Dr.K Feasts on Obama's Immigration Speech

Charles Krauthammer really is a treasure.  This piece on immigration--specifically Mr. Obama's tendentious speech on the subject last week on the US-Mexican border--gives us a great view of Mr. Obama's rhetorical style:

"The El Paso speech is notable not for breaking any new ground on immigration, but for perfectly illustrating Obama’s political style: the professorial, almost therapeutic, invitation to civil discourse, wrapped around the basest of rhetorical devices — charges of malice compounded with accusations of bad faith. “They’ll never be satisfied,” said Obama about border control. “And I understand that. That’s politics.”"

Additionally, it contains an element of truth for most thinking Conservatives:

"I have little doubt that most Americans would be quite willing to regularize and legalize the current millions of illegal immigrants if they were convinced that this was the last such cohort, as evidenced by, say, a GAO finding that the border is under full operational control and certification to the same effect by the governors of the four southern border states."

This really is it, Dems and Libs (but I repeat myself).  Help us get to yes on illegal aliens already here.  I'm perfectly willing to find a way to naturalize them--but STOP THE BLEEDING FIRST.  Give the system a chance to process those already here before opening the petcock on the next slug of illegals.

The President on The Border

Sorry I'm just getting to this one folks, but better late than never, huh?  Three days ago, near the border with Mexico, President Obama gave a speech about immigration.  Clearly designed to shore up sagging support for his Presidential Campaign by America's "voting" Hispanics, the President gave an incredibly--even by his standards--disingenuous speech.  In it, he basically declared the border problem with Mexico "fixed", and by doing so, attempted to make those of us who believe one of the basic functions of government is to control who enters our country illegally, look silly and over-reaching.  He did not succeed.

Most enraging of all in the President's speech is the degree to which he attempts to paint those who believe people should not enter the country illegally as also being against those who enter the country LEGALLY.  NOTHING could be farther from the truth.  Here he is on the subject, in full ridiculosity:

"Look at Intel, look at Google, look at Yahoo, look at eBay. All those great American companies, all the jobs they've created, everything that has helped us take leadership in the high-tech industry, every one of those was founded by, guess who, an immigrant. (Applause.)
So we don't want the next Intel or the next Google to be created in China or India. We want those companies and jobs to take root here. (Applause.) Bill Gates gets this. He knows a little something about the high-tech industry. He said, "The United States will find it far more difficult to maintain its competitive edge if it excludes those who are able and willing to help us compete."

Yes, Mr. President.  Those companies were started by immigrants.  LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.  Folks who followed our rules, who minded their P's and Q's.  How about treating us to a list of such titans who are here illegally?

Add THIS to the List of GOP Priorities

A measure to deny birthright citizenship. 

US Lawsuit Against Arizona

I've been thinking about the lawsuit that President Obama's Justice Department filed against the State of Arizona in seeking to rule Arizona's latest controversial immigration law unconstitutional.  After all the hullabaloo, all the kvetching, all the cries of fascism and police state from the left and those who see illegal immigration as a new human right--the lawsuit is not a civil rights case.  It is a straight down the line case of whether or not the Federal government's legislative primacy on immigration matters supersedes the action that Arizona has taken. 

As I am not a constitutional scholar or a federal judge, I do not have an informed opinion on the suit's merits.  I cannot however, dismiss it summarily.  It seems to me that Holder and Justice have a reasonable case, EVEN if Arizona is really just enforcing federal law.

That said--the fact that Justice went with the jurisdictional argument and not the civil rights argument shows what a bag of wind the whole civil rights screed was.  There was an almost reflexive institutional bias against the State of Arizona, one  that presupposed that their law was put together by a bunch of desert rubes with no sense of how to craft law in the age of civil rights.  There never was a civil rights case here--there was just bloviating by a bunch of people who would gut whatever exists of current immigration law.

Obama To Sue Arizona For Enforcing Federal Law

It seems some in the Obama Administration are urging the Justice Department to file suit against Arizona for passing a law which essentially makes the Federal crime of being in the country illegally also a State crime. I have deep reservations about the Arizona law, but the Feds are just plain caught with their pants down on this one, not doing their jobs, not enforcing current Federal law, and not providing the resources necessary to control the southern border.

An Immigration Law In Arizona

All politics is (are?) local, so they say, and we have now an instance where a local response to a national issue threatens to become a national issue. I speak of course of yesterday's signed bill in the State of Arizona. From the WaPost article, "Under Arizona's new law, to take effect in 90 days, it will be a state crime to be in the country illegally, and legal immigrants will be required to carry paperwork proving their status. Arizona police will generally be required to question anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being undocumented -- a provision that critics argue will lead to widespread racial profiling, but that supporters insist will give authorities the flexibility to enforce existing immigration laws."

Where to begin, where to begin. First thing though, this issue is definitely on the agenda for the radio program on Wednesday night. To tee things up though, I have a couple of thoughts:

1. While the Feds control the borders, the states bear the brunt of federal border protection ineffectiveness. States and localities deal with crime, indigent issues (food, health care, shelter) etc. that flow from poor border protection, only very rarely is this a federal problem (once an illegal is in the country).

2. Arizona's Governor is a Republican in a tight re-election race. This issue (being tough on illegal immigration) plays well with her base.

3. Being tough on illegal immigration/border control plays well everywhere with the Republican base--but it plays horribly among Hispanics--a group that Republicans are trying to make inroads with in order to construct electoral majorities.

4. Politically speaking and tactically speaking, this is a problem for Republicans nationwide and will put Republicans on the defensive at the very time they need to be on the offensive. Why will this put Republicans on the defensive? Because the Bought and Paid for Media will naturally alight to the plight of the downtrodden immigrant and the worst parodies of Republicans and Conservatives will play out hourly in the news cycle. I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying that this will happen. Immigration reform is a loser issue for Republicans and the Democrats know it. Harry, Nancy and Barack are just fine with the AZ Governor stepping out in the lead like this. If this thing breaks out as a big issue--Repubs will do well in November--just not as well as they could.

5. The porous nature of our border with Mexico is a scandal and a serious national security issue. THIS is where Republicans need to concentrate our fire. Aiming it at the people who make it across the border ultimately undercuts our effectiveness. I have sympathy for the problems that Arizona officials face because of the feds inability to perform a very basic job (border protection), but this law, this series of actions by Arizona is a political poison pill--and a civil rights tinderbox.

6. What are the triggers that will drive an Arizona police officer to "reasonably suspect" that someone is here illegally? Presumably, how someone looks or dresses or speaks may play into it. But aren't there a ton of people in the American southwest who are solid, natural born American citizens who would trip the "your papers please" request from the law enforcement official? Some would say, "well yes, but that is the price we pay for our liberty"...which is nice, as long as it isn't YOU who are accosted on the street and told to produce your ID. This isn't a case of producing an ID in order to gain access to a service, benefit or emolument. This is the production of ID papers simply at the whim of a police officer who "reasonably suspects" that you might be illegal. There is a difference, friends, and it is an important one.

7. I used to be in the Navy, and we feared two things at sea--fires and floods--and the flood metaphor works here. When there was a flood, the first thing you did was isolate the source of the flood--shutting valves, patching pipes, plugging holes--or what have you. You did not worry about "dewatering" the space until the hole was patched. Republicans need to take a "flooding" approach to illegal immigration--we need to vastly rein in the anti-immigrant talk and policies that target the actions of illegal immigrants already here (de-watering) --and concentrate our energy EXCLUSIVELY on fixing the border (isolate the leak). Once we've got policies, resources and processes in place--we should turn to immigration reform that actually begins to get at the tougher questions of what to do with illegals who are here. These are severable issues, and I think we ought to sever them.

8. President Obama is sitting back and licking his chops at the prospect of a civil rights case that will invariably flow from the logical and foreseeable implementation of this law. Nothing good for Republicans will come of this.

I know we've got a lot of Red Meaters out there, and this issue is something for you to get your teeth into. Resist it, and urge Republican leaders to resist it. This is a pitch in the dirt--we shouldn't be swinging at it.