I keep hoping that the thousands (if not more) of calls to Capitol Hill that I know have been happening the past few weeks will wake up a US Senator who is an actual defender of this country and our Constitution. But as I wake this morning, it still appears that the Senate will pass their Illegal Invader Amnesty Act of 2007. What I do know is that my efforts have helped a bit in that Senators Dole and Burr have been voting correctly on amendments to the McCain-Kennedy-Bush Amnesty Act this week.
If you support the rule of law, oppose amnesty for illegal invaders, and want border control first…. then call your United States Senator today and tell them to vote NO on the so-called “immigration compromise.” The main US Capitol Hill phone number is 202-225-3121. Here is a listing of all Senators and their direct office phone numbers.
If this legislation passes, we will see even more examples of illegals murdering our citizens like this doozie reported on by Confederate Yankee.
The Republican Willie Horton – Confederate Yankee
This is Michael Caldera De Latorre, or as fingerprints taken from when he was twice captured trying to sneak into the United States from Mexico in 2004 indicate, Ricardo De Latorre.
He is one of the millions of undocumented illegal aliens George W. Bush and many Congressmen and Senators would like to grant amnesty.
Yesterday morning, while driving a Chevy Tahoe reported stolen in Charlotte, Latorre careened across the median of I-40 in Raleigh, and stuck a Kia driven by George Alwyin Smith, a 54-year-old computer programmer at Duke University, before slamming into a car driven by Carolyn Hageman.
Smith died in the wreck, and Hageman was injured. Pulled from the wreckage reeking of alcohol, De Latorre has been charged with DWI, felony death by motor vehicle, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, no operator’s license and careless and reckless driving.
Perhaps if our federal government had done a better job securing our southern border, Latorre would still be in Mexico, and George Smith would still be alive. But our President, our Congress and our Senate seem primed to allow De Latorre and millions more illegals like him to slip across a border they refuse to defend.
Amen. And President Bush dares to say that *I* don’t have the best interests of American in mind when I oppose this sham legislation designed to reward those who break our laws. How dare you, Mr. President.
Call your Senator NOW!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
In fairness, the bill did get a little better overnight. Inhofe’s English as a national language amendment passed. Cornyn’s amendment to remove affidavits from non-relatives as proof of residency and allowing DHS to share data from z-visa applications with law enforcement passed. Most of the liberal amendments to water the bill down even more were defeated.
It makes me think if we could keep debate going on this bill for another couple of weeks, we might even get something decent out of it. That must be why Bush and Harry Reid want to cut off debate as soon as possible.
(Resubmitting because I forgot to change my nic from my last joke comment)
In fairness, the bill did get a little better overnight. Inhofe’s English as a national language amendment passed. Cornyn’s amendment to remove affidavits from non-relatives as proof of residency and allowing DHS to share data from z-visa applications with law enforcement passed. Most of the liberal amendments to water the bill down even more were defeated.
It makes me think if we could keep debate going on this bill for another couple of weeks, we might even get something decent out of it. That must be why Bush and Harry Reid want to cut off debate as soon as possible.
Having said that, let me add my own counterpoint: If a future terrorist attack in the United States is carried out by people who are legally residing in the USA under the z-visa program, that will be Bush’s legacy.
VdaK, glad to hear you have changed your tune from the usual cynics tone of “compromise is bad, compromise with Kennedy is surrender” to “gee, I kind of like the benefits that flow from good public policy initiatives that my side gets inserted to the bill”.
It’s a small first step in your growth toward enlightenment and that’s a good thing. Next up: getting you to take the Pragmatic Politics Pledge for unProfessional Politicians.
Hey, given this new siren, shoule we now call you VdaKennedy?
Please remember that I was the one encouraging you to drop the angry Nativist line filled with self-defeating cynicism and let the legislative process transpire, work, evolve the bill. Embrace the force, Luke.
Glad you’re coming around… even YOU can’t resist the forces of reason and good public policy.
Bruce, good post.
Not many illegal immigrants are criminals in the DWI-felony death sense. But we have enough of those, without taking in even more as illegal immigrants. In a post-911 world, it’s legitimate to ask of illegals:
-What are they doing here illegally, to begin with? Why couldn’t they follow a legal process? Why couldn’t they let us do background checks? What are they hiding?
– If it was a good person – which De Latorre does not sound like – legitimately fleeing a Third World hell-hole, why is that country a hell-hole? Are any of the people who profess brotherhood and equality with illegals, doing anything about it?
I’ll avoid naming names, but it will be interesting to see if 1-2 GP regulars show up to try to re-cast the discussion into false “Racist vs. Rockefeller” terms, as I’ve seen them do before.
#3 – Speak of the devil. Matt is already here to mis-represent one of the GP good guys’ arguments and impugn him falsely as “Nativist”, unenlightened, “angry” in some vaguely illegitimate sense, and so forth.
For those who either undecided or are in favor of this atrocious piece of legislation, I recommend they read the book, The State of Emergency, by Pat Buchanan. I´m not a big fan of his but he reveals some very chilling facts. particularly the hidden agenda of MECHA, to which the present mayor of Los Angeles was an active member as a student and has never disavowed his relationship with the organization. He gets a pass from the media, just like Barak Obama and his membership at Trinity UCC which has black racist mission statement. If an anglo were a member of a white citizens group there´d be a helluva stink by the media to disavow or withdraw his candidacy.
For those who want to protest this legislation and can´t take the time to find out how to contact their legislators, join NumbersUSA.com. They provide the letter and the space for additional comments and the fax goes immediately to the senators.
Robert the O, I’d still rather see this bill go down in flames, but the amendments offered give me a little optimism that some in the senate are seeing the light. If good sense prevails, we will see Kennedy-McCain replaced with three separate bills on Border Security, Immigration Reform, and a Guest Worker program (in that order), which is the way it should have been all along.
Note: The Senate just killed John Coburn’s “Enforcement before Amnesty” Amendment. I can safely go back to believing they’re not serious about enforcement now.
Yeesh, John Cornyn, not Coburn.
D’oh, It was Tom Coburn, not John Cornyn.
Something tells me this thread is going to be shorter, calmer, politer, saner, more honest and more rational than some other threads we’ve seen recently.
I sure hope so, ILC. I was so upset by some of the comments on the other thread, I put on a Prussian Blue CD and cried until my hood was soaked.
Not even pie could cheer me up.
Hey Bruce,
Speaking as the loyal opposition here (and the guy frequently accused of (lol) being a liberal), know that opposition to this bill extends even to disaffected conservatives. I’ve called my Senators and told them to vote no, but not expecting much out of them. Good luck.
V the K; if you´re responding to me, I, too, want to see the bill go down in flames that´s why I recommended Pat´s book. If you haven´t read it, please do. It is an eye opener!!
By the way, if anybody is interested in the latest in Venezuela, right now the National Assembly is being addressed by university students. The only problem is they´re all chavistas condeming the US for inciting the opposition to overthrow the government. Sound bites will probablt go out to the MSM with Chavez proclaiming there is freedom of expression. One student said the purpose of the supposed dialog was to change the mind of the opposition and urge them to unite in forwarding the objectives of the revolution.
EchoCalarato writes: “Something tells me this thread is going to be shorter, calmer, politer, saner, more honest and more rational than some other threads we’ve seen recently.”
Well, that’s telling on a lot of levels, ILC. But it proves to me that your haven’t put away the soapbox and ceased the rhetorical games of trying to silence opponents by predicting behavior and then playing “Gotcha” like a drama queen at a high school debate.
Hey look, if you can call the bill “amnesty” when it is NOT, if you can defend those who take huge segments of the bill out of context, if you can reduce and restate the opinions of others into absurdities that the author couldn’t recognize for $1000, then I think it’s fair to call out the opponents of the bill and discredit their narrow-minded bigoted uninformed speculation about the bill with equal passion.
Now, I can understand that might hurt your feelings… despite your protests to the contrary.
I can understand that you can attempt to discredit proponents of progress and change by playing cheap games of psychological intimidation.
I can even understand your desire to quiet all those who might disagree with you in the hope that quietude equals agreement with your exclusive viewpoint.
I too thought some of the comments by VdaK and others yesterday were not only insanely self-interested, intellectually dishonest and disingenuous, irrational and illogical –but also underscored the last gasping moments of a political movement hell bent on turning its back on America’s rich and proud tradition as an Immigrant Nation and turning a deaf ear to the legacy of RReagan’s Shining City on a Hill.
But, hey, what do I know. I’m probably the only real Republican who comments on this site. I’m probably the only guy with thick enough skin to debate the pure enuff, true enuff crowd you seem intent on playing the court jester to and sidekick ad litem.
I sure hope you’re right that those guys will be saner, more rational and a tad more logical today. But I’d be happy if they –and you– just listen to others for a change.
And, as Michelle Malkin just pointed out, this becomes pretty much a slam dunk.
Over half of the United States Senate opposes enforcing our current immigration laws.
And notice how John McCain did the truly Presidential thing and opted out of voting.
That is a good sign; even Tin Ear himself on this issue is realizing that refusing to enforce immigration law will completely fry him as a candidate.
And thankfully, we now know exactly who opposes enforcement of immigration laws we have now. Not new ones, just the ones that Congress has already passed — and the ones which Ted Kennedy blabbed yesterday were Republicans’ faults for not enforcing.
The episodic becomes endemic yet again…
I would put it this way, Matt; the true purposes of this bill were made patently obvious when the Coburn amendment was defeated.
What makes that scary is this; if you look at that amendment, all that it does is require that laws already existing be enforced as stipulated in those laws themselves.
In short, Fat Teddy and the rest of your so-called “pragmatic allies” just spat on and said they would refuse to enforce current immigration laws.
You’ve been telling us for days that that wasn’t the case.
BTW, although VdaKennedy thinks the bill is headed in the wrong direction based on a single amendment being defeated, I’d advise more thoughtful readers here to remember that it usually takes the Chamber’s serial action on more than a few amendments to even indicate where the Chamber’s collective sense is heading on a complex bill.
I like that Sen Sessions was about to get an exemption for claiming the federal Earned Income tax credit for those legal aliens incountry… that’s a good step in the right direction. Of course, the FarLeft will claim that we’re making those legal aliens pay a higher rate of taxation… but that’s just spin and bunk. Sessions’ amendment passed 56-41 late yesterday, btw
And I like that Sen Barack Obama’s effort to terminate the “competitiveness” merit points was defeated 42-55. That’s also good news.
Remember it ain’t over til the big ol’ fat guy from Taxachusetts sings.
NDXXX at #18, based on what you think it means, I can gather that everyone would think that was the case.
Here’s the rub of it, NDXXX, you’re wrong. To submit that the people making the laws aren’t interested in seeing those laws enforced is patently absurd and flies in the face of even a beginner’s understanding of Congressional inner workings.
It’s like you’ve tuned-in to a station playing “Conspiracy 101” and you simply can’t fathom reality anymore.
Like with all those silly posts and reposts about deportations yesterday. Part of the reason why all those Asst AGs were fired was because they weren’t processing illegal alien cases with dispatch nor following the lead of the front office in setting case load priorities which included the prosecution of illegal aliens. And where exactly were the conservatives? Torching the bus Gonzales was riding in because he was never as pure as Ashcroft and it was fun beating up on the Prez… heck, the Left can’t have all the fun and sport. Kind of makes you wonder when conservatives opine they are the true stewards of the Rule of Law.
Sorry, you’re simply wrong and your claim that Congress generally or the Chamber on this particular bill doesn’t want to enforce provisions is patently uninformed.
If they really intended to enforce the law, they should have had no problem passing the amendment. What other reason could there be for opposing it?
#16 – Hey Matt! You seem to want my attention, so here is some. I’ll just take this opportunity to explain a couple things again, since you still don’t seem to get them 🙂
1) You never hurt my feelings. Honestly, bud.
2) When you start in on your whole name-calling shtick – you know, EchoCal and rhetorical tricks and the other meaningless nonsense – you just make yourself look kinda dumb.
3) When you start in on your deeper level of name-calling – you know, your “racist”, “bigot”, blah blah blah on good people on this blog – you’re being destructive and unjust at that point. Where I start to object.
I understand your not wanting me to highlight your more destructive behaviors here, Matt. I understand that holding your behavior up to the light, or calmly naming it (let’s say), is inevitably going to get me blowback from you. Believe me, I’ve been through this before with others like you. It’s OK. Just as long as you don’t slander me too much 😉
(Ever notice the “you common people are too stupid to understand the greatness of this legislation or comprehend the inner workings of the world’s greatest deliberative body” vibe that seems to be surfacing repeatedly among McCain-Kennedy’s proponents?)
(yeah)
Matt, I don’t think you can be much clearer than to vote against an amendment that makes it clear that this bill a) links to previous laws and b) does not in any way change, mitigate, or abrogate the provisions of those previous laws concerning immigration.
And what I find particularly ironic is that that amendment contains two things that you “hoped” previously the final bill would; one, eliminating the “sanctuary” nonsense that allows leftist Democrats to ignore immigration law, and two, requiring deportation of criminals — both of which are required by EXISTING law.
That’s twice your “allies”, which you claim are interested in “enforcement”, have voted against it.
The problem here is this, Matt; YOU, like your fellow racist-screamer Linda Chavez, are breaking the law yourselves, and the LAST thing you want is for the illegal immigrants you are sheltering and protecting to vanish.
Ted Kennedy has you by the balls because he knows you don’t have the courage to say that illegal immigration to this country is wrong and should carry a penalty; nor do you intend to enforce the rule yourself, because it would nick you too closely. Because you and Linda Chavez can’t do what’s right for the country out of personal inconvenience, you’re going to let Fat Teddy import voters and open our gates wide open to terrorists, none of whom will have to be identified, tracked, compliant, or taxpaying.
If you want to import your family, fine; if Linda Chavez wants to import her household help, fine. But use the legal pathway to do it.
This bill is EXACTLY what is wrong in Washington the Capital. Big bills STINK! But everyone feels the need to be a part of something big.I When 9/11 happened, the Clintonites were bemoaning that they wished it would have happened on BC’s watch, not because he would have been so much more competent than GWB (though looking back he probably would have), but that Clinton was denied his shot at greatness because he missed the crisis, he missed the big event.
Getting back to the
bull… er bill, I bet we could go down the list of all the omnibus bills that have passed in the last twenty years and only come up with one bill for every twenty that doesn’t suck. I am really starting to believe Jefferson was right when he postulated that government needs to be torn down and started from scratch every so often.Believe me, Sonicfrog, I would seriously consider making legislative service like jury duty — citizens are called up randomly, serve a fixed length of time, and return home.
I don’t see the rationality of defending Senate process on a bill that bypassed the usual committee process and whose sponsors are doing everything possible to shut down debate and cut off the amendment process, as Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and Arlen Specter are doing.
Matt-
I’m curious as to what makes you trust Kennedy, McCain and Lott on this immigration legislation when they presided over all of the previous attention attempts that did NOT work???
I think there is a Will Rogers quote that can be applied to being fooled by a Kennedy three times…………..
#20 –
That claim doesn’t even make sense. Queen Nan and other Democrats constantly pass laws they have every intention of not honoring, i.e., of exempting themselves from. They’re more cynical than the day is long.
#27 NDT, So would I. If you look at the governors, senators, and representatives who make up the “political leadership” in this country, it’s clear we have created a hereditary ruling class.
I read where the governor of Wyoming is choosing the grandson of a previous Wyoming senator to serve out Craig Thomas’s term. I am sure he’s a fine gentleman, but I think there is a hazard that a permanent, hereditary ruling class gets out of touch with average citizens.
In connection with Matt #16, I’m gonna throw one more thing in the record.
I have never – EVER – tried to shut Matt down because of his views. That’s his province. My only objection is, and has always been, to when he gets into bad tactics. (Trying to shut others down, who disagree with him.)
32, VtheK, excellent point. That’s one of the reasons I wouldn’t vote for either Bush or Gore for President in 2000.
*sigh*
Here we go again.
Matt writes:
“But, hey, what do I know. I’m probably the only real Republican who comments on this site. I’m probably the only guy with thick enough skin to debate the pure enuff, true enuff crowd you seem intent on playing the court jester to and sidekick ad litem.”
C’mon, Matt. No one doubts your intellect, myself least of all. But I simply gave up interjecting reason yesterday. You and I (a Republican) are roughly on the same page on most issues including this one, so the forces of darkness aren’t quite as swirling as you might think. We both agree that some progress is better than none and that compromise is the price paid for representative government. My skin is quite thick, thank you and if you must know, is nice and tight, too.
One more thing. I’m really tired of reading about hurt feelings and other manifestations of personal insecurities. Being a participant of a political blog comes with the understanding that arguments will at times involve statements we don’t like, some of them regarding motivations behind statements made and some personal in nature. I have a bit of advice: Don’t make this blog an extension of your personal life. Try to remain objective and dispassionate. Yes, it’s hard to find gay right-wingers and this blog is a fun way to interact with some great people. But let’s stay focused on the issues at hand (immigration, taxes, hot men) and check our personal lives at the door. I promise to do the same.
MM said:
Part of the reason why all those Asst. AGs were fired was because they weren’t processing illegal alien cases with dispatch nor following the lead of the front office in setting case load priorities which included the prosecution of illegal aliens.
Not correct. That was the first of many false reasons given to justify the firings. One of the fired attorneys had just been praised for outstanding work in that area of legal enforcement. None of the attorneys who got the ax had any bad marks against them, there job performances collectively were outstanding. It may not have been an issue if this administration didn’t lie about the reasonings for the firings in the first place, but then, I have come to the conclusion that this administration is the worst public relations train wreck since Jimmy “Malaise” Carter. The attorneys were fired, it appears for strictly political reasons, and not for job performance. That may not be illegal, but I for one would rather keep competent attorneys in office. And th same people who are claiming this is much ado about nothing would be the first to scream from the rooftops if a Democrat administration did the same thing.
Pat, just a note, George W. Bush is a blood relation to 15 other U.S. presidents.
If you look at the governors, senators, and representatives who make up the “political leadership” in this country, it’s clear we have created a hereditary ruling class.
…and doesn’t it seem like there’s been an awfull lot of inbreeding, judging by the results?
It does look like the gene pool of our ruling class has gotten decidedly shallow. Bob Casey Jr is literally a drooling idiot and Al Gore… well, what can one say?
sonicfrog #35, you totally had me, until your last sentence. A Democratic administration did do the same thing: Clinton summarily fired all U.S. attorneys at one point, so he could replace them with his own political appointees – i.e., for political reasons.
Most conservative commenters that I see, approve of Clinton’s action. In other words, they approve of the principle of letting the President exercising his Constitutional authority – regardless of whether the President is Democrat or Republican.
That claim doesn’t even make sense. Queen Nan and other Democrats constantly pass laws they have every intention of not honoring, i.e., of exempting themselves from. They’re more cynical than the day is long.
Yep! Take earmarks for example. Go to the Porkbusters website and mill around for a bit!
Oh, and one of my faves from the 80’s I think – mandating drug testing for all government workers…. except themselves of coarse!
42, Great V the K, now I’m going to have to google and find out the other 13. 😉 I think Franklin Pierce is an ancestor or a great^n uncle of Barbara Bush.
And SF, just to be clear, I know the Republicans are similar.
ILC, I know. I wanted to see how long it would take before that was thrown into the mix. The Clinton thing was a bit different though, as the firings were done at the begining of his first term, has precidence (been done by previous prez’s), and a majority of those let go were close to retirement and retained their benefits package. Reagan also did something similar. Once again, part of the problem with this administration is that they are as tone deaf to public relations as John Kerry is to “telling jokes”. I mean, come on, if this was as innocent and proper as past firings were, why lie! STUPID!!!
sonicfrog writes: “Not correct. That was the first of many false reasons given to justify the firings.”
Sorry, but your redaction of what the political operatives within the WH and AG’s Office within DOJ were doing isn’t accurate, sonicfrog.
Let’s take Carol Lam. She refused to adhere to the front office’s prioritization for local assets to be directed toward aggressively pursuing illegal aliens and ramping up preliminary deportation proceedings in SD… in her case, it’s a 16 month record of untoward interaction with local ICE and then DHS-DC staff… and noncompliance with the AG Exec Office’s priorities. ICE and FBI field agents offered testimony to Congress that she wouldn’t prosecute those cases because she thought they were a waste of her office’s assets. A waste, sonicfrog!
The press is great for looking for an Asst AG firing pattern that might help advance their interest in selling papers… but, I have to tell, the press is the last one who is aware of what was happening and why on the firings. That’s why Gonzales is still in his job despite cries from every angle to boot him –cries even leveled here in GP.
Here’s the problem, sonicfrog. Going back to Nixon and the days of AG Elliot Richardson, the DOJ usually set dept’al priorities. With Richardson’s ouster in the Sat Nite Massacre, the WH took control over establishing those priorities… from that point on, the Exec Office of each administration including JimmineyCricket’s picked the priorities.
You can read about the history of establishing priorities in Richardson’s book, The Creative Balance –which he wrote shortly before his death.
Here in Michigan, our Asst AG was purportedly fired because she kept asking for waivers on seeking the death penalty –as were two other AGs –but there were more reasons than just what was reported in the press. Meg Chiara (one Asst AG in Michigan) was also infamous for migrant worker rights protections and her “Civil Justice” approach to federal law enforcement… come on, she wanted to be nun once.
No, one of the compelling tests to determine if the first band of Asst AGs would be fired was how they did on illegal aliens, the death penatly, etc. What you don’t know is that there was supposed to be a 2nd round of firings in late May… of course, that didn’t happen given the political controversy the MSM created.
Sorry for sidetracking the thread, but for those interested, follow the link to the bottom of the page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_family
I was incorrect re: Franklin Pierce. He is a second cousin, several times removed from Barbara Bush.
EchoCalarato writes: ” (I) have never – EVER – tried to shut Matt down because of his views”.
LOL… I guess all that psycho-babble about my sinking low, my using lower case clan troll tricks, your sheep-like bleatings to plead for me to reconsider my conduct and return to my former self (what crap and patronizing nonsense is that Calarato)… right down to the model apology where you want me to plead that my ancestors made me do it weren’t attempts to stifle debate?
Hey, Echo, like you say… you’ve done all this before and you’re well acquainted with it… you drivien enough commenters from this forum to fill a small hotel room. Cryin out loud that sounded like a brag… not a reflection of what it says about you and your conduct.
Nawh, you don’t mean to intimidate. You don’t mean to imply people are lying… you don’t mean to use cheap rhetorical tricks like climbing up on the soapbox and addressing the throngs (that’s throngs, Echo, not thongs)… those aren’t mechanisms to shut down debate. Nawh.
Right… and as for hurt feelings? Who was it who whined about having to leave the blog because it was too traumatic for them? Hmmmm?
Stay on the topic and drop this silly sidebar nonsense you find more rewarding than discussing the merits or demerits of the issue. Like I said earlier, your proving to be tedious Calarato… I can’t count the number of times you’ve promised to drop this crap and then taken it back up in anon.
Give it rest, bud. A long rest. Please?
Back on topic? VdaK writes: “If they really intended to enforce the law, they should have had no problem passing the amendment. What other reason could there be for opposing it?”
Well, how about the amendment is symbolic and has no value? How about it conflicts with the application of the controlling federal statutes by reference into a bill dealing with border security, economic opportunity and immigration reform?
How about we represent what the enforcement provisions of the bill REALLY are instead of the FarRightFringe talking points?
There’s approximately $8.4b in grants to local police for apprehending and detaining unauthorized immigrants even before the immigration reforms go into place.
The US Admin Cts and DOJ get another 13,000 staff to enforce the provisions of the Act or about $4.2b
Just for DHS, that’s 12,000 more Border Patrol agents. Specialized Customs agents: 500 more/year. ICE, 200 more/yr. Agents just for illicit drug activity 200 more/yr. Citizenship agents 11/yr. At an estimated $180k/yr for salaries, benefits, training, euipment and deployment in the field… that’s $3b just for those staff.
Attys? Federal attys 200 more/yr
Judges? 270 more/yr
DOLabor attys to prosecute employers? 200 more/yr.
Skip the sacred Wall… skip employment verification… skip SS cards and tamperproof natl IDs… skip… oh, well, you get the idea.
Heck no, there’s ZILCH provided for enforcement. Afterall, when the bill is passed it’s just going to be but in the drawer and forgotten.
Right. Enforcement.
Matt, I’ve never seen someone intelligent most of the time, have such trouble with plain English. Since you’re still having so much trouble, I’ll spell it out again.
– You think a little differently from me on immigration. I’ve never had a problem with that.
– When you turn your name-calling tactics on good people on the GayPatriot blog – calling good people “racist”, “nativist” and all the rest – that’s unjust, and destructive.
– My objection is, and always has been all along, to your use of such tactics.
– If some lower-caser comes in here asking for it, I might cringe a tad when you do it, but I can understand it.
– But in the last few weeks, you haven’t just been doing it on people who deserve it. Rather, you’ve been doing it on people who don’t deserve it. People whose only “sin” is to disagree with you on immigration.
– That is a real step down for you. Since, at the end of the day, I continue to wish you well, then I do feel sad for you, Matt, that you’ve sunk to that level.
– All of the above is the simple truth. My saying it, is only me telling the truth. Nothing more than that, or less.
– And for the record: I don’t do those other things you accuse me of. That’s all just the inevitable blowback from you (for me holding your behavior up to the light), which I expect – and forgive.
P.S. Matt – There is a very, very easy solution to all this. Just stop deploying your arsenal of negative epithets on good people.
You don’t “have to”, as far as I am concerned. You can say whatever you want. And, if I’m around and if you are deploying your negative epithets on good people, I get to say what I want too – which is simply to highlight what you’ve done.
(All of the above subject to Bruce’s and Dan’s rules, of course. I will do whatever they tell me, or stop whatever they tell me, at any time.)
Well, how about the amendment is symbolic and has no value? How about it conflicts with the application of the controlling federal statutes by reference into a bill dealing with border security, economic opportunity and immigration reform?
How can something be symbolic and have no value, which means it does nothing, but then conflict with other laws, which means it’s doing something?
The problem here, Matt, is that the Coburn amendment goes one step farther than you wanted to go; not only does it allocate the money, but it checks back on how it’s being spent and puts requirements in place that it BE spent.
No longer can “moderates” and their amnesty-Democrat allies claim that they support enforcement because they allocated money for it; they now have to provide detailed accountings on how it’s being spent and how effectively it’s being used.
Example:
There’s approximately $8.4b in grants to local police for apprehending and detaining unauthorized immigrants even before the immigration reforms go into place.
So what? Local governments can decide not to enforce immigration laws and nothing happens. The Coburn amendment not only makes that allocation, but it makes it impossible for local governments to opt out of enforcement.
What we have here is this, Matt; you and LindaChavez think we’re dumb enough not to recognize that you’re allocating money for local enforcement of immigration laws, but that you’re aiding, abetting, pushing and voting for your local government to opt out of enforcing immigration laws.
Waving money in our face is not going to do it. Making it clear that you will enforce immigration law, no exceptions allowed, will.
MM. said:
Let’s take Carol Lam. She refused to adhere to the front office’s prioritization for local assets to be directed toward aggressively pursuing illegal aliens and ramping up preliminary deportation proceedings in SD… in her case, it’s a 16 month record of untoward interaction with local ICE and then DHS-DC staff… and noncompliance with the AG Exec Office’s priorities. ICE and FBI field agents offered testimony to Congress that she wouldn’t prosecute those cases because she thought they were a waste of her office’s assets. A waste, sonicfrog!
For the record, you are correct, I was wrong. There was an issue with Lam over immigration prosecution. According to e-mail exchanges within the DoJ, she was not prosecuting the “right” types of cases. From North Co. Times (local SD county paper), this e-mail exchange:
“Has ODAG (Office of the Deputy Attorney General) ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration enforcement? Has anyone?” — May 31, 2006, e-mail from Sampson to Associate Attorney General Bill Mercer.
“I don’t believe so. Not that I’m aware of.” — Mercer’s reply.
But if this was such a concern, why not notify her of these concerns? When she got fired, she didn’t even know why. From the Wiki:
On December 7, 2006, Michael A. Battle, director of the Executive Office for US Attorneys, called Lam and notified her she must resign effective January 31, 2007. Battle instructed Lam to explain that she had decided to pursue other opportunities. Following that phone call, Lam called Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty to find out why she was being asked to resign. McNulty said he wanted to take some time to respond since he didn’t want to give an answer “that would lead” Lam down the wrong path. McNulty added that he knew Lam had been through a long trial, presumably the Alvarado Hospital case, and had great respect for her.
(Yes, I’m not fond of using Wiki’s for sources, but what the hey, everyone’s doing it these days :-))
If you want her to concentrate on different cases, tell her. It’s not as if she was sitting on her hands doing noting. San Diego has been a mess, rife with political corruption. She did a fantastic job prosecuting the bigger fish, but it was at the expense of the little fish.
Dan Dzwilewski, head of the FBI office in San Diego:
said he sympathized with Lam on issues of stretching budgets to meet priorities and felt that criticism that she wasn’t giving proper attention to smuggling, drugs and gun crimes was off-base. “What do you expect her to do? Let corruption exist?” he said.
Lam’s continued employment as U.S. attorney is crucial to the success of multiple ongoing investigations, the FBI chief said. Source.
Every DA has to make choices concerning which and what type of cases to pursue within a limited budget. It’s (drum roll please) an opportunity cost issue. Only so much time / resources to prosecute cases. It all comes down to priorities. So in the minds of this DoJ and Gonzales, petty immigration offenses are more important that massive political corruption.
Once again…
STUPID!
PS. Wonder why, on the one hand, the Bush administration fires DA’s for supposedly not doing enough to prosecute illegals, yet at the same time pursues official policy that grants amnesty to those very same illegals???
STUPID!
I heard Giuliani on Hannity’s show this afternoon, talking about illegal immigration. He said that the goal of his administration would be to end illegal immigration, and he would subject border security to the same statistical and accountability practice he had used to reduce crime in NYC as mayor.
Yes, it’s true, Rudy Giuliani is a hatred-filled Nativist bigot. (Rudy, come to the next meeting. Your pie is waiting.)
Hey look, if you can call the bill “amnesty” when it is NOT
I’ve yet to find anybody who can explain how it isn’t when it clearly fits the definition. You’ve bloviated on everything else (as far as I’ve seen), but you seem to think we should take your word for it.
But, hey, what do I know. I’m probably the only real Republican who comments on this site.
DAMN you’re smooth! I’d be ashamed if you were the “only real Republican”, but hey, what do I know?
BTW, you know what you can do with that ego of yours?
More from Rudy:
I guess Rudy Giuliani is no longer a “real Republican” either. He’s siding with the FarRightFringe Nativist bigots on this one.
Rudy is looking good.
Anyone know Fred Thompson’s approach to Manbearpig? (Is he a believer, like Rudy – which would not be so good?)
Fred Thompson on ManBearPig:
I believe he told him to check into a mental institution.
[This comment was deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]
Ah, yes. The Other Manbearpig. It’s what’s for dinner.
EchoCalarato writes: “And for the record: I don’t do those other things you accuse me of”
Umm, like stepping up on your precious soapbox and addressing the throng? “And for the record”? Are you really that dense, Calarato? I’ll hazard the answer is Yes because in your reply you tried to do no less than 4 of the EXACT things I’ve said you do routinely to silence opposing voices to your view… whether it’s lower case clanners or moderates or conscientious Americans.
English has never been a problem for me. Comprehension isn’t either. If that’s what you think, there’s more wrong with your capacity to asees than I thought. But a capacity to critically self-evaluate is a shortcoming you posess, Calarato.
I appreciate your willingness to at least try to explain your conduct.
Oh, and NDT, very nice rebuttal in #52. I doubt the old MM, who believed in things like accountability, would have claimed that billions in federal funds for education *proved* that the education system was fixed. The old MM would have demanded accountability, standards, and some sort of statistical proof that the system was actually working better. The old MM would not use $8.4 Billion in federal grants and the hiring of X-Thousand new teachers to prove the education system was fixed.
#61 – Matt, now your comments are just nonsensical.
This is a discussion forum. We all address various audiences – various combinations of people – at different times. I know you do.
As I said – I know I’ve earned your wrath, by daring to stand up and call you on your behavior. I know that, given who you are, blowback is inevitable. I expect it – I understand it – and I forgive it.
(While reserving a right to correct the factual record if I see fit, of course.)