A few highlights:
Mickey Kaus has raised the intriguing possibility that, since Bush's amnesty plan went down to humiliating defeat once Americans got wind of what the elites had planned for us, the Bush administration might respond by intentionally targeting highly sympathetic illegal aliens for deportation "in as clumsy, heartless and lawsuit-inspiring a fashion as possible, in order to create the maximum number of negative headlines."
So it was curious when we were treated this week to a weeping Mexican woman on TV, claiming the U.S. government was tearing her from her infant son and saying she knew the American people would be outraged if she were deported. (I note that her message might have been more effective in English.)
Admittedly, I'd just as soon have Homeland Security focusing on illegal immigrants like the one who shot four promising college kids execution style in Newark, killing three of them, possibly after sexually molesting two of them. Heck, I wouldn't have minded if they had deported Jose Carranza even before his girlfriend accused him of raping her 5-year-old daughter.
Or Ruben Hernandez-Juarez, an illegal alien charged with sexually molesting a 6-year-old boy in Martin County, Fla.
Or Alejandro Bautista, an illegal alien in Cook County, Ill., who was convicted for sexually molesting two teenaged boys.
Or Alejandro Xuya-Sian, the illegal alien who hit a pedestrian with his car in New York and dragged him for nearly a mile before dislodging the victim from his car, throwing him aside and driving off again. (Even more disturbing: Xuya-Sian may not have been wearing his seat belt at the time.)
Or illegal alien Alberto Barajas-Enriquez, who is charged with beating his Michigan neighbor to death with a golf club because the neighbor complained about the constant barking of Enriquez's dog. Asked by police how many times he struck his victim with the golf club, Enriquez said, "Let's see ... five, six ... uh, put me down for a seven."
Or Lucio Sanchez-Martinez, the illegal alien in Ohio charged with sexually molesting a sleeping 8-year-old girl.
For simplicity, I have limited my enumeration of illegal aliens I would like deported to those who were charged or convicted of heinous crimes last week. For illegal aliens charged with child molestation, I had to limit it to two days last week.
Arellano has already snuck into the country illegally twice (that we know of). After being deported in 1999 -- under an administration that, astonishingly, was more serious about enforcing immigration law than the current one -- she illegally ran across the border again a few days later.
Arellano is part of the advance wave of left-wing, Third World colonization of America. Democrats claim there are "two Americas." If they have their way, there will be two Latin Americas.
This is why Democrats are obsessed with giving two groups the right to vote: illegal aliens and felons. With Arellano, they get two for the price of one. To liberals, building a wall across the Mexican border is a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
1 DOWN, 11,999,999 TO GO
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
This is why Democrats are obsessed with giving two groups the right to vote: illegal aliens and felons.
Simply a stupid assertion. There is no such "obsession" and I know of nobody who wishes to grant illegal aliens, or any non-citizen aliens the right to vote. Can you please cite ANY source to support that?
As to felons, I have no problem with a felon who has completed their sentence to have voting rights re-instated. That way a lot of your former Republic congressmen will have the right to vote again.
Excellent comment, jim.
Not only have I been on the vanguard of arresting and DEPORTING illegal aliens (while Republicans bussed them in to "do the work Americans won't do" and made lame excuses), but have spoken out against any "amnesty" plans before they even were introduced...
Maybe it's time for neocons to clean up their own political backyards, before blaming the left for this immigration catastrophe, which started and has reached its apex on Bush's watch.
Yeah, I have no problem with shipping illegals back to wherever.
I just don't think building a wall is a good use of resources.
stupid mongorians!
game,
Before you go too far blaming libs for Illegal Immigration, you may want to check on what your 'great' leader Bush did on the same issue!!
American
You need to pay attention.
Game and other conservatives on this site consistantly critized Bush for his stance on illegal immigration.
Jim,
I belive the assertion is granting amnesty to illegals would endear the "new citizens" to the politicians that turned a blind eye to their lawlessnes.
Fanatic,
before blaming the left for this immigration catastrophe, which started and has reached its apex on Bush's watch
Are you kidding, what, are you 7 years old? We've been wrestling with this problem for decades!
Traditionaly it's been the libs that have championed amnesty and similar reforms, although admittedly there've been a few Republicans that have gone temporarily insane and joined the cause.
Realism,
A wall is but one tool, that certainly can't hurt. As a matter of fact, any amatuer student of tactics can make the case that obstacles are helpful to the defenders.
When you look at the economic value of a wall, you have to consider the alternative of spending the money in other ways, like enforcement of existing labor laws.
The flood of immigration is an effect. The causes are twofold: economic diparity between them and us and the lax enforcement of our immigration laws.
A wall will just slow their progress. Taking away the abundant supply of employers willing to hire them illegally will keep them from coming in the first place.
"Are you kidding, what, are you 7 years old? We've been wrestling with this problem for decades!"
But, again, it reached its apex under Bush. The numbers went crazy and my neighborhood, for one, certainly wasn't infested with them, as it is now.
As most Americans' neighborhoods are now.
Think back...if you remember, there were ALWAYS concerns on the right, even before he was elected, about Bush's weakness for Mexicans and passion to see them integrated into American society (which of course, is impossible).
But the Republicans of the time chose to disregard this vulnerability in their candidate, because beating liberals was far more important to them.
The worst part of this is, the situation is NOT incurable, we CAN deport illegal aliens in large numbers, if the will is there.
I just believe it's important to recall how we got here from there, though.
They will always try to get in, no matter how many are deported, but it is our responsibility to restrain them, even if it means we have to mine the borders.
Maybe we can build huge detainment facilities and round them all up. Then, a couple of years later, we can eliminate the minimum wage, make them all citizens, and release them all to work for $2.00/hr.
Then we can take all of that empty space in detainment facilities and fill it up with all the liberals.
"When you look at the economic value of a wall,..."
As opposed to what? An enlarged buearacracy that once in place will always be there?
Like I said, the wall is but one tool. To oppose something that will help, just because it's not a "total solution" is ridiculous.
"But, again, it reached its apex under Bush'.
I don't know, I've heard the same arguments under Nixon, Carter, Regan, Bush1, Clinton, and W. And how do you know the current problem is at its "apex"?
Maybe we should elect a liberal/socialist then every thing will get better? Especially when many of those that consider the Dem party as their home, believe living in the US is a "human right".
"But the Republicans of the time chose to disregard this vulnerability in their candidate, because beating liberals was far more important to them".
That may be true, few conservatives are "single issue" voters. Almost any Republican is preferable to almost any Democrat, precisely because of the "big picture".
Simply because a Repub has temporary insanity concerning immigration is no reason to vote in someone from the enabling party.
Regardless of all the hyperbole, I'm not sure we can solve this problem, although I'm all for doing everything we can to stem the tide. Most politicians seem to believe this problem is unfixable and only emit gasseous airs at election time.
I belive the assertion is granting amnesty to illegals would endear the "new citizens" to the politicians that turned a blind eye to their lawlessnes.
They would only become "new citizens" through a lawful and long-running process with cash penalties. This, no matter what you call it, is not amnesty. If you pay a penalty, it is not amnesty.
jim,
Oh really? If one were to commit a sexual crime, or murder, etc., pay a fine, and escape further punishment, that's not amnesty?
I guess you're technically correct, but you're sure f'ing up the spirit of the debate.
Blamin, f*ing up the spirit of the debate? How so? This is apples and oranges. The situation you just described is not amnesty, it is mis-carriage of justice.
Regarding the debate, I didn't think we were talking about illegal aliens who have committed felonies outside of illegal entry. I don't know of anyone who is in favor of granting any such person anything but a very long time in prison.
I have yet to hear any serious proposal that would ask illegal aliens to hold up their right hands, take an oath, and instantly become citizens. Have you?
"I have yet to hear any serious proposal that would ask illegal aliens to hold up their right hands, take an oath, and instantly become citizens. Have you?"
Why would anyone want such a thing?
Good job guys...nice debate...maybe I should just stay out of it...
As usual, Jim can't see "future Democrat voters" who broke the law to get to the ballot box as a big deal so long as they vote Democrat. Jim, how many LATimes articles do you need shoved in your face where CA Democrats demand open borders, especially the MeCHa members like the Mayor of LA?
Hash is worthless as usual.
Blamin,
The libs are on the wrong side of this issue. They are playing on emotions. When you introduce logic to them, they get angry because they know they've lost on that count.
herald, nothing to discuss...its simply false.
Post a Comment