Drew Carey investigates the situation at our southern border and offers a reasonable and obvious solution. You should definitely watch the video.
Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category
Aunt B takes to task those who favor denying birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. She contends that it is hypocritical to argue for strict constructionism on the one hand while ignoring what the 14th Amendment says on the other:
Many of you are clinging desperately to the notion that the 2nd Amendment means what it says. Well, if Representative Lynn and her colleagues succeed in making the 14th Amendment mean something other than what it clearly says–”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”–what kind of precident do you think that sets for the next time one of us Lefty crackpots tries to argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says?
What kind of precident is Lynn trying to set? And are you prepared to say that rights enumerated in the Constitution don’t apply should some Legislator gets a bug up her butt to undermine them?
I have mixed feelings on the whole birthright citizenship debate; I don’t want to punish babies for the misdeeds of their parents, but I also don’t want to encourage illegals to have children just so it will be harder to deport them. It is a more complex issue than partisans on either side want to admit.
I doubt that that the Framers had this in mind when they wrote the 14th Amendment, but it says what it says: the children of illegals ARE entitled to U.S. citizenship. If Rep. Lynn or anyone else want to change this, they should push for a new constitutional amendment that would explicitly deny birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Until such an amendment is ratified, they do not have a legal leg to stand on.
One reason there’s so much illegal immigration is that we make it so damned difficult to immigrate legally. We’re practically begging migrants to avoid our immigration system.
We could do a great deal to reduce illegal immigration simply by raising the quotas, lowering the paperwork barriers and processing people quickly. That – not a silly wall that will slow down migrants by a grand total of three minutes – is where immigration reform should begin.
I wonder if Lou Dobbs or Michelle Malkin will mention this.
Fred Barnes has some solid advice for Republicans:
AS EVERY REPUBLICAN knows, Democrats are short-sighted in their views on national security, pursuing antiwar arguments that are bound to come back and haunt them politically. This was the case with the clamor among Democrats to pull out of Vietnam and may be the case now as well with their calls for American troops to flee Iraq. The result of this antiwar noisemaking is a reputation for weakness on national security.
Yet Republicans are doing the same thing on another issue, trading away long-term gain for the immediate joy of pleasing voters who may (or may not) decide the winner of the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. That issue is immigration.
By dwelling, often emotionally, on the problem of illegal immigration as a paramount issue and as if nothing is being done to deal with it, Republicans are alienating Hispanic Americans, the fastest growing voting bloc in the country. What’s worse is many Republicans are oblivious to this or insist that losing Hispanic voters doesn’t really matter because they’ll never be reliable Republican voters anyway. These Republicans buy the notion that a sizable majority of Hispanics are and always will be Democrats.
Barnes goes on to explain why the defeatist attitude among many Republicans when it comes to winning Hispanic votes is wrongheaded. Republicans would be wise to listen, but immigration concerns have become a source of fear mongering on the right.
Phil Ayers suggests using military service as a path to citizenship:
This article suggests using military service as a means for obtaining citizenship. This is certainly an idea worthy of consideration. But, to those people who say that forcing people to become “cannon fodder” to become citizens is immoral, I would respond, “is it really? Is it too much to ask someone to serve in the greatest military in the world – in order to become a citizen in the greatest country in the world?”
Sounds like a good idea. While military service should not be th only way to gain citizenship, I think it should be one way.
I’m not the biggest Wonkette fan around, but I have to admit… this is pretty funny. Especially the comments.
Steve Gill is all animated, as he often is, about former Border Patrol agents Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, now spending a decade in the slammer. He compares their conviction to another famous case:
The truth will out [sic], just like it did in the Duke Lacrosse case. Once again, it is the PROSECUTOR who belongs in jail!
All hyperbole aside, and regardless of whether Compean and Ramos belong in prison, this comparison is not valid. In the Duke Lacrosse case, a rogue prosecutor accused innocent players of a crime of which there was not nearly enough evidence for a conviction. In the case of Compean and Ramos, there obviously was enough evidence for a conviction. Both were, after all, convicted by a jury of their peers.
These two agents have been made into heroes. I tend to agree that their sentences are overly harsh, but to say that they deserve no punishment is to completely ignore the rule of law. Compean and Ramos clearly committed several crimes, as Andrew McCarthy (writing in National Review, hardly a pro-illegal immigration magazine) points out:
Here’s the dirty little secret the agents’ partisans never tell in their relentless media rounds. You want to be mad about a miscreant like Aldrete-Davila getting away with importing scads of marijuana into Estados Unidos? Then be mad at … the “heroes.”
The rogue duo had two easy opportunities to arrest Aldrete-Davila: First, when he attempted to surrender and Compean decided it would be better to smash him with the butt of a shotgun than to put cuffs on him, as it was his duty to do; and then, when the “heroes,” having felled the unarmed, fleeing suspect with a bullet fired into his buttocks, decided to leave him there so they could tend to the more important business of covering up the shooting.
Since it’s hard to decipher the facts amid the noise, it’s worth remembering that a jury of twelve impartial Texans convicted the agents of almost all the charges, beyond a reasonable doubt, after a two-and-a-half week trial. Many complain, with some force, about the aggressive charges brought by the government against Compean and Ramos, but you don’t have to like this case to understand that — barring some demonstration of irrationality (and there has been none) — the factual findings necessary to that verdict merit respect. They are certainly more reliable than hype from those with an ax to grind.
Indeed. What happened to Steve Gill’s highly principled belief in upholding the rule of law?
UPDATE: This post is taking part in the Beltway Traffic Jam.