Archive for the ‘Immigration’ category

Fightin’ Words

May 25, 2007

Today’s conservatives can argue for immigration restrictions if they so choose. But they should not claim the mantle of Reagan in doing so.”


The Government Gives, Thus, The Government Can Take

May 10, 2007

This bothers me:

Members of a House committee Wednesday appeared to be leaning toward passage of a bill that would allow law enforcement officials in Alabama to seize the property of illegal aliens. . . .

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Micky Hammon, R-Decatur, is modeled on laws allowing police to seize the property of drug dealers. The legislation allows law enforcement to seize from illegal immigrants any property not needed for “basic living necessities,” but gives law enforcement agencies broad scope in determining what is and isn’t necessary.

The bill is HB290:

Property of a person present in this state who is in violation of the immigration laws of the United States, except property needed for the basic living necessities of the person as determined by the local law enforcement agency, acquired by the person directly or indirectly while in violation of the immigration laws of the United States shall be subject to forfeiture . . . .

I hate forfeiture laws. They give the state the power to summarily seize your property without having to so much as get a warrant prior to the seizure. And then when the judicial proceedings do occur, they’re governed by the rules of civil procedure. That means: 1) the state gets to take your property if it can prove that it’s more likely than not that it is subject to forfeiture; forget about beyond a reasonable doubt; 2) you have no right to an attorney; 3) you have no right to confront the witnesses against you. Oh, and then the agency that took the property gets to keep it and do with it whatever it wants. The whole process is a huge incentive for abuses. So I am never going to be in favor of expanding them.

This particular one is extrordinarily bad. It gives the state unbridled discretion to take any kind of property. Yeah, it throws in language about basic living necessities, but the cops get to make that decision. This is asking for abuse.

But more than the potential for abuse and the inherent unfairness of forfeiture laws, something else bothers me about this bill.  

I really don’t care about illegal immigration. It does not bother me one bit if someone wants to enter this country without first stopping fill out the proper paperwork. It does not bother me one bit if that same person refuses to ever learn English, enjoy apple pie, or watch Nascar. Still, I understand the arguments that illegals ought not receive Government services. If they don’t pay the bureaucratic costs – becoming citizens, paying all the same taxes I do, etc – than I can understand denying them the bureaucratic benefits.

Forfeiture of property, though, is different. In contrast to welfare payments, property ownership is supposed to be a natural right. That is, something that a person can do simply because they are a person. Property ownership is not something the government gives us. It is an inherent right no different than the right to free peach or the right to freedom of religion. Hence, it exists whether or not the person is a citizen of whatever country he happens to find himself in.

This bill, though, treats property rights like welfare privileges. That is, it treats property “rights” as something the government provides and the government can take away. That scares me. The results of this type of thinking are ugly.

So even if illegal immigrants are a real problem, letting the government assert this kind of power is a cure worse than the disease.

Now That’s A Resolution

April 27, 2007

Maybe this one would have an easier time than did the slavery apology:

The devil is sticking his pitchfork into the nation’s immigration politics.

At least that’s what one of Utah County’s Republican delegates thinks.

Don Larsen, a district chairman, has submitted a resolution equating illegal immigration to “Satan’s plan to destroy the U.S. by stealth invasion” for debate at Saturday’s Utah County Republican Party Convention.

Referring to a plan by the devil for a “New World Order … as predicted in the Scriptures,” the resolution calls for the Utah County Republican Party to support “closing the national borders to illegal immigration to prevent the destruction of the U.S. by stealth invasion.”

Concurring Opinions has already made the obvious joke about the resolution coming too late to keep Satan out of Utah:

Brigham Young University students stood and showered Vice President Dick Cheney with applause after his 15-minute speech that encouraged them to approach life with flexibility, persistence and gratitude.

In related news:

Immigration issues are fueling a rise of hate groups in the United States, with their numbers increasing 40 percent in six years, according to statistics released Thursday by the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery.

Gosh, I can’t imagine why people would react irrationally and violently to the problem of illegals, what with responsible and intelligent people like the Republican from Utah out there offering sage leadership on the issue.

But hey, look at this:

Alabama has 22 reported hate groups, the lowest of surrounding states, Potok said. California, with 63, and Texas with 55, have the highest numbers of reported hate groups in the country.

Hah. Those pot-smokin, free-lovin, Muhrica-hatin hippes are three times as hateful as we are. Sweet Home Alabama, baby!

This is my favorite part:

One of the most popular groups in the country, Council of Conservative Citizens, denounces its label as a hate group, said Gordon Lee Baum, a spokesman for the organization, which has active chapters in 28 states, including five in Alabama.

Clearly, that label is inapplicable. Just listen to the good sense exhibited by the grand wizard leader of the CCC:

“That is ridiculous,” he said. “The Southern Poverty Law Center is in the business of finding hate groups and has made millions off of so-called outing right-wing groups.”

Baum said his members, who he says represent different races and religions, do have strong views about issues such as illegal immigration, Baum said.

“Not everyone is for this rampant runaway immigration,” he said. “Diversity is not our strength, it is our calamity, our downfall. That is a recipe for disaster. The Hispanics coming here have no intention of coming to the melting pot. They want a Mexico North. They want the Southwest to become nonwhite.”

Ethno-centric delusional rants, anyone? Here’s a suggestion, if the CCC wants to be considered as anything other than what they are – a bunch of sorry assed racist pieces of s**t – maybe they ought to find a better spokesman.

Nasty Immigrants Steal Votes, Jobs

April 5, 2007

Yesterday in the legislature:

A bill to make it a felony for illegal immigrants to attempt to vote touched off a heated debate in a House committee Wednesday before being approved.

As it is, illegals can’t vote, and would be turned away at the polls. But their mere presence at a polling location would so harmful to democracy that it really ought to be a felony for them to even show up. And they smell bad, too.

But that is not the only problem created by illegals:

[Rep. Patricia Todd, D-Birmingham, who voted against making a felony for illegals to attempt to vote,] said rather than trying to punish the immigrants, legislators should try to penalize employers who hire them, particularly if they are helping the immigrants vote illegally.

“If employers are knowingly hiring illegal aliens, they should be the ones to be held accountable,” Todd said.

Yes they should. Because, as this video shows, the results of employing illegal immigrants are horrific indeed.

Hispanic Codes

March 12, 2007

Back in August I posted about Huntsville’s attempt to preserve and protect our white culture and heritage regulate illegal immigration:

[The proposed ordinance] would, among other things, deny business permits to any business that hires an illegal – whether knowingly or not; prohibit illegals from leasing or renting property; and fine anyone who rents to an illegal – whether knowingly or not -$500 a day. The council considered it last week, and decided to take some time to further study the issue.

As I explained here, Huntsville and several other cities around the country cut and pasted the ordinance – and the “factual findings” underlying it – from a sorry ass racist  p.o.s. grassroots organization in California.

Huntsville delayed a vote on the ordinance so they could “study” it further. Hazelton, Pennsylvania, though, adopted it. And starting today, they get to go to court to defend it.

I’m no immigration lawyer, but based on what little I know, I expect the City to lose. The feds have exclusive jurisdiction over immigration, and it is hard to see the ordinance as anything other than an attempt to regulate immigration. 

Of course, none of this directly impacts Huntsville. The ordinance is the same, but unless the Hazelton case goes to the Supreme Court, the result will not be binding down here. Still, federal courts like to walk in lock-step, so if Hazelton loses, I would be very surprised to see Huntsville adopt this ordinance.

Oh yeah, on a related note:

The Ku Klux Klan, which just a few years ago seemed static or even moribund compared to other white supremacist movements such as neo-Nazis, has experienced a surprising and troubling resurgence due to the successful exploitation of hot-button issues including immigration, gay marriage and urban crime. Klan groups have witnessed a surprising and troubling resurgence by exploiting fears of an immigration explosion, and the debate over immigration has in turned helped to fuel an increase in Klan activity, with new groups sprouting in parts of the country that have not seen much activity.



Jeff Sessions: Fence’s Fate Causes Flip Flop

January 5, 2007

Last July, Sessions was completely fine with the President signing bills into law while at the same time declaring that he won’t enforce parts of the law.

Oh, but now that Sessions thinks that a law near and dear to his own heart may be ignored by the President, well, Beauregard’s attitude has changed:

Plans to erect a 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico may be in jeopardy as the new Democratic majority in Congress considers immigration reforms that could eliminate funding for the project.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., was an early advocate for the fence, which was approved by Congress and President Bush. Sessions on Thursday said he was anticipating a challenge.

“I am worried about it. There could be attempts to undermine what we voted for,” Sessions said. . . .

 “I’m not going to accept this just being gutted by either new law or by the administration not following through on what the law would require.”

To summarize: It’s fine and dandy for the President to declare that he will ignore a law banning torture, but if the President refuses to spend funds marked for a useless fence, the gloves come off. 

As an aside, I’m hoping that if the fence fails, my idea will receive some consideration.

Statue Of Liberty To Huddled Masses: “Just Kidding”

October 6, 2006

On a plaque at the base of the Statue Of Liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

From Hugh McInish’s report about the recently concluded “Eagle Council XXXV, the Super Bowl of conservatism:”

[In a speech, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions] pointed out that 60 percent of the people in Nicaragua and 70 percent of those in Peru want to come to the United States. Obviously we cannot admit all.

He recommends that we consider a point system similar to that used in Canada, whereby an applicant will be given so many points for speaking English, so many according to his education and skills, and so on. Only the most qualified, those who would strengthened the country would be allowed entrance.

Three points here.

One, I guess we need to get rid of the plaque.

Two, notice he is not talking about illegals, he is talking about any immigrants.

Three, why are we supposed to directly apply to our country the Bible’s alleged prohibitions on abortion and homosexuality, but then hem and haw and talk about context and times changing when we get to the Bible’s commands to welcome and accept aliens?