes yes, 1 vote no) -Arizona has pretty much become the crime state of the union thanks to Mexican drug gangs, most of whom are illegal aliens.
  • Would you like to see your state implement something like Arizona’s new immigration law? (49 votes yes, 1 vote no) – Since it’s good enough for Arizona, it’s good enough for Wisconsin.
  • Do you believe Arizona’s new immigration law constitutes racial profiling or discriminates against Hispanic Americans? (2 votes yes, 47 votes no) – No. The Cliff Notes’ version of what it actually does – It authorizes Arizona law enforcement personnel to check into the immigration status of those already lawfully stopped by them if they have a reasonable suspicion about their residency, requires the various local governments of Arizona to actually enforce the law, and puts the “criminal” in “illegal alien” (both being and hiring). That criminality doesn’t go nearly as far as similar provisions in Mexican law.
  • If you had to choose between the following options, which would you prefer? (4 votes comprehensive immigration reform, 46 votes immigration reform that focused on security before addresssing the status of illegals already in the country) – I would actually prefer that the illegals be tossed out as the border is secured, but that’s not the type of “comprehensive immigration reform” that the bipartisan Party-In-Government wants to consider.
  • If we implemented comprehensive reform, which of the following best describes what you think would happen? (39 votes illegals would become citizens, but the border wouldn’t be secured, 10 votes illegals would become citizens and the border would be secured) – History is my guide here. It would be a repeat of 1986.
  • Do you believe the fence on our southern border will be completed while Barack Obama is in office? (0 votes yes, 50 votes no) – I’m not in the bridge-buying business.
  • On the whole, which of these sentiments best describes your thoughts about illegal aliens? (2 votes they make America a better place to live, 47 votes they make America a worse place to live) – Unless they’re completely off-the-grid, they’re committing, at a minimum, identity fraud to remain here.
  • On the whole, which of these sentiments best describes your thoughts about legal immigrants? (49 votes they make America a better place to live, 1 vote they make America a worse place to live) – I unabashedly say this, partly because my grandmother came here from Weimar Germany. Those who come here legally tend to be those who want to better themselves in such a way that betterment extends to the larger community.

    Besides, where else can you have bratwurst one day, corned beef a second, General Tso’s chicken a third, tacos a fourth, veal parmigiana a fifth, jambalaya a sixth, and shish kabobs a seventh, all made by those who can trace their heritage to the points-of-origin of those foods?

  • Do you think the United States is doing a good job of assimilating immigrants? (11 votes yes, 39 votes no) – On the whole, we still are a melting pot. However, the big challenge is not the Hispanic population but the Muslim populatoin.
  • Do you believe that taking a tough line on illegal immigration would be winning issue for Republicans in the 2010 election? (43 votes yes, 7 votes no) – I’m not nearly as certain that it is a winning issue as I am that surrendering would guarantee a permanent Democrat/Socialist majority.

March 26, 2009

It’s Our Fault. It’s Always Our Fault!

According to American Pravda:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that America’s “insatiable” demand for illegal drugs and its inability to stop weapons from being smuggled into Mexico are fueling an alarming spike in violence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Yes, it’s our fault:

“Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” she said. “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.”

Let me get this right.  According to Hillary, our inability to control our borders is causing people in Mexico to sell us drugs and allegedly (this one is open to dispute) buy nasty weapons from us.  As a result, Hillary is suggesting that we should up our contributions to the Mexican government so that they can solve their problems.  Oh yeah, that will work.  It will work because of course, there’s no corruption in the Mexican government.  There’s no corruption that might be involved in aiding and abetting the drugs and weapons.  There’s no corruption that’s taking the money we’re already sending to Mexico and using it for any personal enrichment.  No, no corruption.

I have to wonder.  I wonder if Hillary would accept her logic tossed back at her.  Based on Hillary’s logic, if we’re causing the problem in Mexico because we aren’t controlling our borders, would Hillary accept that the hoards of illegal aliens who are in this country after crossing the Mexican border are a result of Mexico not enforcing their borders?  Can we go after the Mexican government to pay for their citizens that they allowed to live in our country?

Actually, Hillary’s message to Mexico is just a Trojan horse.  Hillary has taken the role of “good soldier” and is using this opportunity to set up another opportunity for Obama to format America into the country he wants it to be.  While Hillary for now, is talking about the Mexican/American relationship, this issue will soon be used as Obama’s lynch pin for removing drug enforcement and expanding gun control regulation.  After all, we don’t want to cause anymore problems for the well run, highly ethical government of our 59th state!

December 4, 2008

A Silver Lining?

by @ 5:58. Filed under Economy, Immigration.

With the recession officially called, there may be a silver lining to the economic challenges that seem to appear around every corner; illegal immigrants are returning home.

McClatchy writes the article about an illegal who is contemplating moving back to Mexico for better economic prospects.

McClatchy gets the news aspect correct with their headline:

With economy souring, illegal immigrants going home

But that’s where the news ends and the editorial disguised as news begins.   McClatchy begins their lament with:

But the U.S. economic crisis has disrupted his life and the lives of countless other illegal immigrants who are now planning to leave or have already left.

Sure the economy is causing folks to adjust but didn’t the illegals  disrupt their lives when they chose to illegally move into the US?

Oh, but it’s not just the people in the US that are hurting.   The US slow down is also hurting the economy of entire towns in other nations:

The ripple effects are already being felt. Communities in Latin America and the Caribbean report a reduction in remittances — money sent home from the United States. That money is critical to the survival of families and the success of local civic projects. Border communities that once thrived as way stations for those heading north are now little more than ghost towns.

Is the Governor’s conference still going?   Perhaps the mayors of these border community ghost towns can get in line with California, Michigan and others and get a piece of a federal bailout to allow them to survive the down turn?   Maybe Hank Paulson has a bailout plan for the Latin American house payments that will now go unpaid?

Rasmussen Reports issued a polltoday on America’s sentiment of illegal border crossings.   74% of those polled still believe that the US government isn’t doing enough to secure our borders.   Interestingly, less than half of those polled now believe that there is no way to end illegal immigration.   That’s a shift of 7% in just 6 weeks.

I’d really prefer the economy back to where it was in mid 2007.   That said, how many months of consumer malaise would it take to solve a our illegal immigration problem?   Well, we ought to at least ask!

December 2, 2008

Decline and Fall of the British Empire – parts 3,432,125 and 3,432,126

by @ 19:25. Filed under Immigration, Politics.

Item #1 (H/T – Jon Ham) – The Daily Mail reports the “Catholic” bishops of England and Wales want to open up Muslim prayer rooms and facilities for Muslim pre-prayer washing facilities in every Roman Catholic school in Britain. The Mail reporter who wrote the piece, Simon Caldwel, notes that the recommendations (termed by Caldwell as “demands”) “go way beyond legal requirements on catering for religious minorities.”

Item #2 (H/T – AceTory MP and immigration spokesman Damian Green was arrested and held for 9 hours while his home and House of Commons office tossed by Metropolitan Police for the “crime” of revealing various episodes of coddling of illegal aliens by the ruling Labour Party on the floor of the House of Commons. Roger Kimball has a rather good wrapup of reaction on the far side of the pond.

April 29, 2008

It’s a one-way border

by @ 9:27. Filed under Immigration.

(H/T – Silent E)

Fox News has the story of one Army Spc. Richard Raymond Medina Torres, who was arrested by Mexican border police after he inadvertantly drove over the Bridge of the Americas in between El Paso, Texas, USA and Juarez, Mexico with a licensed AR-15 and a licensed handgun in the trunk and attempted a u-turn to get back into the US. Because foreigners are generally prohibited from having firearms in Mexico, Spc. Medina Torres is now in Juarez’s toughest prison and awaiting trial on charges that would get him between 3 and 10 years.

I wonder if the “no-borders” crowds that Michelle Malkin is tracking will spend so much as a second on Spc. Medina Torres’ case. Somehow, I doubt it; hence the title.

April 23, 2008

Sgt. Hulka’s political Wisdom

by @ 7:00. Filed under Immigration.

As I watched the Democratic debate last week, I found it odd that the segments began with a  reading of a part of the US Constitution.   Sometimes the follow up questions would vaguely  align with the subject of the reading but several times it was just the constitutional reading and then the debate would restart with  no context of the reading.   I didn’t understand what ABC was doing at the time but I think I’ve now figured it out.

The TV networks have been fighting with lowered audiences for the past several years.    This has been especially true with anything that is news related.   The debate last week had the highest ratings of any debate to date.   I think ABC was trying to kill 2 birds with one stone.   The were trying to get ad  revenue  based on the large audience AND they were getting in some of their required public service announcements.   What better way to get your PSA requirement in than by teaching Liberals about the constitution!

I’m sorry to say that while ABC’s plan was novel and laudatory, it  apparently failed.

During a debate on whether to  have the State of Colorado aid “immigrant” workers in getting a federal work visa, the following exchange took place on the General Assembly Floor:


March 9, 2008

Tell me again why Milwaukee is a sanctuary city/county

by @ 19:38. Filed under Immigration.

(H/T – Michelle)

Revisions/extensions (9:06 pm 3/9/2008) – Also on the case: Patrick, Peter, HeatherRadish and Jessica. Also, I agree wholeheartedly with Dad29 in the comments. I think the ammo will be coming in more-powerful calibers and grains than just the .40 S&W.

Jessica’s girls at Frontpage Milwaukee committed what Charlie would call a flagrant act of journalism. Elizabeth Bolin and Megan Schmidt found that 188 previously-deported felon illegal aliens went through Milwaukee County Jail on fresh charges over the last 4 years, that 9 of those went through a second time despite having federal detain holds placed on them (though it is not clear whether they were deported and returned yet again or whether they never left the US), and that at least 108 of them were not charged with illegal re-entry after deportation (80 people were charged with that federal crime over that period, though it is not known whether those 80 are part of the 188 FPM focused on, or how many of those 80 were actually re-deported).

That’s just the tip of the iceberg, because previously-deported felons are the only class of illegal aliens the county tracks. That pretty much mirrors the city of Milwaukee’s “don’t ask” policy. As a result, nobody knows how many illegal aliens have passed through either the county jail or through police custody.

Since I will undoubtedly trigger a pingback to Michelle’s site, and I’m pissed enough to unleash more than a few choice words, I’ll put the rest of the commentary on page 2.

December 11, 2007

WPRI – Wisconsin opposes illegal immigration

by @ 14:17. Filed under Immigration, Politics - Wisconsin.

The results of a poll conducted by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute and Diversified Research early this month are probably coming as a shock to pro-North Mexico politicans on both sides of the aisle, both on a “total numbers” basis and a partisan basis.

Because I’m in a bit of a writer’s funk, and partly because there are only limited crosstabs available, I won’t go too far into the numbers, but there are a few that jump out (the questions, in italics, are the exact wording used in the poll):

Should the state of Wisconsin allow illegal immigrants to apply for Wisconsin driver’s licenses? – Statewide, 76% no, 19% yes. Only one subgroup showed a majority/plurality of support; those 18-24 years old (64%-36% in favor). Even among liberals, it was an even split (at 48%), while the Madison crowd barely opposed it (49%-48%). Of further note, Madison and the Eau Claire/La Crosse area (opposition led 65%-32%) are out of step with the rest of the state, a theme that repeated itself in the other two questions, while the city of Milwaukee (opposition led 80%-17%), which is most-affected by illegal immigration, showed a significant split with the conventional wisdom of liberals supporting illegal immigration.

Should the state of Wisconsin allow illegal immigrants to receive discounted in-state tuition at the
University of Wisconsin?
– Statewide, 86% no, 10% yes. No subgroup showed a majority/pluality of support, though again the splits mirror the results above.

Would you favor or oppose allowing illegal immigrant children to attend your local public schools? – Statewide, 46% yes, 46% no. The crosstabs don’t quite mirror either the above or the conventional wisdom that southeast Wisconsin has a monopoly on “conservatism”. While opposition led in the Green Bay area, 53%-32% (the biggest spread geographically), those in southeast Wisconsin (at least outside of Milwaukee and Waukesha Counties; those are broken out separately) supported this 50%-46%, while support in the Eau Claire/La Crosse area (72%-28%) actually outpaced that in Madison (61%-33%).

I guess it’s safe to say that, at least on the issue of illegal immigration, those of us in Talk Radio Land, and those in the Fox Valley, are more in touch with the state than the Dale Schultzes and the Mike Huebschs (or at least their constituents), and the Recess Supervisors of the world. Guess that’ll add some fuel to the fire of the battle for the Wisconsin Republican soul.

I do need to point out an extension that should be made to WPRI’s summary. The fact that there is so much opposition to giving a primary-school education to illegal immigrant children in the face of the lack of any real call to take it away is telling.

November 25, 2007

Best YouTube debate question that won’t be used

by @ 19:33. Filed under Immigration, Politics - National.

Bryan and Michelle teamed up to fire off a killer yes/no question to the Republican candidates in Wednesday’s CNN/YouTube debate…


For those of you that don’t feel like mashing your way to either Hot Air or clicking the video, the question, to all the candidates and intended to be a yes/no question, is, “If you’re elected President, will you support and sign into law Congressman Tom Tancredo’s legislation that bans federal funding for cities and local governments that support or enact illegal alien sancutary policies?”

Since it is extremely unlikely to make the cut because it’s too good a question, I fired off the likely candidates’ responses in the comments section at HA:

Rudi – No, er, yes, er, no. Did I tell you how great New York City was under me?
Mitt – Whatever my position was 2 weeks ago, I reverse it.
Johnnie – Oh, hell no.
The Reverend – Don’t swear, Johnnie-boy. Just do what I would; veto with extreme prejudice.
Fred! – Ummm, yep.
Tanc – That will be Executive Order #1.
Dunc – That will be Executive Order #2, right after I shut off all trade with Red China.
Paul-Nut – But, but, but that’s un-constitutional!

I will once again be live-blogging with CoverItLive’s software. They should have at least one of my requests ready to go by Wednesday (the edit function for the moron running the liveblog). No word yet on whether I will be consuming as much alcohol as I did during the last Dhimm debate.

Revisions/extensions (9:31 pm 11/25/2007) – Don’t know about CNN/YouTube, but I’m not giving Toofers the time of day, especially those that already take full advantage of other opportunities to get their word out. Just as a reminder, the First Amendment is properly applied only to Congress, and the last I checked, I’m not Congress nor any other government employee at any level. Do note the Comments/Trackbacks/Pingbacks section of my General Policies.

October 29, 2007

México Del Norte moment of the day

by @ 16:49. Filed under Business, Immigration.

Lao, the American Expat in SE Asia, recently tried to open up a bank account back in his hometown in Texas. First Bank and Trust East Texas wouldn’t take his United States passport, Social Security card or his birth certificate, so he couldn’t open up an account. The not-funny thing is, if he would have had the easy-to-forge Mexican matricula consular card, he could have opened up an account with them without any problems.

That is seriously, SERIOUSLY fucked up.

October 19, 2007

The Founding Fathers on immigration

by @ 14:52. Filed under History, Immigration.

Guest-blogger extrodinaire see-dubya has a very interesting post over on Malkin’s site on a bill before Congress in 1790 that would have naturalized immigrants after only one year of residency.

I could simply steal see-dub’s material, but instead, I’ll just say go read and be edified.

October 3, 2007

No wonder Craps and Spitzer are competing for the illegal aliens

by @ 21:49. Filed under Elections, Immigration, Politics - National.

(H/T – Asian Badger)

It seems that illegal aliens are counted in the census for the purpose of Representative apportionment. UPI reports on a University of Connecticut study that says that states with fewer invaders, like New York, Illinois and Ohio, are likely to lose House seats to states that have more invaders, like Arizona, Texas and Florida.

September 3, 2007

Mexico is our “friend” part 592

by @ 8:03. Filed under Immigration.

(H/Ts – Allahpundit and Curt/Flopping Aces)

Mexican President Felipe Calderon made a couple of rather startling statements in his State of the Nation address yesterday:

We strongly protest the unilateral measures taken by the U.S. Congress and government that have only persecuted and exacerbated the mistreatment of Mexican undocumented workers. The insensitivity toward those who support the U.S. economy and society has only served as an impetus to reinforce the battle "¦ for their rights….

Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.

I know El Jefe Jorge won’t do it, but it is well past time to militarize the southern border. Indeed, HotAir commenter Pilgrim notes that this likely canceled the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, specifically Article V –

The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously respected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own constitution.

June 28, 2007

Amnesty dead, Volume 2

by @ 11:57. Filed under Immigration, Politics - National.

(Pic courtesy Michelle Malkin, who would look good in that yellow tracksuit, via David Lunde)

I have good news and I have bad news regarding illegal immigration and the integrity of the southern border. The good news is that the amnesty/faux border security/faux anti-illegal-immigration bill failed to get final cloture 46-53 (no, that is not a misprint; 53 voted against allowing the final vote). That means the 12 20 however many million illegal aliens who are here plus however many million that would have snuck across the border between now and the end of the amnesty period and grabbed some forged documentation to claim their ill-gotten amnesty (H/T – Ace) because the detention-and-deportation process would have been shut down won’t get a path to citizenship. That means that a hideously-expensive microscopic “virtual” fence that would be not only easy to avoid, but almost certainly not defended (based on current lack of enforcement encouraged on the southern border) won’t be built. That means that hordes of “guest workers”, which has turned into the bane of Europe (side note, a lot of those Euro-Islamokazis instrumental in the slow-mo Caliphate-ization of Europe grew roots through that program) won’t be invited here to overstay their visas and become illegal again.

The bad news is that we’re back to the status quo; the same almost-complete lack of enforcement of the current immigration laws and borders that led us into this self-made “crisis”. We’re still going to have millions of illegal aliens here, and millions more walking across an invisible border, with an executive branch more interested in persecuting those few border agents who believe there should be a southern border than pursuing those who flaunt said border. The Cheddarsphere’s blogfather, Charlie Sykes, just said on his show that there will be political blowback in the form of the Unfairness Doctrine (side note; the bipartisan members of the federal P-I-G would’ve found another excuse to try to bring it back, and amnesty’s failure will not increase the chances of them being successful). The Cassandra-ish Wall Street Journal thinks that amnesty’s defeat (written yesterday) will make the Republican Party a minority party again (Really? I’ll come back to this one in a while because it does deserve a full-court fisking).

As for me, I’ll take the Hattori Hanzo sword to the neck of this thing and take the tsunami for (hopefully) just another 19 months. The alternative was much worse. Allow me to explain said alternative, especially for the edification of those few of you who thought that the McShame-Swimmer-Bush Amnesty Act was a good idea:
– The immediate loss of somewhere north of 12 million voters for the Republican Party, especially for those that supported amnesty, because they would have seen this as the final betrayal. After the 2008 slaughter, we would re-enter the 1850s politically, when there was no credible challenge to the Democratic Party. Unlike the 1850s, and unlike the late 1970s, I doubt the Dhimms will repeat the mistakes of allowing an opposition party enough air to breathe and get traction.
– Eventual American citizenship given to the 12 million 20 million illegal aliens most of Mexico’s population plus assorted others. For those that think that Republicans can battle for their votes by running on conservative values, guess again. Even the “conservative” party in Mexico advocates a larger role of government, especially federal government, than what currently exists here. That the Mexican government fails to deliver on said pandering is one of the major reasons why they head north, and woe be the party that doesn’t pander.
– The eventual breakup of the Union. The removal of the Southwest from the United States is, after all, the stated goal of La Raza, the major “Hispanic” partner of El Jefe Jorge Bush, Swimmer Kennedy, and the leadership of both parties.

June 21, 2007

Today’s Constitutional lesson

by @ 18:03. Filed under Immigration, Politics - National.

Revisons/extensions (6:10 pm 6/21/2007) – Since I did an unintentional pingback to the full post, I may as well add my two cents. Isn’t Mikey Chertoff one of those that called those of us who oppose the amnesty-first/enforcement-never bill racists? Pot, kettle. Kettle, black. With the introductions done, let’s carry on with the lesson, which should frighten Chertoff, McCain, Bush, Kennedy, Reid, and all the others that support amnesty.

Travis McGee, commenting at Michelle Malkin’s blog, provides it (emphasis in the original):

U.S. Constitution, Article 4 Section 4:"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;"
Invasion: \In*va"sion\, n. [L. invasio: cf. F. invasion. See Invade.] [1913 Webster] 1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.

Protecting the border is part of protecting the States from invasion. Assimilating countless millions who will turn around and attempt to take the Southwest, especially without ensuring that countless millions more with the same goal don’t come here, is not.

Sliding polls, federal style

by @ 0:33. Filed under Immigration, Politics - National.

(H/Ts – Ace for the Zogby Interactive, Jessica for one of the Gallup polls)

Normally, I wouldn’t touch the Zogby Interactive polls with a 2,000-mile pole because it is a flawed sample of self-selected Internet users, but when you see 3% approval of Congress’ handling of immigration “reform” and 9% approval of El Jefe Bush’s handling of it, as well as incredibly-low approval and confidence numbers for Congress (more on that in a bit), it’s news. Of course, you could say that the self-selected group is more-representative of those that care enough to vote, but the limiting factor is the fact that it is an Internet-only service.

The remainder of the poll is quite interesting. McShame-Swimmer-Bush Amesty is supported by only 38% (not surprisingly, mostly by those that see amnesty and “guest”-workers as the most-important elements of immigration “reform”), while 64% want “reform” to be more-restrictive than current law. In the “what first” question, 42% want enforcement of current laws first, 29% want border security first (tied with enforcement at 44% among self-identied Republicans), and 23% want amnesty first (tied with enforcement at 37% among self-identified Democrats). 69% want to compel states and local governments to help enforce the border (I presume this includes no “sanctuary cities”), 37% want mass deportations, and only just one in four (don’t have a specific percentage) favor allowing the illegals to stay if they have jobs and pass background checks.

Now, on to Gallup. Hit number 1 – the 24% approval rating for Congress, the lowest since the lame-duck December 2006 poll (21%) and early October poll (23% and 24%). Of particular note is the 71% disapproval (the only higher number in the past 11 months was that lame-duck December 2006 poll), and the fact that only 29% of Dems and 19% of independents approve of Congress.

Hit number 2 from Gallup – confidence in Congress is at an all-time low (since 1973, at least) at 14% (sum of those that have “a great deal of confidence” or “quite a lot of confidence”. We’ll have more info on this later today (or tomorrow if you’re in or west of the Rockies), but the tidbits are mighty intriguing. That is the lowest of the rankings this year, dropping below HMOs, and slipping to the second-lowest performance in the history of the poll (the record is 13% set by HMOs in 2002). I guess we’re getting more cynical; the top-ranking institution, the military, slipped from 73% last year to 69% this year (which still is higher than any year prior to 2002 except 1991 and 1992).

June 14, 2007

Send the Viking Kitties to the border

by @ 8:31. Filed under Immigration.

Tom McMahon has the killer pic.

June 11, 2007

Monday videos

Video #1 comes to us from Ace. He dug up a clip of Algore Goracle ripping HW Bush for ignoring Saddam Hussein’s extensive terrorist connections and ongoing attempts to get nuclear weapons. Follow-up question for Algore, when did Saddam become an upstanding member of the international community? It certainly wasn’t immediately after the impeachment-delay bombing of 1998.

Video #2 is today’s Vent, in which Michelle Malkin presents the first annual Open Borders Oscar awards.

June 8, 2007

Thank you, Jim DeMint

by @ 8:20. Filed under Immigration, Politics - National.

(H/T – Ace)

John Hawkins at Right Wing News has the story of how the McShame-Swimmer-Bush Amnesty Bill got put out of our misery (I doubt it is out of its misery, however; there’s still a budget to get passed, and it’s not January 2009 yet). Short version – Harry Reid wanted unanimous consent to push through a bunch of pro-amnesty amendments to get past the 2nd failure of cloture, and DeMint refused go give it. Meanwhile, DeMint, Jeff Sessions and Tom Colbrun worked up a few “killer amendments” that the “Masters of the Universe” didn’t want to see the floor. The “Masters”, specifically Reid, didn’t want to have those amendments see the floor so badly that he pulled the plug rather than accept a vote on those amendments.

Bravo Zulo, Demint, Sessions and Colbrun.

June 7, 2007

Guess I’m a popcorn-eating gorilla

by @ 10:07. Filed under Immigration.

If you, unlike The Wall Street Journal‘s idiotorial board, remember 9/11 and the fact that the Islamokazis that almost took them out (their NYC offices are across the street from the World Trade Center site) were illegal aliens, you do not want to miss today’s Vent.

I can just see Michelle quoting Bugs to the Gashouse Gorillas, er, the WSJ idiotorial board, “WHAM! A homer! WHAM! ANOTHER HOMER! WHAM! WHAM! WHAM! WHAM!”, and then backing it up like Bugs.

May 25, 2007

North Korea getting frisky again

(H/T – HAL9000 at Free Republic)

Surprise, surprise, surprise. If it’s the end of May and North Korea isn’t getting their way, it’s time for a missile shoot into the Sea of Japan (note for those confused by the Korean references, they call it the East Sea). Because those missiles were anti-ship missiles, it is speculated that the launches were in retaliation for the launching of South Korea’s first Aegis destroyer. Nonetheless, South Korea (for reasons that are incomprehensible) and Japan (because the missiles were reportedly short-ranged missiles that couldn’t reach Japan) weren’t exactly concerned.

Of particular note are a series of posts at FR between FReepers AmericanInTokyo and expatguy, a couple of Americans on the far side of the Pacific, starting at #10. Just a sampling (this one from #39 by expatguy) –

Had lunch with a Eastern European diplomat today, we were talking about Iraq and the WOT ~ and he said to me ~ “You guys can’t even defend yourselves from being invaded by Mexico … what makes you think you can succeed in Afghanistan or Iraq?”

I highly suggest reading that thread.

Thoughts, AB?

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]