Tuesday, September 28, 2021
HomeFeatured EntriesThe Reformers and the Problem Solvers

The Reformers and the Problem Solvers

In the wake of the brouhaha last year over Arizona’s passage of a law requiring enforcement of federal statutes in re illegal aliens, the US Government, in the persons of Barack Obama and Eric Holder (men, not laws) chose to take Arizona to court, claiming that the supremacy clauses in the US Constitution and the doctrine of  pre-emption made federal enforcement of immigration laws the exclusive property of the US Government.  Well, that episode is in the courts.  What we are amused at during this time is the jarring inconsistency in the stances taken by federal officials, state officials,  media pundits and politicians, on both sides of the aisle,  in their positions on who should act and in what areas.

For instance, why is it that a sovereign state is to be denied the right to police it’s borders, and what goes on within it’s borders, but at the same time, private businesses operating within those borders are defacto deputies of the federal government by being required to participate in the E-verify program? Private concerns must make it their business to deny employment to those ineligible to work in the US, thus, in theory, disincentivizing illegal immigration.  But the State Government, the law enforcement agencies, the ones sworn to protect and serve?  Back off, they are told.

Fine.  Keep the ones who want to work from working, because just that you want to do something doesn’t mean you are entitled to do so.  And, Obama and Holder to the contrary notwithstanding, there are laws.  In fact, there are lots of laws.

Proceeding to the next piece of this puzzle, which is obviously way too complicated for 99.99% of the politicians, professors, pundits and patrons of  The Bar to understand, there are people who want to go to college.  Now, they are in this country illegally just the same as those who want to work.  Apparently, that you want to go to college, and/or remain in the United States under some status or other, just because you want to, is sufficient grounds for suspending the rules.  The working theory of the proponents of things such as the Dream Act, or various state programs to offer in-state tuition to illegal alien students, is that this demographic of the illegal alien population are in the US not of their own volition, but as a result of their parents’ (or perhaps the human traffickers’?) actions, and they need to be catered to.

There are stipulations included in the Dream Act, which by the way probably won’t pass anytime soon.  One is that the supposed student, or military service enlistee ‘be of good moral character’.  …………’Si, lo soy!’ ……  Another is that the applicant to the Dreamy program must provide proof of residence for a five-year period.  Now, usually, when you and I have to provide proof of residence for some government purpose or other, it has to be, uh, legal residence.  Uh, legal proof.  Uh, law abiding.  Uh, ‘good moral character’.  Well, unless we were raised by immoral un-law-abiding illegal aliens, but we digress.  We suspect that one stipulation that goes unsaid, or unwritten, is that the prospective student must, in addition to wanting to go to college, also intend to vote the straight Democrat ticket, but again, we digress.

Yes, it is a mess, isn’t it.  Sometimes we do feel sorry for the politicians who can’t figure it out, like Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch, the co-sponsors of the Dream Act.  But what about the people on the state level, the legislators and activists who grant such amenities as in-state tuition to illegal alien students, thus reducing the amount of money collected by the state in return for their education?  Many of these same states at the same time incongruously support and enforce the E-verify program, thus denying the illegal alien parents of  these illegal alien students the opportunity to work and pay for their own children’s education, thus removing that burden from these states.  Is it just us, or does something not jibe here?

Well, the counter argument would go, the ones, the adults, who entered the country illegally should not be rewarded with jobs.   (Government-issued ID’s?  Welfare and Social Security benefits?  Child care and baby sitting services?  Library privileges?  No problemo! )  But we still have to feel sorry for the kids, right?  Okay, so what about the kid who doesn’t want to go to college, or doesn’t want to be a soldier ?  What if his ‘dream’ is to work at the Honda plant making $30 per hour plus benefits for himself and any family he might raise?  Sorry, kid.  E-verify, dontchaknow?  So in the end, it’s not even really about what a person wants, is it?  It’s actually about what groups of people, or organizations, or special interest cliques, or political parties, want.

This is, of course, just a cursory and perfunctory look at one aspect of the propagandization and politicization of law and sovereignty.  How issues like these are presented is instructive.  It is usually with the human-interest point of view.  The caring, compassionate mode of looking at things the way the proponents want us to look at things.  And those are not without merit, surely.  But the way issues are compartmentalized, such that the needs of one subset of the population, whether legal or illegal, are presented to the exclusion of perhaps just as deserving another subset of the population, legal or illegal, shows why we have laws in the first place, and equality under the law, and including immigration law.   And the point hardly ever taken into account is that the protection of people, as people, as citizens and those who would become citizens, is routinelyconsidered and  included in the laws we have erected as the foundational blocks of our civilization in the first place.

The men, and women, who would insinuate themselves and and their judgement, and their ‘dreams’, into the affairs of those who actually believe in the oaths they took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, or their various state constitutions, are often lawyers and one would think ought to have the capacity to think on their feet.  Some do.  Many don’t.  However complicated they want to make the issue is usually an indication of whether they are serious people or not.  For us, it seems that if you want to let people do what they want to do, then suspend law altogether.  Open the borders and be done with it.  If you want to respect national, and state, and territorial sovereignty, the rights and responsibilities of citizenship,  and this ‘dream’ called America,  then those tools are already available.  Use them.

bobmontgomery
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.

7 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

7 COMMENTS

  1. The Federal Government has grown to large for its own britches when it tells States what they can and cannot do, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives them that power, they achieved it by sleeping Americans who allowed them to usurp their power for decades, it is NOW time to take back the RIGHTS of the States!

    • Don’t you think its a little ironic, Jaded, that the same Progressive element that talks about a ‘living Constitution’and guffaws at the originalists and traditionalists….. have to resort to relying on judicial PRECEDENT to justify many of their statist grabs of power for the federal bureaucracy?

      • It is sad really and I was listening to Mike Church one morning and he was talking about how in counties across America laws are being passed to STOP the EPA etc from not letting them have gardens and farming and how those who are passing those laws are the same greens who gave the government the power to make certain growing illegal…..they created a MONSTER and are now working against the same monster they createde…LOL. It is funny but sickening all at the same time!

  2. Bob, apparently you have never been to Ohio. Or heard about this.

    During Election 2008 ACORN/Brunner/debacle Brunner got a federal judge to declare a park bench as a residence. Registered to vote on the spot. Driven to the polls, fed a hot meal. Don’t know if any beer was involved.

    I am not gonna say here how much I spent on 2 kids college education, but more than enough to buy a middle income home for a family. This really rankles. The people who live here, pay taxes and abide by the rules get the shaft. Those who come here illegally will get to vote for Obama in 2012 and get everything for free.

  3. I had heard of the park bench episode, LIO. Didn’t know it was in Ohio. The Hoosier State has also gone squishy on the immigration issue. Look, I know the economy is in the tank, I know deficits and unfunded liabilities are unsustainable, I know we are probably in a depression. What the Republican leadership, and the RNC, and potential candidates have to get pounded into their heads is that all of the issues you and I and other social conservatives and freedom-loving people are concerned about are part of the big picture as to why we are going in the tank. Social Security, per se, is not the problem, it’s that it was hijacked, ransacked, mismanaged, usurped, co-opted, et cetera, as part of the bigger Progressive social engineering, statist effort. And so on.

  4. Bob- There are some rays of hope with the Supremes upholding the AZ E-Verify law. Just this past week they also sent the Hazleton PA appealate court decision back to the lower court, which blocked the town from enforcing the E-Verify law. I would think that many other counties/states will go forward with similar laws, knowing the Supremes are on their side.

    We now have Republican Governors in a majority of states, with huge deficits. If I am not mistaken, Jan Brewer came out with actual numbers at one point on how much it was costing AZ with welfare costs for illegals. When Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta (now Congressman Barletta), was preparing for the court case, his lawyers provided info on the additional costs for schools, hospitals etc. because of the illegal problem.

    The Federal Government will not enforce the immigration laws already on the books, they won’t put teeth behind the law, and that goes for both parties. I’ve heard Herman Cain talk about enforcing the laws already on the books, and wish all of them would tell us what their ideas are. Wouldn’t it be much easier to just enforce the law in full, rather than trying to get new laws passed ?

    • Can’t believe I remembered to hit the ‘reply’ button’. Anyway, when DOJ got away with not enforcing the voter intimidation laws in re NBPP – Philadelphia, going on THREE YEARS NOW, and they perps (at NBPP and at DOJ) have suffered absolutely zero consequences from it, then nothing is ever going to be done about anything, no matter who the committee chairmen are. If the vote and the polling place aren’t sacred, nothing is. When VB wrote yesterday about it’s time for hardball politics, I am quite sure Anthony Weiner is not the only target he was talking about. I don’t know how to do it, but all these brilliant people we are sending to Washington, or who work in the think tanks that constantly solicit money from us, had better start coming up with something real soon.

  1. The Federal Government has grown to large for its own britches when it tells States what they can and cannot do, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives them that power, they achieved it by sleeping Americans who allowed them to usurp their power for decades, it is NOW time to take back the RIGHTS of the States!

    • Don’t you think its a little ironic, Jaded, that the same Progressive element that talks about a ‘living Constitution’and guffaws at the originalists and traditionalists….. have to resort to relying on judicial PRECEDENT to justify many of their statist grabs of power for the federal bureaucracy?

      • It is sad really and I was listening to Mike Church one morning and he was talking about how in counties across America laws are being passed to STOP the EPA etc from not letting them have gardens and farming and how those who are passing those laws are the same greens who gave the government the power to make certain growing illegal…..they created a MONSTER and are now working against the same monster they createde…LOL. It is funny but sickening all at the same time!

  2. Bob, apparently you have never been to Ohio. Or heard about this.

    During Election 2008 ACORN/Brunner/debacle Brunner got a federal judge to declare a park bench as a residence. Registered to vote on the spot. Driven to the polls, fed a hot meal. Don’t know if any beer was involved.

    I am not gonna say here how much I spent on 2 kids college education, but more than enough to buy a middle income home for a family. This really rankles. The people who live here, pay taxes and abide by the rules get the shaft. Those who come here illegally will get to vote for Obama in 2012 and get everything for free.

  3. I had heard of the park bench episode, LIO. Didn’t know it was in Ohio. The Hoosier State has also gone squishy on the immigration issue. Look, I know the economy is in the tank, I know deficits and unfunded liabilities are unsustainable, I know we are probably in a depression. What the Republican leadership, and the RNC, and potential candidates have to get pounded into their heads is that all of the issues you and I and other social conservatives and freedom-loving people are concerned about are part of the big picture as to why we are going in the tank. Social Security, per se, is not the problem, it’s that it was hijacked, ransacked, mismanaged, usurped, co-opted, et cetera, as part of the bigger Progressive social engineering, statist effort. And so on.

  4. Bob- There are some rays of hope with the Supremes upholding the AZ E-Verify law. Just this past week they also sent the Hazleton PA appealate court decision back to the lower court, which blocked the town from enforcing the E-Verify law. I would think that many other counties/states will go forward with similar laws, knowing the Supremes are on their side.

    We now have Republican Governors in a majority of states, with huge deficits. If I am not mistaken, Jan Brewer came out with actual numbers at one point on how much it was costing AZ with welfare costs for illegals. When Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta (now Congressman Barletta), was preparing for the court case, his lawyers provided info on the additional costs for schools, hospitals etc. because of the illegal problem.

    The Federal Government will not enforce the immigration laws already on the books, they won’t put teeth behind the law, and that goes for both parties. I’ve heard Herman Cain talk about enforcing the laws already on the books, and wish all of them would tell us what their ideas are. Wouldn’t it be much easier to just enforce the law in full, rather than trying to get new laws passed ?

    • Can’t believe I remembered to hit the ‘reply’ button’. Anyway, when DOJ got away with not enforcing the voter intimidation laws in re NBPP – Philadelphia, going on THREE YEARS NOW, and they perps (at NBPP and at DOJ) have suffered absolutely zero consequences from it, then nothing is ever going to be done about anything, no matter who the committee chairmen are. If the vote and the polling place aren’t sacred, nothing is. When VB wrote yesterday about it’s time for hardball politics, I am quite sure Anthony Weiner is not the only target he was talking about. I don’t know how to do it, but all these brilliant people we are sending to Washington, or who work in the think tanks that constantly solicit money from us, had better start coming up with something real soon.

Must Read