Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Comprehensive Betrayal
Then there’s the old Cajun story about Boudreaux and Thibodeaux driving down the levee one day, drinking beer and telling lies when they rounded a corner and spied a State Police roadblock ahead. Thibodeaux started to panic when Boudreaux counseled, “Quick, finish you beer, den peel off da label and stick it on you forehead.” “Mais you been dropped on you head again?” asked Thibodeaux. “Don’t argue,” said Boudreaux, “just put da patch on your forehead, sit down, shut up, and let me handle it.” When they pulled up to the roadblock, the State Patrolman asked, “You fellas been drinking?” “Mais no sir,” said Boudreaux. “We used to do dat, but now we on da patch!”
In his “intoxignited” condition, perhaps Boudreaux could be forgiven for thinking the patrolman was an idiot, but our politicians are ostensibly a sober bunch and so lack Boudreaux’s excuse, to say nothing of his happy creativity. These unregenerate scoundrels rammed through a hydra-headed monstrosity in Obamacare, a law so odious that it is killing paychecks and health plans before it even reaches full implementation. From Salt Lake City, where Granite County School District spokesman Ben Horsley says they are cutting 1,000 employees down to 29 hours per week in order to avoid $14 million in additional Obamacare costs that they don’t have, to Congressman John Larson, a Connecticut Democrat who helped pass the abomination but now thinks he and his staff should be exempt from it on the grounds that, “Listen, this is simply not fair to these federal employees,” people are trying desperately to escape the politician’s reach.
Now, a case can be made that federal employees, along with every other employee in the country, should be relieved of the preposterous impositions on property, liberty, and health care that this law exacts. Sober-minded observers on the right have been making exactly that case the entire time. But it takes hubris on a scale that would embarrass even George III for a presumably sober and straight-faced Congressman, who voted to impose the madness in the first place, to insist that federal employees ought to be free from the consequences of their exertions. Perhaps next the federal government will start using its taxing authority to harass and punish citizens on the basis of political affiliation, or use the instrumentalities of the state to harass journalists. Oh wait, … The President recently admonished us that:
“If people can’t trust us — to do our jobs — then we are going to have a problem here.”
Newsflash to Captain Obvious: We have a problem. The federal government has lost its collective mind, and I offer as as evidence the very latest monstrosity, euphemistically labeled as a comprehensive immigration bill. Remember when liberal brainiac and constitutional scholar Nancy Pelosi established her constitutional bona fides by saying that we have to pass a law in order to know what’s in it? Her position is now the bipartisan approach currently being applied to immigration legislation, all 1,000 plus pages of which were plopped down yesterday afternoon with a vote scheduled for Monday. Thus does the world’s most deliberative body go into full Chinese fire drill mode.
Foolishness of this order is expected from Democrats, who never met a banana republic tactic that didn’t arouse their imperious approval. But when Republicans, who fashion themselves as knowing better, engage in sleight of hand maneuverings behind closed doors with people who are committed to fundamentally transforming the nation into something unrecognizable, the ensuing circus threatens constitutional order and national sovereignty, resulting in demented language like this, from the much-vaunted Corker Amendment:
(f) APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY.—In determining an alien’s inadmissibility under this section, section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)) shall not apply.
What seems at first glance to be as innocuous as it is incomprehensible to any citizen who has ever read a tax form, was translated by Mike Flynn at Breitbart.com. Succinctly put, that one sentence, with its maze of numbers, letters and legalese, provides workers who remain in the United States beyond the expiration of their work visas a clear path to citizenship. Whereas people who currently break the law in this fashion are required to go back to their home country and restart the immigration process, this provision not only allows those who are currently breaking the law to remain here, placing them on a path to citizenship but, in a practical sense, renders future visa enforcement essentially useless since future violations lead to citizenship as well. If only the 9/11 attackers who, according to ABC News, were here on visas obtained under their actual names, had waited awhile, perhaps they too could have benefited from the Gang of 8’s efforts.
There’s more, of course. From Betsy McCaughey of the Daily Caller, we learn that Section 3401 erases the one-year deadline for asylum applications, while Section 3504 layers another appellate option for those whose asylum applications are denied. I don’t know about you, but I’m relieved that asylum seekers like those who bombed the Boston Marathon, or Mir Aimal Kasi, who shot two CIA agents in Virginia, will have a longer window of time to ply their trade along with an additional layer of appeals in case the government stops spying on American citizens long enough to catch on to their intentions. But this is the sort of idiocy that passes for the “tough enforcement” Marco Rubio assures us will follow if we will all just take Chuck Schumer’s hand and skip down the yellow brick road to national obliteration.
But wait! There’s more! If you’re one of the first 100 idiots to agree to sign on to this madness, you can listen to a recording of Senator Rubio’s promise that for immigrants to qualify for a green card, they, “have to be able to support themselves so they will never become a public charge.” Then you’ll be handed a copy of Section 245C(b) which waives Rubio’s work requirement for those attending school, or getting a GED, or job training, or taking care of a child, or over 60 years of age, or otherwise unemployed through no fault of their own. In short, it will be tougher to find someone who doesn’t qualify for public assistance under this legislation.
Meanwhile, Section 2106 takes the job of guiding immigrants through the legalization process from the Department of Homeland Security and hands it over to community organizers. One such previous recipient of this responsibility, albeit on a smaller scale, is the Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights, whose mission is to, “build power through citizenship drives and voter registration.” Uh huh. Even Ray Charles would be able to see where that initiative is going. Stay tuned for Supreme Court approval.
As for the supposed stiffening of US border security, about which the bill’s advocates boast loudly, Senator Jeff Sessions’ press release from last night confirms that, A) the addition of any new border patrol agents isn’t even required until 2017, and B), the bill gives DHS until 2021 to complete the hiring. Meanwhile, legalization commences almost immediately, while requirements to secure the border will be ignored just as surely as Congress has ignored the same requirements from previous laws.
The time for trusting the political class to do that which current law already requires them to do, but which they refuse to implement, has passed. Likewise, the time for quietly yielding to the admonishments of Republicans who insist that they are on the patch, has long since expired. We who resist these infringements against the rule of law and against the sovereignty of our country are incessantly disparaged as ingrates and xenophobic buffoons, oblivious and dumb to the superiority of the preening asses who deign to instruct us on what it is they think we should want. They must be defeated, along with this bill, after which the border must be secured before any conversation can take please regarding what to do about those who are here by virtue of having broken our laws.
Published in General
That’s true. Our best bet is probably to make a bigger play for the white working class, and bring other races into the fold once their alliance with white liberals collapses (liberals rather like cheap, servile maids and gardeners and the like, and I see no sign they are willing to give that up).
But that means we’ll probably alienate Hispanics (though we might have a shot at blacks) for the next few election cycles. It’s so aggravating. We Republicans are always accused of using race in campaigns, but Democrats use it in governance; how can we compete with that? ·15 minutes ago
At the risk of hovering over the issue from 30,000 ft., I would “make a bigger play” for Founding principles, constitutional government and maximum liberty for all Americans. Surely a few immigrants can understand the differences between our model of governance and that which they escaped, right? This business of going after one slice or another of the citizenry seems too accepting of leftist premises of class, etc. It strikes me as the sort of creepy business that belongs on the left.
But the sick little race war the Democrats have created to capture Hispanic voters is really,reallydamaging the GOP, and I admit, I want it to go away.
Has anyone else felt conflicted on the issue? Our partisan interest and the national interest are conflicting a bit. It’s disconcerting. ·11 minutes ago
One of my concerns is that if this bill becomes law, the ink will hardly be dry before liberals start bemoaning the “second class citizen” status of previously illegal immigrants. Unless Republicans cave to expedited citizenship, they will again be branded as racist, bigoted, xenophobic, …you know the drill. We can’t out-liberal the liberals and, in my opinion, it would be destructive and folly to try.
Dave,
I think this is exactly right. We need to appeal to the common good. My colleague Tom West has a nice formulation for a basic platform: “Equal Rights for All, Special Privileges for None.”
That general idea can be translated into particular policies that respect the rights of all without privileging anyone. The large majority of Americans that oppose measures like affirmative actions (cf. blue states like California and Michigan on this) are evidence to me that a solid majority would respond well to an appeal to the common good based on our founding principles and the limited government which follows from those principles.
At the risk of hovering over the issue from 30,000 ft., I would “make a bigger play” for Founding principles, constitutional government and maximum liberty for all Americans. Surely a few immigrants can understand the differences between our model of governance and that which they escaped, right? This business of going after one slice or another of the citizenry seems too accepting of leftist premises of class, etc. It strikes me as the sort of creepy business that belongs on the left. ·in 0 minutes
Border security will not happen at all in this law. There was talk that part of this would build 700 miles of fence. You know the 700 miles were were supposed to have as a result of the 2006 law. (we got 40 miles). A number of previous enforcement efforts did not happen.
A nice starting point in the Immigration debate would be that they implement all the enforcement that is already in law before doing anything new.
At the risk of hovering over the issue from 30,000 ft., I would “make a bigger play” for Founding principles, constitutional government and maximum liberty for all Americans. Surely a few immigrants can understand the differences between our model of governance and that which they escaped, right? This business of going after one slice or another of the citizenry seems too accepting of leftist premises of class, etc. It strikes me as the sort of creepy business that belongs on the left. ·6 minutes ago
Well. The left is winning. That’s the problem. Besides, it’s not like we have to compromise the Founding principles (other than swapping trade protectionism for immigration protectionism); we do have to stick to them, though, when governing (no more deficits! :P ).
Thanks, John. Now I’m going to go and tear another mud flap. (just kidding!!)
The dependence on a problem arising to allow you time to look into things shows how dependent human affairs are on chance too. ·9 minutes ago
Trade and immigration policy should be decided on the basis of how American citizens, the members of the social compact, are helped or harmed. No one has a right to move to another country and demand citizenship. Consent has to be mutual, and it has to be consistent with the security of rights and overall good of the current citizens.
Well. The left iswinning. That’s the problem. Besides, it’s not like we have to compromise the Founding principles (other than swapping trade protectionism for immigration protectionism); we do have to stick to them, though, when governing (no more deficits! :P ). ·3 minutes ago
At the risk of hovering over the issue from 30,000 ft., I would “make a bigger play” for Founding principles, constitutional government and maximum liberty for all Americans. Surely a few immigrants can understand the differences between our model of governance and that which they escaped, right? This business of going after one slice or another of the citizenry seems too accepting of leftist premises of class, etc. It strikes me as the sort of creepy business that belongs on the left. ·6 minutes ago
Well. The left iswinning. That’s the problem. Besides, it’s not like we have to compromise the Founding principles (other than swapping trade protectionism for immigration protectionism); we do have to stick to them, though, when governing (no more deficits! :P ). ·3 minutes ago
Well, the Democratic Party is, after all, the party of government, which bestows certain advantages. On the other hand, if we jettison leftist premises in favor of ideas as framed by John Grant in #34 above, we have some advantages as well, including the empirical evidence of statism vs. freedom. It isn’t a guaranteed victory, but rather one worth fighting for.
And with that,…duty calls. Somewhere in Phoenix, there is a load of something waiting to be taken someplace else in Los Angeles,..by 1345 tomorrow, and I’m on it like a RINO to a surrender.
Well, the Democratic Party is, after all, the party of government, which bestows certain advantages. On the other hand, if we jettison leftist premises in favor of ideas as framed by John Grant in #34 above, we have some advantages as well, including the empirical evidence of statism vs. freedom. It isn’t a guaranteed victory, but rather one worth fighting for. ·6 minutes ago
I hope you’re right.
The Republican Party doesn’t care what we think. As long as big business is firmly on their side on this, they’re going to just cram it down our throats.
We have a problem. We’re a law abiding people. They know that once it’s law, we’ll protest, but do nothing else. We won’t burn their neighborhoods down. We won’t torch their headquarters. We see this is civility on our part. They see this as weakness. Considering that law abiding protest seems to get us nowhere, and that our enemies (yes, I use that word consciously) are about to use the law itself to reward lawlessness, maybe we are suckers.
. . . but if you wish to be reminded of them, you can rewatch the debates.
Thanks for that kind offer. Fortunately I’ll be too busy with the less displeasing task of hacking off vital parts of my anatomy with a dull, rusty pocket knife. If I have not bled out after two excruciatingly painful hours, I’ll … get right back to the business at hand rather than watch those (CoC violation) debates. I’ll just have to take your word for what they convey. [:-)
Maybe the giveaway was his escape-from-Communist-tyranny family tale, which turned out to be exaggerated. It’s hard to claim you’re escaping Cuban communism when it turns you left before Castro came to power.
lf you are prone to mythmaking, it suggests (a) you’ve got a narcissistic personality disorder; and, (b) someone has figured out what’s true and what’s myth, leaving you vulnerable to manipulation out of fear of being revealed.
“In this country it’s a good thing to kill an admiral now and then to encourage the others.” Voltaire
I’m not so sure. 2016 is still a long way off and Rubio reflects the dominant views of the GOP leadership. Apparently the internal Republican opposition can’t stop a 1200 page, unread fiasco of a bill from getting through the Senate with lots of GOP votes……
There is no senior management above the individual senator. We can tell which the dominant view is amongst Senate Republicans by counting their votes. If you believe that it is more likely than not that a majority of GOP senators will vote for this bill’s cloture, I’d greatly appreciate a wager of three drinks at the next meetup mutually attended.
I agree that 2016 is a long way off. Writing off Rubio now is probably premature (although the error involved in writing off Rubio is trivial compared to the foolishness of writing off the party that controls most governor’s mansions, most state legislatures, a fair chunk of the Senate, and the House, and came close in the last Presidential election).
Mickey Kaus is right (and he’s a Democrat!).
This amendment is a fraud.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/23/one-more-metaphor-for-the-gang-of-8/
The establishment Republicans decided that the lesson of the 2012 election was that it needed to get more Hispanic votes. Therefore they decided they needed to support an immigrant friendly immigration bill.
The quickest way to solve the illegal immigration problem is to go after the employers who hire the illegals, not the illegals themselves. If we tried and imprisoned the CEO of a major construction, meat packing, or fruit growing company for hiring illegals it would end the practice of illegal employment rather quickly.
The problem is that the Republican establishment is captured by big business that wants the flow of cheap labor to continue.
This is the end of Mr Rubio as a Presidential candidate. Maybe also the end of the Republican Party (aka Stupid Party)
……
The problem is that the Republican establishment is captured by big business that wants the flow of cheap labor to continue. ·
Has there been a significant shift since 2006? Upon what do you base your belief that 2012 motivates anyone? I acknowledge that plenty of them might say it does, just as pro-lifers might attribute their belief to Gosnell or gun grabbers to Trayvon, but I don’t get the impression that the pro-Amnesty Republicans (including some who under other circumstances are considered more conservative and less establishment) genuinely feel any differently today than the last time they fought this battle.
The quickest way to solve the illegal immigration problem is to go after the employers who hire the illegals, not the illegals themselves. If we tried and imprisoned the CEO of a major construction, meat packing, or fruit growing company for hiring illegals it would end the practice of illegal employment rather quickly.
A less draconian approach will probably suffice. Congress could mandate E-Verify and then the Feds could start enforcing it. We could give employers a reasonable opportunity to comply, say 12-24 months. The vast majority will comply . . . a few will have to be prosecuted and fined; maybe the willfully non-compliant will earn jail time. But it will be a miniscule percent.
This really isn’t as hard as some would like us to think.
If you believe that it is more likely than not that a majority of GOP senators will vote for this bill’s cloture, I’d greatly appreciate a wager of three drinks at the next meetup mutually attended.
I can’t figure out what that wager amounts to, so how about I buy you a drink and you explain it to me? If after three rounds I still don’t get it, it’s your turn to buy. {:-)
All I was trying to say was this:
If the number of Senators voting for the amnesty bill is 70, which appears the consensus view, and assuming all Dems and the two Indeps vote with the majority, then roughly 35% of Republican Senators will have voted with the majority too. That’s a substantial number and will include some of the longest serving Republicans on the national stage. I wouldn’t write off their ability to get Rubio nominated in 2016. That’s what I was responding to . . . David Williamson‘s comment that Rubio was now out of the hunt for 2016.
Like blacks for Democrats, conservative votes are assumed and need not be fought for in the GOP.
I’m not so sure. 2016 is still a long way off and Rubio reflects the dominant views of the GOP leadership. Apparently the internal Republican opposition can’t stop a 1200 page, unread fiasco of a bill from getting through the Senate with lots of GOP votes. Why are you so sure it can stop the GOP leadership’s Hispanic poster boy from getting the nomination? The Democrats love the GOP’s Prog-Lite candidates ‘cuz they are easy to whip, so they’ll be doing what they can (which is plenty, given their ownership of the MSM) to steer this towards Rubio. I’d say Rubio has a fair chance at it. In the end, Romney and McCain were nominated by the GOP … pretty strong evidence it won’t be Cruz or Paul next time.
If you believe that it is more likely than not that a majority of GOP senators will vote for this bill’s cloture, I’d greatly appreciate a wager of three drinks at the next meetup mutually attended.
I can’t figure out what that wager amounts to, so how about I buy you a drink and you explain it to me? If after three rounds I still don’t get it, it’s your turn to buy. {:-)
All I was trying to say was this:
If the number of Senators voting for the amnesty bill is 70, which appears the consensus view, and assuming all Dems and the two Indeps vote with the majority, then roughly 35% of Republican Senators will have voted with the majority too. ……
I agree that there is a significant body of pro-Amnesty Republicans, in both the political and non-political classes. As I implied to Z, I believe the number will be smaller than in 2006 (when there were 24 GOP votes for Amnesty), and lower than 50%, but 35% seems reasonable.
If views are split 35%/ 65%, the 35% view is not the “dominant view”.
If views are split 35%/ 65%, the 35% view is not the “dominant view”.
Agreed . . . what I said was it’s the dominant view among the GOP leadership. That’s especially clear in the Senate, I think . . . McCain, Graham, etc. The last Republican President was pro Amnesty too, so it seems to be prevalent among the most prominent/powerful national-level Republicans.
If views are split 35%/ 65%, the 35% view is not the “dominant view”.
Agreed . . . what I said was it’s the dominant view among the GOP leadership. That’s especially clear in the Senate, I think . . . McCain, Graham, etc. The last Republican President was pro Amnesty too, so it seems to be prevalent among the most prominent/powerful national-level Republicans. ·51 minutes ago
The six Senators in the GOP leadership include McConnell who voted yes in 2006, and Johns Thune and Cornyn who both voted no in 2006.
The others arrived since, but Jerry Moran has promised to oppose it. I don’t know John Barrosso’s opinion or Roy Blunt’s. Last time, both Wyoming Senators voted against, and Blunt has a pretty good pro-enforcement record, but I don’t see a commitment on this bill from either yet.
At a minimum, the Senate GOP leadership seems evenly split rather than having a dominant pro-amnesty opinion, and it seems likely that it will oppose it.
James – We really are quibbling over who is a leader and who isn’t I think. So fine, let’s say the statistics prove your point. The larger point is more important. The Gang of 8 is really two Gangs of 4. Senate Republicans–whether “leaders” or not–are the authors of this fiasco, to the Dems’ delight. Had those Republicans not joined in with the Dems in authoring and promoting an amnesty bill that once again has hollow border security provisions, the Dems would be the sound of one hand clapping on “comprehensive immigration reform.” As they did when holding the White House and the Senate, the Stupid Party manages to be putty in Democrats’ malevolent hands. The Republicans are simply pathetic when it comes to sustained political combat at the Federal level.
The GOP Senate leadership is a defined term, with official positions (minority leader, chairman of the SRC, whip, etc.). If you say that you didn’t mean that and move into being purely subjective, and hold further that, eg., Jeff Flake (gang of eight) is in the leadership because… what? while Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions are not, then of course you can get to the leadership being dominantly in the dominated position. I don’t think you can get to pro-amnesty senate leadership domination without meaningless /tautologous definitions.
And, yes, it would be easier to win elections if we all believed in the same policies.
…..Other than that, I’m afraid you appear to have missed the point amidst all that circuitous talk about dominantly dominant domination. Here it is: It would be easier forRepublicans to win Presidential elections if they stood for something more than: “What the other guy said only slightly different in a skillfully nuanced sort of way, which ensures my Plantation owner doesn’t exclude me from his trendy soirees and Sunday talk shows,….. ensuring my Master doesn’t get mad over possibly losing his position as lord of the serfs and peons.” ·
In case it’s unclear; I’m pro-enforcement, anti-amnesty, and not just because amnesty (DACA) is hitting me, personally, extremely hard.
That said, there are tons of issues on which there are very clear partisan divides. There are some that don’t have that; trade, for instance has a Republican bent in much the same way as amnesty has a Democrat bent. Pro-trade Democrats seem to do pretty well at the polls, though. It is neither electorally nor substantively always better to disagree with what the opposition party believes, and some opposing beliefs are genuine, rather than corrupt.
And, yes, it would be easier to win elections if we all believed in the same policies.
You have convinced me: The stupidity of Republicans isnot confined to the leadership, as I might have surmised. It’s actually spread like peanut butter, nice and even right across the whole slice of bread.
Other than that, I’m afraid you appear to have missed the point amidst all that circuitous talk about dominantly dominant domination. Here it is: It would be easier forRepublicans to win Presidential elections if they stood for something more than: “What the other guy said only slightly different in a skillfully nuanced sort of way, which ensures my Plantation owner doesn’t exclude me from his trendy soirees and Sunday talk shows, but not different enough to amount to any actual difference in terms of outcome—thereby ensuring my Master doesn’t get mad over possibly losing his position as lord of the serfs and peons.”