No Runny Eggs

(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.

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:

(more…)

(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.

Pages: 1 2

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

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.

(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).

Tom McMahon has the killer pic.

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.

(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.

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.

(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?

Now that Jorge Bush (the last President of the USA) got a party in Congress that he can really deal with, he’s reached a bipartisan deal to surrender the United States of America to the DhimmiRATs and Mexicans by granting citizenship to every illegal alien within 13 years. Brush up on your Spanish, folks; it will be one of the two official languages of Caliphate Mexicano Del Norte, along with Arabic.

The Washington Times reports on a secret protocol Jefes Bush and Fox negotiated in 2004 to allow Mexicans who worked in the US illegally and get amnesty to collect Social Security for the time they worked here illegally. Though the totalization agreement that this is part of hasn’t been submitted to Congress, once it is, Congress has to reject it within 60 days or it becomes law.

So, what’s wrong with this? Actually, it’s two things. First, the illegals were not working here legally, and in most cases, it cannot be proven how much they earned. Why in the hell do they deserve Social Security benefits when there isn’t going to be enough to pay those under 35 the way it is?

Second, this sure sounds like a treaty to me. Last time I checked, treaties needed a 2/3rds concurrance of the Senate.

I guess we now know without a doubt which party Jefe Bush was rooting for this past November.

Cybercast News Service is running with a story about Texas border-county sheriffs finding evidence of Arabs and Iranians swimming the Rio Grande, often with the help of drug cartels and the Mexican Army.

Guess it’s time to renew my call to militarize the border, with shoot-to-kill orders given to the troops. If the Mexicans have a problem with that, roll south and remind them exactly what happened 160 or so years ago.

I’m sure you’ve all heard by now that the Senate passed their version of the immigration “reform” bill 62-36. One of the public parts of the bill, which (thankfully) still has to go through a conference committee with Jim Sensenbrenner, would authorize construction of 370 miles of fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers.

However, Michelle Malkin has the details on how that means nothing. It seems that Arlen Specter (tell me again why the RNC and President Bush supported him in the 2004 primary) snuck in a provision that Mexico be consulted before any new barriers are built.

As for the rest of the trash that the Senate passed, let’s see:

• Guest-worker program - 200,000 per year with an initial 3-year visa. That visa can be renewed once, and once that “guest” is here for 4 years, they leap to the head of the citizenship line.
• Amnesty for the invaders already here -
  • Those here 5 or more years as well as those working on farms for at least 863 hours in 2004-2005 (or willing and able to lie) leap to the head of the citizenship line without going back to where they came from and become citizens in 6 years after paying a modest fine
  • Those here between 2 and 5 years (or those not willing and able to lie enough to qualify for the 5-year rule) get citizenship 13 or so years after sneaking out across the border and coming back through a port of entry.
  • Those here less than 2 years, not working on a farm, and too stupid/lazy to lie allegedly get deported.

All in all, if anything resembling this makes it out of conference committee, it’s over.

I’ve heard the arguments from conservatives in favor of giving amnesty and citizenship to illegal aliens that if we throw the 12 million illegal aliens out of our country (namely, the 7 million Mexican invaders), that Mexico will go Communist like Venezuela. If that’s true, what makes them think that if we give them amnesty and citizenship like El Presidente Vicente Bush and the ‘Rats on both sides of the Senate aisle want, they won’t do the same here?

First, she serves up the item that the INS will not go after one J. Carmen Navarette (the brother of the illegal alien who did a couple “jobs” Americans wouldn’t by robbing a bank and shooting it out with Waukesha police), despite the fact he admitted to the press he’s here illegally, sought to acquire his brother’s liquor license, and is in the phone book because they “can’t” identify him, he didn’t appear to break further laws, and he “might” have moved on. What makes me think the INS won’t start enforcing deportation laws against illegal aliens when the number temporarily drops to nearly zero after we give most of the 12 million amnesty-”lite”?

Next, she exploded the “didn’t appear to break further laws”, finding out that J. Carmen Navarette appeared to break state of Wisconsin tax laws. Why am I not surprised, and why won’t I be surprised when the INS continues to refuse to try to deport Navarette?

Finally, she questions whether those pushing for amnesty-”lite” will start pushing for deportations when the predictable happens, and many of those 12 million they want to give amnesty to refuse to follow those rules, with some claiming poverty and others simply staying underground. My prediction - this becomes amnesty-”heavy”, with all the hoops removed.

…then what should we have done when 9 million Southerners out of 31 million Americans (both numbers including slaves) revolted over the election of Abraham Lincoln, and they mustered up over 1 million under arms (compared to 2.2 million Union soldiers)? Surely the US couldn’t muster up the spine, much less the ability, to defeat the separatists, could they?

Of course, Abraham Lincoln didn’t listen to the nay-sayers, and despite a very heavy toll, the Union prevailed in the Civil War.

And that’s exactly the path that President Bush’s prime-time speech on illegal aliens took. Liberals are whacking at the plan to tighten the border, especially the part about using the Guard temporarily; while conservatives hate just about everything else. Let’s review the “high” points:

• Moderately-increased enforcement of the border - It truly is only moderate, even though we’ll start out with a temporary non-combat/border enforcement deployment of National Guard troops. We’ll have more than double the number of Border Patrol agents we had at the start of 2001, but 18,000 agents for 2,000 miles of border isn’t enough. As for not “militarizing” the border, when the Mexican Army is taking potshots at both civilians and Border Patrol agents, maybe it’s time to “militarize”, complete with shoot-to-kill orders.
• Increased enforcement against companies who hire illegal workers, along with “tamper-proof” ID cards for legal aliens - Good idea, even though most of those employers still won’t be able to tell the difference between a legitimate card and a forged one. Something’s missing; requiring state and local governments to sift through those they come in contact with to determine who is and isn’t here legally.
• A “guest-worker” program - Well, we’ve seen just how successful that’s been in France. Sure, they might be “required” to go home after their two years, but between a continued “anchor baby” policy and a complete lack of enforcement of current laws, something tells me they won’t go home after their two years.

  Added to that, the economics just don’t support this. The whole reason why some employers are willing to hire illegal aliens at “sub-standard” wages (whether those wages are below minimum wage or not), and why illegal aliens are willing to work for those “sub-standard” wages is because they don’t have to pay taxes on those wages. If we make every worker “legal”, those taxes will be there on both sides, eliminating the competitive advantage illegal aliens have. Further, paying those taxes would necessarily reduce the main legitimate reason why aliens come here; to earn enough to send back home to the family.

• Semi-amnesty for the 12 million illegal aliens already here - Don’t mistake my use of the accurate term for complete opposition to this, but not sending them back to their countries of origin to begin their legal immigration is a form of amnesty. President Bush would, however, not make citizenship automatic, would first make them pay some sort of penalty taxes, and would send them to the back of the line of the path to citizenship. That is far preferable to what the Senate wants to do, a full, blanket and, for many, immediate amnesty for almost all the aliens.