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
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.
If only more people could understand what you took just 67 words to explain. Progressivism is a one-way ratchet . . . one turn requires another turn, always in the same direction. The Progressive Playbook works; why would they change their tactics when they yield one victory after another, with no end in sight? Republicans (really, anyone who opposes the Left) will be just as big a racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist menace after this bill passes as before.
Rubio is a man in a hurry and he figures the Progs and their allies in the Incumbency Party will now grant him permission to run a losing campaign against them in 2016. He’s just the latest house (CoC violation) working on the Democrat plantation.
Have you ever had a good response to anything? Carter is right and this is a betrayal. But you have to have a nuanced position to take the wrong side again!
… and no, I do not want to (and will not) get into a back and forth with you.
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. ·6 hours ago
Because McCain/Romney are both in Rubio’s ear advising him, and they got the nomination. I’m sure they told him “the base will be loud and upset, but just ride it out, this will help you in the general election”. ·
You think Romney is pro-Amnesty? Did your thought process, by any chance run “Romney is a moderate” —-> “Moderates are pro-Amnesty” —–> “Romney is pro-Amnesty”?
Seriously, immigration enforcement was one of the primary foci of the 2008 primary, self-deportation one of the primary foci of the 2012 primary, English only education one of his bigger fights as governor, his hostility to amnesty one of his bigger fights with Mike Murphy…. he’s got a long and detailed record on this stuff, and it’s not what you’re suggesting.
I never ask myself if I can trust a personal friend or acquaintance this time. I trust people completely or not at all. When someone violates my trust, they lose my friendship permanently. There is no winning it back. I wasn’t always like this, but fifty-six years on this planet have taught me caution. I’m not willing to play the sucker anymore. Mr. Rubio, please, just go away. Just. Go. Away.
Dave that was a great post. Probably one of the most clear and concise skewerings of the bill I’ve read yet.
You think Romney is pro-Amnesty? Did your thought process, by any chance run “Romney is a moderate” —-> “Moderates are pro-Amnesty” —–> “Romney is pro-Amnesty”?
Seriously, immigration enforcement was one of the primary foci of the 2008 primary, self-deportation one of the primary foci of the 2012 primary, English only education one of his bigger fights as governor, his hostility to amnesty one of his bigger fights with Mike Murphy …
Yes, but didn’t Romney say his most costly campaign mistake was “self-deportation” and not effectively courting Hispanics? My sense is that after he secured the nomination he did exactly what his senior advisor said he would: shook the etch-a-sketch and erased border security & immigration from his playbook. I don’t recall him going after his erstwhile ideological opponent about … well, about much of anything let alone immigration. His shtick seemed to be very narrow: “I’m the better economic manager.” Yes, I’m simplifying. But unfairly so? I’ll defer, since you seem well versed on Romney’s campaign. I’m conveying only impressions … otherwise known as “that which guides the low-information voter.”
Say what you want about Lindsey Graham, he has been consistent on this, even when he is up for reelection.
With Rubio, this is a deal breaker for me. Not because of his position on the issue. But because 1) he held a completely different position when he was trying to get elected, and 2) we are all being lied to and/or treated like idiots.
We know Schumer/Obama would never sign on to any bill that mandated verifiable border control before legalization. For Rubio to sign on to it, to try and sell us this bill of goods, is unforgivable.
When I hear Rubio in ads for that phony conservative front group funded by Mark Zuckerberg, it makes me want to break something (this ad actually says it will “secure the border first”, when the bill does the exact opposite). But it perfectly captures Rubio’s duplicity.
Whenever I see pictures of Schumer smiling at Rubio it reminds me of the car salesman that just sold someone an extra coat of wax.
The Republican Party has no sense of how furious people are out here in the districts with this nonsense, and the House GOP’s talkathon on Obama’s scandals. The only results we’re seeing are bad ones.
The only thing that gives me any comfort is the prospect of feminists and their cohorts waking suddenly to find they are living under Sharia.
How do they co-opt someone like Rubio? And especially, how does Rubio isolate himself so thoroughly from the people who are his natural supporters/constituency (I’m thinking of me, of course) — that he becomes tone-deaf, and can’t hear the tune he is humming?
And yes, Butters, Schumer reminds me exactly of that car salesman, or even more of a particular sleazy character in David Copperfield.
Because McCain/Romney are both in Rubio’s ear advising him, and they got the nomination. I’m sure they told him “the base will be loud and upset, but just ride it out, this will help you in the general election”.
Dave, I like when you get riled up! You let all your writing skills take over and a glorious rant ensues! Great points coherently and orderly expressed. Love it!
“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.”
As seen here in the comments from our “pragmatic” members.
It’s hugely disappointing. I haven’t read through Faust in a very long time. Perhaps it’s time I dust it off.
Thank you, but it’s a shame, isn’t it, when eloquence is linked to blood pressure?
We need to hang one senator every 4 years. Doesn’t matter which one.
How do we not get fooled again? Rubio has shown himself to be a dishonest and disloyal opportunist. Was there something that should have warned us about his real character (other than the Eddie Haskell undertones in his speaking style)?
I’m afraid the Republic is doomed. The proof is in Dave’s post. Every single syllable is true, an that’s just scratching the surface of the massive corruption and incompetence that we’ve allowed our government to slither into.
How many thousands of pages of legislation have been passed into law without ever having been read by a majority of legislators? How many hundreds of thousands of liberty infringing regulations have subsequently been written and enforced by unelected, faceless bureaucrats like the IRS Agents who gleefully strip Americans of their rights? How many of said laws were never implemented with sure knowledge that nothing, and I mean nothing would come of it?
Why don’t we have a border fence? It’s the law. Why aren’t whole cell blocks filled with Senators who consistently fail to pass a budget in accordance with the law of the land?
They laugh at us and spit in our faces and we take it.
Dave,
“Comprehensive Betrayal” says it all.
Regards,
Jim
I’d ask “do they think we’re stupid”, but the answer has been broadcast loud and clear.
It’s past time to show them we’re not stupid.
Dave,
This is a great post. It is amazing to me that you can put out a well-written post with all of your main points supported by detailed evidence with your work schedule.
Dave Carter, doing the job the full-time conservative punditocracy and think-tanks won’t do!
Dave, Tell us how you really feel.
I read a piece at Hot Air today about the protests in Turkey and Brazil. Its subtitle is, “When democracies revolt” in which the author speculates on the reasons for populations to turn on their elected governments.
Personally, I’d edit the title to read, “When democracies are revolting,” for the intentional double entendre.
Yes, but didn’t Romney say his most costly campaign mistake was “self-deportation” and not effectively courting Hispanics? …. I don’t recall him going after his erstwhile ideological opponent about … well, about much of anything let alone immigration. His shtick seemed to be very narrow: “I’m the better economic manager.” Yes, I’m simplifying. But unfairly so? I’ll defer, since you seem well versed on Romney’s campaign. I’m conveying only impressions … otherwise known as “that which guides the low-information voter.” ·
I don’t recall his post-election bemoaning of his language, but his policy prescriptions certainly didn’t change. They stayed on his website to the end and he talked up e-verify and opposition to amnesty in the debates and in interviews.
It is true that the media covered relatively little of Romney’s speeches on SSM, abortion, labor reforms, foreign policy, defense spending increases, energy reforms, and such, but if you wish to be reminded of them, you can rewatch the debates.
Well John, first you get a freight schedule that let’s you drive all night. Then you lose a mud flap on the trailer the next morning, see? That way, while the mud flap is being replaced, you have time to do some research. Then, because you’ve been driving all night, you have the rest of the day to take a short nap and then write. Piece of cake! But the key is the mud flap. If that doesn’t go ppppffffttttttt, then you’ve lost your research time.
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. ·11 hours ago
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?
I must admit, I’m very tempted to buy the latest border security amendment. I know, intellectually, that immigration reform will probably be a disaster for the country; that most likely, no border security will happen, especially not when drafted by people like John McCain.
But the sick little race war the Democrats have created to capture Hispanic voters is really, really damaging 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.
Do the cops harass you if you’re missing a mud flap? The ones here probably would, now that I think about it.
I would, but I’ve decided to take a leaf from the moderate’s playbook. Henceforth, I will be dogmatically and tenaciously timid. And that’s final. Maybe. I think. You’re not angry, are you? I need a pollster.
Do the cops harass you if you’re missing a mud flap? The ones here probably would, now that I think about it. ·5 minutes ago
Oh absolutely. The thing was hanging by a single bolt thanks to the previous driver backing the tires against a curb, which trapped the rubber and tore it. It held on ’till the last second, though, allowing me to get to a repair shop before it gave up the ghost.
I like the way you put this–“a freight schedule that let’s you drive all night . . . ” If you had the character of Tom Sawyer, you could probably convince people it is a privilege to work when the body wants to sleep!
The dependence on a problem arising to allow you time to look into things shows how dependent human affairs are on chance too.