The Racist Fence

Last week the President went down to El Paso to talk about Immigration Reform...the Democrat form of Immigration Reform. Pushing the DREAM Act (i.e. amnesty) and whatnot. But he also bragged on a bunch of accomplishments, one of which being the allegedly formidable border fence.

According to the official, placed on the internet, transcript, the President said: "The fence is now basically complete."

Despite the fact that this is patently untrue, the most interesting item is the audience reaction. Lets take a wider look at the transcript....

"Then they wanted a fence. Well, the fence is --

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: The fence is now basically complete.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Tear it down!

THE PRESIDENT: Then we’ve gone further...."

Interesting....the President wants to brag on the fence, but the crowd at his campaign rally speech wants to get rid of it... It makes you wonder if the White House doesn't know its audience, or the comments were intended for other ears, particularly though a stand-alone sound bite on the news.

It also makes you wonder why the White House would leave the audience comments in the transcript. Might they reflect what the White House really feels?

And while we are on the subject of curious transcript inclusions, check out this exchange...

So, here’s the point. I want everybody to listen carefully to this. We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: They’re racist!

THE PRESIDENT: You know, they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. Or now they’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol. Or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. (Laughter.) Maybe they want alligators in the moat. (Laughter.) They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics.

The first salient point (outside of the alligator demagoguery) is the fact that the President didn't object to the characterization that Republicans are racist. I mean, if it was clear enough and important enough to make the official transcript, I am sure the President must have heard it. But he didn't object... And if it was clear enough and important enough to make the official transcript, that tells me that it was an intentional inclusion by the White House communications staff.

Second, this was a speech where the President said "And that’s where you come in. I’m going to do my part to lead a constructive and civil debate on these issues...So I’m asking you to add your voices to this debate...."

Well, his Democratic audience did add their voice to the debate....but it was anything but constructive and civil...

Thoughts on Arizona

First, critics should read the law. The bottom line is that this law does not create new enforcement actions, but only enforces existing Federal immigration laws.

It is amazing how ignorant most criticism is on this issue. It is way out of control. Not that some Republicans have been any better.

If people want to deride this law as 'Nazi' or 'police state' tactics, 'draconian', or surprise surprise, 'racist', then they need to ask themselves, are all immigration laws are racist?

If this law is racist, then so are our existing federal laws. What say you, Mr. President?

Second, some conservatives like the esteemed Hugh Hewitt are worried that this law is problematic for the Right's efforts to win big in this fall's elections. This is a legitimate concern, as the Dems know how to put on a good propaganda show, especially with the media in lock-step.

However, I think things can turn for the better. If the law were to stand, then the propaganda show could proceed apace. However the liberal interest groups will not be able to help themselves, as they trip over one another to get to the courthouse door to get a liberal judge to order and injunction. In doing so, they will shift the focus.

The easiest liberal argument is that Federal laws trump state law on immigration. While this is a valid legal argument, politically it allows conservatives to turn the tables and point out how pourous and ineffective those federals laws actually are.

If the left wants to defeat Arizona by claiming that the Federal Govt trumps states on the issue, then bring it on. Thats isn't a record of achievement I want to run on going into the November elections.

Criminalizing Health Care...again

Why is every time the Dems come forward with their version of great health care, it always involves punitive actions alongside the proposed healing?

This year's entry comes from John Edwards:

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

So I guess the other shoe that has yet to drop is what Edwards' proposal would outline as repercussions for those who chose not to go to the Doctors. Jail? Fines? A stern talking to about personal responsibility?

I think this would be a great subject to discuss in one of the many upcoming 'Townhall' forums that the Dems love to stage. Someone should ask the question, "Mr Edwards, given your position on universal healthcare, would you have the federal government spend more time and effort hunting down American citizens who have not gone to the doctor, or people who have chosen to enter out country illegally?"

Additionally, given the record of socialized medicine "solutions" around the world, exactly how are we going to handle our annual appointments, when it takes 12 months just to the top of the list?

Hat Tip: Ann Althouse & Instapundit

The Gates of Freedom

This past Monday, Hugh Hewitt had Bill Bennett on for an hour of great radio.

But the best part of the time came at the very end (Start at 33:00). In talking about the current immigration debate, Bennett framed the big picture like this:

“It’s a place of dreams…the amazing thing about America is that it is a place where dreams actually do come true….” [Bennett quoting Bernard DeVoto]

I was wandering around the country, I was going to schools teaching. This young woman in California said “You love this country don’t you?” I said “Yeah!” She said “Why?” I said to her “There is a simple test, the ‘Gates Test’. Every country has gates, and here is the test. When they raise the gates, which way do people run? Do they run in or do they run out?”

Every time we raise the gates, people run in. When we don’t raise the gates, people run in, which is what we are talking about today. You have gates, you have fences, and people still run in. Why?

Because it is a place where dreams come true. In the long story of inhumanity and misery, the American achievement is high and it is unique….

I think that many conservatives when making their arguments against this current piece of flawed legislation need to cite the 'Gates Test'. The overriding message should be that while we oppose this political contrivance, but we welcome immigration....legal immigration.

I am for some form of normalization for current illegals, but not amnesty. While immigration should be welcomed, it should not necessarily be convenient. Just because we open the gates, does not mean the trip should not be without consequence to the traveler.

UPDATE: For a much more cogent defense of the mindset for a lot of national security, law & order conservatives on this, read Andy McCarthy's Corner entry: "I don't want to kick the illegals out of the country....the illegals have chosen to be illegal so it's not unfair to make them live with that choice..."

Immigration Background Checks Part II

When I posted 'Background Checks?', I was upset about the requirement for them to be done in 24-hours.

But now I am upset about another facet, which again, makes the provision for Background Checks wholly impotent.

Check out this quote (Hat Tip: Old Soldier):

“We can find no record of having had contact with this individual before or having had him referred to us by another law enforcement agency,” Tim Counts of Immigration and Customs Enforcement told WTMJ.”

So if ICE can't find criminal illegal immigrants via criminal database checks now (because many localities refuse to records one's immigration status), how effective will it be when it has to be done within 24 hours??

Answer: The effectiveness will be zero.

Great....just great.

Immigration Shipwreck

That is what Newt is calling it:

The announcement last week that the White House and a group of senators have reached an agreement on "comprehensive immigration reform" should have the same effect that the word "iceberg" had on the passengers and crew of the Titanic.

This proposed agreement is a disaster of the first order, and it will severely cripple America for the foreseeable future.

Hugh Hewitt has done an exhaustive analysis as well.

There are so many problems with this bill that it should not be introduced in the Senate absent a period of open hearings on it and the solicitation of expert opinion from various analysts across the ideological spectrum.

Read his comments on all 8 sections of the bill...

Background Checks?

Having read nothing else, I believe the "background checks" should be the deal killer.

I see an immediate problem in that I have undergone numerous U.S. Govt required background checks, and they can take months to finalize. I know that it can be even worse for those who have family members who are foreign citizens and live overseas, or have a foreign born spouse. 24 hours is absurd.

Since all of those who will apply for these background checks will be from foreign countries, I can't see how these can really be called "background checks".

Of course this is a throwaway term, in that it sounds safe and reassuring, but is in fact a misrepresentation. I am sure that they in fact will be a cursory look to see if illegal immigrants are in the criminal justice system. If not, "Congratulations!" Of course since most illegals are not in any system (SSA, IRS, etc...), passing these checks will be a breeze.

What a sham....

Immigration Changes

No, not the recent changes (there will be on that once we figure out what is n that 400 page bill), but rather those that have occurred over the last 50 years.

I use Ancestry.com to work on my family history, and they send me regular email updates on their collections. It is only slightly ironic that I got the following email this week, in the midst of the immigration surrender on Capital Hill....



Wow, you mean they used to keep records? Sigh....