Indigenous Xicano”s “The Law is the Law” is a generally moderate and well-written post that is worth thoughtful consideration.
He writes “The law is the law. So let us treat everyone the same. Show empathy for first-time offenders. Offer an avenue of forgiveness as we do to those who break the law and never get in trouble again. Allow good hard working people a chance to pay a price for their crime of illegal entry...”
Unfortunately he glibly dismisses phrases like, “… ‘the law is the law’ and, ‘no nation can exist without laws’ by declaring them to be meaningless in any intelligent conversation. Without those introductory remarks his post would have been more effective. His cavalier dismissal of such important concepts lost some potential readers immediately.
He goes on to explain the first “meaningless” phrase by giving its real meaning as
“…it is against the law to enter, reside, and work in the U.S.” if you have not followed the proper procedures and obtained the proper documents." There is nothing meaningless about that. He adds that the law requires that "...workers who are here illegally should be deported." Again there is nothing meaningless about that aspect of the law if one believes in national sovereignty and secure borders.
Xicano agrees that “…no nation can exist without laws”, the very foundation of civilized society. But his argument breaks down when he then suggests that this does not include any laws with which he disagrees or which in his personal judgment are not working. He does not indicate who appointed him as the final arbiter of which laws are not working and which are simply not being enforced by the current Administration for political reasons.
Xicano does admit that some laws are needed and good, for example, those that proscribe murder as a solution to societal problems. However, he doesn’t address the fact that those laws do not prevent murder and many go unsolved and unpunished. Yet, he uses that very argument against immigration laws. The only difference is the immigration laws have rarely been properly and vigorously enforced. When they were, the result was astonishingly effective. If it was easy to impeach Administration officials for their failures in that regard, the problem would be quickly solved and the argument against those laws would fall on deaf ears.
We can concede that no laws are perfect in their conception and execution. However, we cannot agree that the “…presence and functionality of illegal immigration suggest that the current laws do not work.” While they are far from adequate for the 21st century, no judgment can be made about their effectiveness because they have not been continuously and vigorously enforced in a consistent way that would enable such an assessment. Xicano seems to suggest that if laws are not working because of their imperfections or a lack of enforcement, we should simply sweep the problem under the carpet by changing the law to absolve those who have violated the law. Such an approach would truly undermine the rule of law and encourage people to follow only those laws that serve their purposes and that are consistent with their risk tolerance.
Citing the Michael Vick example of forgiveness and another chance, Xicano tries to convince us that we should extend the same opportunity to non-citizens. He fails to mention that Michael Vick did a significant amount of prison time and that he can no longer even own a dog. First time immigration offenders are usually given a second chance. They generally can self-deport without any other consequences unless they have committed a felony in which case they may have to serve time like Michael Vick did before they are free to return to their homelands. In other words, we do allow good hard-working people a chance to pay for their crime of illegal entry by correcting their previous transgressions and returning to their homelands until they can return legally. Self-deportation is a huge loophole in the law because those who self-deport can and do return without being considered felons subject to mandatory removal.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Congressmen call on Dee Perez-Scott to change her tune
Appearing on the NBC's "Meet the Press," Schumer and Coburn called for political debate based on issues and ideology, rather than motives and personal attacks.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Obama Sends a Message to Dee Perez-Scott
...calling on the country on Wednesday night to start "talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds." Obama decried "politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away with the next news cycle," saying "only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation.If this tragedy prompts reflection and debate — as it should — let's make sure it's worthy of those we have lost. Let's make sure it's not on the usual plane of politics and point-scoring and pettiness that drifts away in the next news cycle.
The loss of these wonderful people should make every one of us strive to be better. To be better in our private lives, to be better friends and neighbors and coworkers and parents. And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse [on our blogs], let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy — it did not — but rather because only a more civil [a discourse that abhors the misuse of epithets like racist, hate-monger, bigot, nativist, xenophobe,etc.] and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud [and in a way that insults and name-calling will not].We should be civil because we want to live up to the example of public servants like John Roll and Gabby Giffords, who knew first and foremost that we are all Americans, and that we can question each other's ideas without questioning each other's love of country and that our task, working together, is to constantly widen the circle of our concern so that we bequeath the American Dream to future generations.
They believed — they believed, and I believe that we can be better. Those who died here, those who saved life here — they help me believe. We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another, that's entirely up to us.
And I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us [although some seem to have a shortage of decency and goodness when it comes to giving priority to the needs and wishes of their fellow citizens]."
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Dee Perez-Scott Recommends
Tone Down the Rhetoric! Stop the Violence! Stop the Hate!
Dee Perez-Scott provides the above advice on her blog but she has ignored those good ideas for so long that one has to doubt her sincerity and willingness to do her part by stopping the inflamatory name-calling and frequent inappropriate use of the word "hate" for everything she disagrees with.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
The Gifford Shooting - Dee Perez-Scott, Radical
Dee takes advantage of the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford of Arizona to point the finger at the Right while refusing to admit that the harsh rhetoric she uses on her blog also contributes to an atmosphere that may prompt the unhinged to take matters into their own hands.
The ABC TV show "This Week", if it made any point about the shooting, it was that the rhetoric needs to be toned down and the discourse needs to be more civil. Dee has lost sight of the civil discussion part of the her blog's mission. She misinterprets the issues and inflames the public and her readers with her name-calling and unbalanced blogs. She continues to distort everything said by the Center and the Right to fit her disloyal ethnocentric agenda. She is an American in name only. Her actions and her rhetoric say otherwise. She talks and writes like a radical Mexican national. If we really recognized that we are in an immigration war and a war on terror and applied all the rules of war, she would be in a detention camp somewhere along with other overt disloyalists.
Speaking of those who are unhinged, one could easily apply that term to Dee since she is unable to see any viewpoint other than her own. This lack of balance, empathy and understanding of the opposition's point of view is ample evidence that she is unbalanced or close to being unhinged like the shooter in Arizona. What will she do next?
The ABC TV show "This Week", if it made any point about the shooting, it was that the rhetoric needs to be toned down and the discourse needs to be more civil. Dee has lost sight of the civil discussion part of the her blog's mission. She misinterprets the issues and inflames the public and her readers with her name-calling and unbalanced blogs. She continues to distort everything said by the Center and the Right to fit her disloyal ethnocentric agenda. She is an American in name only. Her actions and her rhetoric say otherwise. She talks and writes like a radical Mexican national. If we really recognized that we are in an immigration war and a war on terror and applied all the rules of war, she would be in a detention camp somewhere along with other overt disloyalists.
Speaking of those who are unhinged, one could easily apply that term to Dee since she is unable to see any viewpoint other than her own. This lack of balance, empathy and understanding of the opposition's point of view is ample evidence that she is unbalanced or close to being unhinged like the shooter in Arizona. What will she do next?
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Dee Perez-Scott -- Unbalanced
In another of her incredible displays of obtuseness and perversity, Dee Perez-Scott characterized as a “TEA Party Conspiracy” the reading of the Constitution in which both parties participated on the floor of the House of Representatives. She went on to suggest that this reading meant that those involved were sending the message that they would abide by only the Amendments they like. This statement is so absurd that it hardly warrants comment. Yet, this nonsense cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.
The genesis of her distortions seems to be her inability to differentiate between abiding by the Constitution and seeking to change it or its interpretation. This is indeed strange since she knows full well that the Constitution has been amended 27 times, presumably while the majority of the people were abiding by its original provisions. This was accomplished by the Congress with the concurrence of three-fourths of the States in accordance with the requirements laid out in the Constitution. In spite of these facts, Dee equates any new desire to amend or reinterpret the Constitution or any of the 27 Amendments to be equivalent to an intention to no longer abide by some or all of their provisions.
Usually the only way to correct a defective amendment is with another amendment to the U.S Constitution. However, another way the Constitution's meaning is changed is often referred to as "informal amendment." This phrase is a misnomer, because there is no way to informally amend the Constitution, only the formal way. However, the meaning of the Constitution, or the interpretation, can change over time.
There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to moneyed land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution; because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are fundamental to our political system.
The second major way the meaning of the Constitution changes is through the judiciary. As the ultimate arbiter of how the Constitution is interpreted, the judiciary wields more actual power than the Constitution alludes to. For example, before the Privacy Cases, it was perfectly constitutional for a state to forbid married couples from using contraception; for a state to forbid blacks and whites to marry; and to abolish abortion. Because of judicial changes in the interpretation of the Constitution, the nation's outlook on these issues changed.
In neither of these cases was the Constitution changed. Rather, the way we looked at the Constitution changed, and these changes had a far-reaching effect. These changes in meaning are significant because they can happen by a simple judge's ruling and they are not a part of the Constitution and so they can be changed later.
Dee went on to say, “And I did NOT even mention the 14th Amendment! They read the Constitution on the floor DEMANDING everyone ABIDE by the Constitution -- This while racist/extremist Rep Steve King proposes to Change the 14th Amendment - Birthright Citizenship!” But yet she just did. A more rational person would have seen this as an opportunity to present a reasoned argument against any change in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Instead she resorted to name-calling and personal attacks on a duly-elected representative of the people of Rep. King’s district.
Given the dramatic change in circumstances in the U.S. since the 14th Amendment was approved and since the seminal case of Wong Kim Ark was decided, noting that the latter did not address the question of the children of illegal aliens and tourists, it is entirely reasonable to present those circumstances for review by the Supreme Court. Given the flood of illegal aliens into the U.S., some of whom would do us grave harm,and the drive-by babies of tourists, the time has arrived for an appropriate review of the applicability of the 14th Amendment to the children of illegal aliens and tourists.
No tirades of the unbalanced should deter the Congress from allowing the Court to perform this review.
The genesis of her distortions seems to be her inability to differentiate between abiding by the Constitution and seeking to change it or its interpretation. This is indeed strange since she knows full well that the Constitution has been amended 27 times, presumably while the majority of the people were abiding by its original provisions. This was accomplished by the Congress with the concurrence of three-fourths of the States in accordance with the requirements laid out in the Constitution. In spite of these facts, Dee equates any new desire to amend or reinterpret the Constitution or any of the 27 Amendments to be equivalent to an intention to no longer abide by some or all of their provisions.
Usually the only way to correct a defective amendment is with another amendment to the U.S Constitution. However, another way the Constitution's meaning is changed is often referred to as "informal amendment." This phrase is a misnomer, because there is no way to informally amend the Constitution, only the formal way. However, the meaning of the Constitution, or the interpretation, can change over time.
There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to moneyed land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution; because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are fundamental to our political system.
The second major way the meaning of the Constitution changes is through the judiciary. As the ultimate arbiter of how the Constitution is interpreted, the judiciary wields more actual power than the Constitution alludes to. For example, before the Privacy Cases, it was perfectly constitutional for a state to forbid married couples from using contraception; for a state to forbid blacks and whites to marry; and to abolish abortion. Because of judicial changes in the interpretation of the Constitution, the nation's outlook on these issues changed.
In neither of these cases was the Constitution changed. Rather, the way we looked at the Constitution changed, and these changes had a far-reaching effect. These changes in meaning are significant because they can happen by a simple judge's ruling and they are not a part of the Constitution and so they can be changed later.
Dee went on to say, “And I did NOT even mention the 14th Amendment! They read the Constitution on the floor DEMANDING everyone ABIDE by the Constitution -- This while racist/extremist Rep Steve King proposes to Change the 14th Amendment - Birthright Citizenship!” But yet she just did. A more rational person would have seen this as an opportunity to present a reasoned argument against any change in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Instead she resorted to name-calling and personal attacks on a duly-elected representative of the people of Rep. King’s district.
Given the dramatic change in circumstances in the U.S. since the 14th Amendment was approved and since the seminal case of Wong Kim Ark was decided, noting that the latter did not address the question of the children of illegal aliens and tourists, it is entirely reasonable to present those circumstances for review by the Supreme Court. Given the flood of illegal aliens into the U.S., some of whom would do us grave harm,and the drive-by babies of tourists, the time has arrived for an appropriate review of the applicability of the 14th Amendment to the children of illegal aliens and tourists.
No tirades of the unbalanced should deter the Congress from allowing the Court to perform this review.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Compassion and Generosity for Americans
In the in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries America welcomed many European immigrants who spoke little or no English. Many of them got jobs that have lost their appeal since that time. Can you imagine spending eight hours a day or longer splitting beef or pork carcasses with what looked like a huge long-handled cleaver or be-heading ax? I suppose that if those jobs hadn't gone to immigrants, they would have gone to Americans. And Americans were usually given first dibs because they spoke English. However, if, because of a labor shortage, the jobs could not be filled with citizens, the immigrants were put to work. If there was a recession or “panic” as they were sometimes called, immigrants found it tough- going. Some returned to their homelands because they concluded they wouldn’t be any worse off there than they were in America without work.
Given our immigrant back ground, some think it's hypocritical of us to close the doors behind us (unless you're a pure Navajo), yet there's a genuine problem with the impact of immigration on the poorest Americans. Moreover, America today is hardly the same as it was in those earlier centuries. In the earliest days, a largely unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers. Native Americans might disagree with that but it is true in comparison with today’s population of 308 million. Natural resources like fish, game, timber, water, minerals and arable land seemed limitless. Now we know they are not. The amount of arable land is declining as developers and others cover it with concrete for highways, streets and condominiums. Water in the Southwest is a critical resource as water rights continue to be bought up by cities to serve their burgeoning populations, leaving the farm and ranch land unproductive for lack of water.
True immigration reform must be based on the current population, physical and resource status of America, and not some romantic notion about the days when we were indeed a nation of immigrants. We must think in terms of what immigration and tax policies will best preserve our quality of life and our standard of living. Neither a respect for our immigrant past nor compassion for all the impoverished millions of the world should be the guiding principle for immigration reform.
I used to favor a program to allow in guest workers and temporary migrant farm workers, thinking it would be good for them and also great for America by providing a source of low-cost labor. But we are no longer living in the 18th, 19th or 20th centuries. It was good for America to admit our own ancestors when times were different but immigration policies require a proper consideration of the economic, natural resource, and population environment of today rather than living in the past and extending compassion to others at the expense of our own citizens.
Illegal aliens overwhelmingly are hard-working people who help to keep the economy humming, but sometimes just establish businesses to serve others like themselves and while competing directly with citizen owned and operated businesses. The most important fact, however, is that they are here illegally. They deserve to be treated just like other lawbreakers, as human beings but who have violated the rules. If they are living a marginalized life in the shadows, they have no one to blame but themselves. It represents the minimum punishment for their transgressions. What they really deserve is systematic identification, apprehension, detention and expeditious, involuntary repatriation. Even those who choose to self-deport must be categorized as involuntary removals so that if they return they will be considered felons and repeat offenders.
This may seem unduly harsh to some, especially those who think the basis for such a policy is merely xenophobic resentment rather than the other far more important factors. Xenophobia, racism, nativism, and bigotry all pale in significance in relation to our finite natural resources, the supremely important quality of life and standard of living considerations, and the rule of law. We have already seen what the erosion of the concept of the rule law produces in the lawlessness, murder and mayhem endemic in Northern Mexico and the border areas of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas
The impulse behind immigration reforms should not be a misguided generosity or compassion. The cold reality is that admitting poor immigrants often means hurting poor Americans. We can salve the pain with job programs for displaced Americans, but the fundamental trade-off is unavoidable. But that is not the only outcome. Ordinary Americans who are not so poor are also hurt by a population out of control driven largely by excessive legal immigration and the flood of illegal aliens from south of the border. And American is hurt by an immigration program that is structured so as to bring in cheap laborers more than brilliant minds. At last count, only 16 percent of admissions for permanent residence went to those with employment qualifications, while the great majority went to applicants on the basis of family ties. Giving priority to chain immigrations is just another example of a poor immigration policy. There is no reason to give favorable immigration treatment to adult relatives of citizens or permanent residents. They should be required to compete on a level playing field with all other adult applicants.
Given the paucity of engineering and science terminal degrees earned by citizen students, we must extend accelerated citizenship to foreign students who complete the PhD in engineering, physical science, medicine and mathematics. This the only way we can remain competitive in the global economy. That approach should be supplemented with a major new scholarship program for those Americans who have the capability and desire to succeed that the PhD level in those fields. We have more than enough lawyers and social studies professors so they would not be eligible for such scholarships.
Extensively modified and adapted from Nicholas Kristof, April 9, 2006, NYT
Given our immigrant back ground, some think it's hypocritical of us to close the doors behind us (unless you're a pure Navajo), yet there's a genuine problem with the impact of immigration on the poorest Americans. Moreover, America today is hardly the same as it was in those earlier centuries. In the earliest days, a largely unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers. Native Americans might disagree with that but it is true in comparison with today’s population of 308 million. Natural resources like fish, game, timber, water, minerals and arable land seemed limitless. Now we know they are not. The amount of arable land is declining as developers and others cover it with concrete for highways, streets and condominiums. Water in the Southwest is a critical resource as water rights continue to be bought up by cities to serve their burgeoning populations, leaving the farm and ranch land unproductive for lack of water.
True immigration reform must be based on the current population, physical and resource status of America, and not some romantic notion about the days when we were indeed a nation of immigrants. We must think in terms of what immigration and tax policies will best preserve our quality of life and our standard of living. Neither a respect for our immigrant past nor compassion for all the impoverished millions of the world should be the guiding principle for immigration reform.
I used to favor a program to allow in guest workers and temporary migrant farm workers, thinking it would be good for them and also great for America by providing a source of low-cost labor. But we are no longer living in the 18th, 19th or 20th centuries. It was good for America to admit our own ancestors when times were different but immigration policies require a proper consideration of the economic, natural resource, and population environment of today rather than living in the past and extending compassion to others at the expense of our own citizens.
Illegal aliens overwhelmingly are hard-working people who help to keep the economy humming, but sometimes just establish businesses to serve others like themselves and while competing directly with citizen owned and operated businesses. The most important fact, however, is that they are here illegally. They deserve to be treated just like other lawbreakers, as human beings but who have violated the rules. If they are living a marginalized life in the shadows, they have no one to blame but themselves. It represents the minimum punishment for their transgressions. What they really deserve is systematic identification, apprehension, detention and expeditious, involuntary repatriation. Even those who choose to self-deport must be categorized as involuntary removals so that if they return they will be considered felons and repeat offenders.
This may seem unduly harsh to some, especially those who think the basis for such a policy is merely xenophobic resentment rather than the other far more important factors. Xenophobia, racism, nativism, and bigotry all pale in significance in relation to our finite natural resources, the supremely important quality of life and standard of living considerations, and the rule of law. We have already seen what the erosion of the concept of the rule law produces in the lawlessness, murder and mayhem endemic in Northern Mexico and the border areas of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas
The impulse behind immigration reforms should not be a misguided generosity or compassion. The cold reality is that admitting poor immigrants often means hurting poor Americans. We can salve the pain with job programs for displaced Americans, but the fundamental trade-off is unavoidable. But that is not the only outcome. Ordinary Americans who are not so poor are also hurt by a population out of control driven largely by excessive legal immigration and the flood of illegal aliens from south of the border. And American is hurt by an immigration program that is structured so as to bring in cheap laborers more than brilliant minds. At last count, only 16 percent of admissions for permanent residence went to those with employment qualifications, while the great majority went to applicants on the basis of family ties. Giving priority to chain immigrations is just another example of a poor immigration policy. There is no reason to give favorable immigration treatment to adult relatives of citizens or permanent residents. They should be required to compete on a level playing field with all other adult applicants.
Given the paucity of engineering and science terminal degrees earned by citizen students, we must extend accelerated citizenship to foreign students who complete the PhD in engineering, physical science, medicine and mathematics. This the only way we can remain competitive in the global economy. That approach should be supplemented with a major new scholarship program for those Americans who have the capability and desire to succeed that the PhD level in those fields. We have more than enough lawyers and social studies professors so they would not be eligible for such scholarships.
Extensively modified and adapted from Nicholas Kristof, April 9, 2006, NYT
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Criminals Take Over in Ajo to Casa Grande
Subject: INVASION FROM MEXICO INTO AZ, including Indian Reservation.
"I've worked this area while detailed to the Ajo and Casa Grande BP stations. It is a literal no-mans land. The smugglers had already taken over much of the area back in 2006 and 2007. Today it is more dangerous and we have literally ceded much of the area to the criminals that run through these places everyday.
I've seen the panties on the trees. Encountered a mother who left her baby in a tree so the wolves wouldn't dig it up. (It was being feasted on by vultures instead.) This will not be solved by Napolitano, Holder, et al. They continue to live in the fantasy land that "the border is safer than ever" and will continue to do so. This idea of citizens taking charge of the situation scares the Government to death and fully embodies the spirit of the Second Amendment.
I'm so sick of the shallow thinking on this issue by our elected leaders it makes my head ache to talk to anyone about it. Law and order. Our foundation. Something we better come to understand in this country and re-embrace very soon."
Read the whole article here
"I've worked this area while detailed to the Ajo and Casa Grande BP stations. It is a literal no-mans land. The smugglers had already taken over much of the area back in 2006 and 2007. Today it is more dangerous and we have literally ceded much of the area to the criminals that run through these places everyday.
I've seen the panties on the trees. Encountered a mother who left her baby in a tree so the wolves wouldn't dig it up. (It was being feasted on by vultures instead.) This will not be solved by Napolitano, Holder, et al. They continue to live in the fantasy land that "the border is safer than ever" and will continue to do so. This idea of citizens taking charge of the situation scares the Government to death and fully embodies the spirit of the Second Amendment.
I'm so sick of the shallow thinking on this issue by our elected leaders it makes my head ache to talk to anyone about it. Law and order. Our foundation. Something we better come to understand in this country and re-embrace very soon."
Read the whole article here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)