No Runny Eggs

(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.

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!

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.

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

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzTAzEFSpUg[/youtube]

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.

(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).

(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.