May 26, 2010

"Police chiefs from about a dozen cities are scheduled to meet with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday to talk about concerns they have with Arizona's new immigration law."

"The chiefs will tell Holder that they worry the new law will 'drive a wedge' between the community and police, and damage the trust that officers have worked to build 'over many years'...."

It's political theater, of course. But wouldn't the show work better if the script weren't circulated to the press in advance? Why not create the sense that there will be an actual meeting — a vivid exchange of ideas culled from real-life experience in different cities across the nation? Then afterwards, deliver what seems to be a surprising consensus that the new law will drive a wedge between the community and police and damage the trust that officers have worked to build over many years.

Where's the theatrical magic needed to induce the suspension of disbelief?

80 comments:

Hoosier Daddy said...

Just grant blanket amnesty and an open border and lets move on to the next nation breaking issue already.

bagoh20 said...

"Where's the theatrical magic needed to induce the suspension of disbelief?"

There was a time, but I'm way past trusting the sincerity of this administration. I really wanted to, but it turned out much worse than I even feared. I didn't want the change, but I had the hope. I only have fear left. The fear of hiring a contractor and then realizing that yours is his first job.

Parker Smith said...

Are they planning to provide copies of the law to the attendees?

And will Holder have read it by then?

Hoosier Daddy said...

And will Holder have read it by then?

I'm not completely convinced he's mastered the art.

ricpic said...

You did WHAT? You read the law? And you say it has more civil liberties protections in it than the federal law? Out! Get out of this meeting you, you...fascist, you!

Issob Morocco said...

That magical theatre of suspension of disbelief...

It is over in China pushing for world verbal condemnation on North Korea for sinking a S. Korean Naval Ship.

bagoh20 said...

"And will Holder have read it by then? "

Well, I'll provide the crib notes version for him: "Enforce Federal Law."

Shouldn't the boycotts be on D.C.?

Fred4Pres said...

How about just fining employers who hire illegals. Seriously. Just fine them enough so they stop hiring illegals. A contractor picks up some Mexicans to do drywall, landscaping, etc., give him a fine. Make the burden on the employer to establish his workers are legal.

Problem solved.

EDH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hagar said...

And in Albuquerque the current policy is that all persons arrested will be queried as to their citizenship status - thus no "racial profiling."

Monkeyboy said...

One of the Chiefs is from Huston. Perhaps he should be more concerned that an illegal alien was just convicted of murdering one of his officers in 2006. This is after being deported in 1998 and sneaking back in.

I wonder when these jackasses will be up for re-election?

TRO said...

I'm so tired of these racists trying to enforce these dispicable immigration laws. Especially the guy who just ordered 1200 troops to the border to stop the flow.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Why not create the sense that there will be an actual meeting — a vivid exchange of ideas culled from real-life experience in different cities across the nation? Then afterwards, deliver what seems to be a surprising consensus that the new law will drive a wedge between the community and police and damage the trust that officers have worked to build over many years."

Why bother actually doing that when certain members of the press - who have signed on to the regime - will report the event as if it was spontaneous and not actually scripted bullshit propaganda?

When you have members of the press who have joined the junta to willingly spread the message of the regime, you don't need to do the footwork of actually building a real consensus.

You can just present a fake one.

These police are part of the ruling regime. They're organized into a public-employee union that negotiates itself obscene pay ... such as in Boston where cops routinely make $200,000 a year by extorting money from contractors and road construction companies.

They're the richly-paid armed enforcers of the Obama regime. Of course they're "concerned".

They might actually have to get up off their fat fucking asses and ... you know ... enforce our fucking laws.

jrberg3 said...

So if they are going to have a dialogue, why aren't they including any police chiefs that favor the law? I guess that would ruin the message the Justic Dept is trying to send about the law itself.

And I'm sure this law in AZ is really going to have an effect on the police's relationship with the community in Philadelphia. Give me a break.

AllenS said...

Police Chiefs: "Don't make us work." "We have enough to do now, like forming our SWAT teams and raiding houses in the middle of the night to catch pot smokers.?

EDH said...

Heck, it's not like Holder's Justice Dept has any influence over how much federal funding these police chiefs receive each year.

Theater?

It's more like a seal act.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Love the way you use the phrase, "suspension of disbelief". Captain Reynaud would kiss you on both cheeks.

Beyond that, we have a concern "that they worry the new law will 'drive a wedge' between the community and police, and damage the trust that officers have worked to build 'over many years'....". They have reason to worry. Consider this. Police are being used more for political reasons than I can ever recall. It won't end well.

Quayle said...

When do the family members of Arizonians murdered near the border get to meet with Holder?

bagoh20 said...

"How about just fining employers who hire illegals."

It would help a lot, but it's like only punishing the guy receiving the stolen goods and not the thief. There will always be somewhere for some illegals to find work. The harder it is for them, the lower the wages and thus the more tempting to the employer. But practically, how do you know that guys you pick up at Home Depot are illegal if documents are not required? Most Latinos in my area are legal.

No matter what policy, we need to have the documents requirement or there are no legals or illegals.

Maguro said...

As political theater, it's kind of desperate, isn't it? Does anyone besides Holder and Twinkletoes actually believe that a get-together of hand-picked politically appointed police chiefs will do anything to turn public opinion against the law?

Hagar said...

OTOH, Santa Fe just reaffirmed their status as a "sanctuary city."

This is getting to be a culture war where the problem of illegal immigration is secondary to the intra-mural namecalling.

Michael Hasenstab said...

It's a safe bet that the dozen police chiefs will each have his or her ID checked multiple times before entering the room where they will "meet" with AG Eric Holder.

Perhaps AG Eric Holder should set an example by ordering that no person secheuled to meet with him will ever have his or her ID checked before the meeting.

How can the Arizona immigration law have any effect on police chiefs from cities in states other than Arizona? Duh. This meeting is for the show ponies, isn't it?

"How about just fining employers who hire illegals."

It is a safe bet that drug cartels and terrorist cells don't fully adhere to the standard employer/employee relationships in terms of the meaning of "hired."

Paul Zrimsek said...

Are they planning to provide copies of the law to the attendees?

No, only copies of the script.

LarsPorsena said...

"How about just fining employers who hire illegals."

Let's see.

The schools can't ask about immigration status.

The hospitals can't ask about immigration status.

Social services can't ask about immigration status.

The police can't ask about immigration status.

....but let's have employers do it.

Robert Cook said...

Frankly, the whole "illegal immigrant problem" is a ginned-up, exaggerated fraud, meant to appeal to people's fears, racism, or other insecurities about the faltering state of our nation. It's more of the misdirection that those who wield power have always used--as a magician does to fool his audience into believing the unbelievable--to mislead us as to the real sources of our societal problems.

This is not to say there are no problems associated with illegal immigrants, but such as problem as they do present are as a gnat's bite compared to the apocalyptic danger we are told by the fear-mongerers that they represent. Blaming the indigent, the outcast, and the oppressed for their own misery is a centuries-old parlor trick, employed across all cultures.

mesquito said...

"Okay, when you come, we need you to tell us that the law will drive a wedge between police and communities"

"Okay."

"Also, we need you to say that this is a unacceptable politicization of law enforcement."

"Got it."

SteveR said...

Hagar: The ironic thing about Santa Fe being a sanctuary city for illegal aliens is that they can't afford to live there, or at the very least in any numbers as to create the type of problems the AZ law was designed to address.

mesquito said...

Okay, Robert Cook. What problems are associated with illegal immigration?

AllenS said...

I blame Robert Cook. And of course BUSH!

TMink said...

"But wouldn't the show work better if the script weren't circulated to the press in advance?"

Only if we had an independent press that was interested in facts more than the narrative.

Trey

virgil xenophon said...

The whole thought--let alone sight--of these dog & pony PR shows would be funny were it not so sickening. All such efforts by Obama and his minions may be filed under: Wolf, Thomas, "Mau-mauing the flack-catchers."
From immigration, to the BP oil spill to Iran and Korea, ALL efforts by the Obama Administration have been, and continue to be, nothing but flack-catching exercises.

Fen said...

Frankly, the whole "illegal immigrant problem" is a ginned-up, exaggerated fraud

I wish we could relocate you to Cochise County and see what you think 6 months later.

If you're still alive.

holdfast said...

Blaming the indigent, the outcast, and the oppressed for their own misery is a centuries-old parlor trick, employed across all cultures.

That's complete crap - each country should be looking to help their own indigent, outcast etc - it is NOT America's job to help everyone's.

If it were not for the generous welfare state that America has built since the 1930s, then free immigration would only be a problem for those low-skilled workers (many of them black) who are undercut by low-wage illegals, and since they seem to vote monolithically for the Dems, I'd say it isn't a conservative problem. Unfortunately we do have this welfare state, and even Ben Bernecke cannot print enough money to offer it to the world. Maybe Mr. Cook likes living in a 3rd world shithole where there is plenty of stoop labor on hand, but I would prefer to cut my own grass in a country of free and prosperous men and women.

Maguro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mesquito said...

Well, of course illegal aliens can't actually live in Santa Fe. But they can certainly hang drywall or wash dishes in tres chic "Southwestern" restaraunts. And if the idiot gringos want to eat grilled prickley pears pads, that's all the more fun.

Maguro said...

There's an old saying among those who have worked at NATO Headquarters that when a European officer says "No problem", what he means is that it's no problem for him.

Similarly, when Robert Cook sanctimoniously says illegal immigration isn't a serious problem, he means that it's not a serious problem for him.

Paul Zrimsek said...

If we had the sort of government Cook prefers we wouldn't need a wall to keep people from getting in. We'd need it to keep people from getting out.

Simon Kenton said...

Interesting that our local chief of Police (Boulder CO) was using the exact rhetoric, the same words, a couple days ago. I usually believe more in a concurrence of opinion, whereby liberal types "just know" what to say, but when the words are exact, I'm inclined toward a circulating talking-points memo.

The Drill SGT said...

Michael Hasenstab said...
It's a safe bet that the dozen police chiefs will each have his or her ID checked multiple times before entering the room where they will "meet" with AG Eric Holder.


an interesting recent news piece in the WaPo. The Assistant Sec State fo the Western hemisphere is a Mexican American (natch). He ad his wife tried to get into the Obama State Dinner.

He and his wife were asked for their papers.

Wife didn't have hers and had to go home to get them :)

So Obama's folks have no trouble asking Mexican-Americans for papers.

wv: atizansi

an Azlan nazi?

TRO said...

'Blaming the indigent, the outcast, and the oppressed for their own misery is a centuries-old parlor trick, employed across all cultures."

WTF does this have to do with people entering our nation illegally?

MadisonMan said...

Well, I respect what the officers have to say, and would moreso if the officers talking to Holder represented a broad cross-section of Enforcement. But I suspect they have been cherry-picked for their views, because that's consistent with the ongoing political theater.

I suppose I could click the link to find out for sure, but I'm lazy today :)

Calypso Facto said...

Apparently Holder's lack of reading capacity extends beyond ignoring the text of statutes to not taking in memos from his boss, the President who recently said: "But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship.”

"Got it!" Holder replies, "I'll cherry pick a handful of police chiefs who will faithfully regurgitate our talking points for our listening session..."

danielle said...

i think this is clear evidence that Obama's team was not involved. Obama's people are *way* better at stage craft.

this is another example of the white house and the justice department not being on exactly the same page. If a top member of the Admin is asked to leave, I think it will be Holder. from the terrorist trials, to the 'nation of cowards,' to Miranda ... i think he will be the first to go. if he blunders border security by making the gov't response a political joke, then that will just add to this already long list.

PatCA said...

"Hey, guys, come on down to DC and talk about block grants...er, I mean that darn AZ law."

A big reason Hispanics don't contact police with tips is that they fear retribution from the criminals in their midst, not police.

edutcher said...

Hagar said...

OTOH, Santa Fe just reaffirmed their status as a "sanctuary city."

Albuquerque is doing the opposite.

This is getting to be a culture war where the problem of illegal immigration is secondary to the intra-mural namecalling.

Name calling New Mexico?

c3 said...

I hate to suggest any level of agreement with Robert Cook but I would agree a large part of the political calculation around illegal immigration is fear. Its fear based on this crime, this crime wave across the border and many other heavily reported incidents. The fear unfortunately ignores the facts about crime, crime on the border and crime in the nearby urban centers where the drop houses and the illegal immigrants are concentrated.

Of course on the flip side the “fear mongering” of the left (“racism”, “racial profiling” etc) has been equally appalling. Given the rhetoric about the Arizona law can I assume that if the feds suddenly sent tens of thousands of ICE agents to the border to enforce the federal law it would also been seen as racist. In addition, the left persists in ignoring the broad public support in and outside of Arizona for such laws.

A nice summary of the heated and contradictory political rhetoric here.

DKWalser said...

How about just fining employers who hire illegals. Seriously. Just fine them enough so they stop hiring illegals. ... Make the burden on the employer to establish his workers are legal.

There's a huge problem with this approach. Actually, there are two huge problems. First, current federal law limits the steps an employer can take to verify someone's immigration status. With the last round of immigration reform (in the mid-80's), employers were required to collect certain documents as proof someone was eligible to work in the US. It's considered a civil rights violation for the employer to take any additional steps -- or even to question the validity of the proffered documents -- to determine someone's eligibility to work. Second, the reason current law limits what steps an employer can take to verify someone's status is a fear that employers will use the requirement to be here legally as an excuse to discriminate against Hispanics. It's a classic Catch-22 situation for employers: If they hire an illegal, it's because the employer cares nothing about the law and desires to maximize profits by hiring and exploiting illegals. If they don't hire someone because they believe the person is here illegally, it's because the employer is racist.

Until we can get an reliable instant computer check of immigration status, it's unfair to put employers in such a no-win situation.

John said...

This weekend a Chicagoan named Eduardo Caraballo was arrested in conjunction with a stolen car chase. He was held on bail as well as suspicion, by Chicago police, of being illegal.

His mother turned up with the bail money and his birth certificate. He also had an Illinois(?) drivers license.

The police refused to let him go because they thought he was illegal. They turned the documents over to ICE which thought they might have been forged. He was finally released on Monday.

This is being portrayed as some sort of vindication of all the folks who say the Arizona law is racist.

It is also being portrayed here in Puerto Rico as stupidity on the part of the Chicago cops who do not know that Puerto Ricans are natural born US citizens. Caraballo was born in PR but emigrated to the US when he was 8 months old.

On the other hand:

1) This happened in Obama's home town where the police are well know to be considerate of prisoner's rights. (Yeah, right)

2) The problem was not that the police and ICE did not know that Puerto Ricans are citizens. The problem is that the birth certificate apparently looked funky.

3)Had this happened in Arizona, ICE would not have been involved. The police are required by law to accept a drivers license as proof of citizenship.

4) In a comment on this somewhere someone suggested that the police were using citizenship as an excuse to hold him for the crime and that it is a bogus excuse.

5) Cong. Luis Gutierez, who makes Al SHarpton look like the soul of reasonableness is now involved. Caraballo is one of his constituents. Gutierez is fanning the flames for all it is worth. Gutierez claims (on the basis of his parents) to be Puerto Rican, though he has never lived here.

Overall, it seems that had this happened under the Arizona law instead of Chicago law, Caraballo would have been better off.

I also believe that we don't know what is going on here. Is Caraballo really a US citizen? Did this really happen as he and Gutierrez say?

Here is a link to the story

http://www.nbcchicago.com/topics/?topic=Eduardo+Caraballo

John Henry

Mick said...

Are they going to implore Holder to file Quo Warranto against Obama, challenging his eligibility for the office of POTUS?
By what authority does he hold the office? He is clearly not a Natural Born Citizen (due to his father's Kenyan citizenship, and dual citizenship at birth, no matter if born in the White House)

Calypso Facto said...

I love your steadfast optimism, Danielle: "if he blunders border security by making the gov't response a political joke..."

I'd say he has ALREADY blundered and that the (federal) gov't response has long been a joke now being exposed as such by the uproar over Arizona's attempt to do what the fed's won't: actually enforce the law.

John said...

Put up or shut up Mick (2nd request)

What is your source for saying that Obama's parentage has any bearing on his status as a natural born citizen?

And what does it have to do with this topic?

John Henry

wv - Hemord. Again with the relevance. Google sees the post from Mick and figures he seems about as useful as a hemorrhoid. Then blows the spelling.

John Henry

Damon said...

I know this post concerned the procedure of this political theater, but I have to comment on the predisposed position that comes out of this.

The wedge that drives the police from the people is not the enforcement of laws. People don't fear what they can control and changing laws (via legislation) is part of that. Reality is, police undermine themselves by abusing their power and refusing to enforce laws or discriminately enforcing laws does just that. That is the police taking the power from the people.

Hoosier Daddy said...

'Blaming the indigent, the outcast, and the oppressed for their own misery is a centuries-old parlor trick, employed across all cultures."

Actually we're blaming them for breaking our immigration laws.

Again, we have laws and regulations governing entry and residence into this country. If liberals believe that Mexicans, Central and South Americans are expected to be exempt from these laws then please just say so and provide a legal and logical explanation as to why that should be.

The question is a simple one but considering how I never get an answer to it speaks volumes.

Mick said...

John said...
"Put up or shut up Mick (2nd request)"

I cited the Supreme court on many occasions (which far surpasses the letter from a FEC bearurocrat).
The Venus (1814)
Dred Scott (1854)
Minor v. Happersett (1874)
Wong Kim Ark (1898)
Perkins v. Elg (1934)
I can cite many more sources, but just to give you a taste, here from Minor v. Happersett:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Or The Venus (1814 as it directly quotes Vattel, only 27 years after ratification of the USC:

"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

I think that supercedes your FEC beaurocrat.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I hate to suggest any level of agreement with Robert Cook but I would agree a large part of the political calculation around illegal immigration is fear.

Is it possible that law abiding people simply expect that 10-15 million people to follow the immigration laws we have?

I mean if we're going to have any sense of national soveriegnty then either enforce the security of the border or declare an open border and let anyone who can set foot in the country automatic citizenship. Period, end of discussion. Pick one or other other but pick one.

Mick said...

John Henry said,

"And what does it have to do with this topic?"

Well because Obama's knowledge of his own ineligibility colors his treatment of illegal aliens. His ineligibility, when finally confronted will make all decision he signed Null and Void.

Mick said...

John said...
"Put up or shut up Mick (2nd request)"

By the way are you the pasty faced carpet bagger John Henry that used to own the Marlins?

danielle said...

sure Calypso Facto, its Obama and Holder's fault that even Bush couldnt get comprehensive immigration reform through ... is it really any surprise that it has come to this ? the only real surprise is that it has taken this long.

Hoosier Daddy said...

sure Calypso Facto, its Obama and Holder's fault that even Bush couldnt get comprehensive immigration reform through

We have immigration laws on the books. Please tell me one reason why they should not be enforced.

Just one reason would suffice.

Thank you.

A.G. said...

Why not create the sense that there will be an actual meeting — a vivid exchange of ideas culled from real-life experience in different cities across the nation?

Because they have no "real-life experience" to begin with on this matter...

Nobody's enforcing the federal immigration laws the way they were intended, and thus there isn't any empirical evidence available about this; the AZ law is intended to remedy that problem. Any opinion by the police chiefs of other cities is pure speculation at this point. They might as well say that you'll be deported for buying ice cream for your daughter without your papers, like our eminent HLS scholar in chief has opined.

The police chiefs have simply agreed to play kabuki to help the flailing administration look good, in return for a bargaining chip of increased funding if their states should ever choose to enact similar laws. The administration, of course, has no intention of doing anything about illegal immigration on a federal level, and the administration will back peddle on any agreement with the police chiefs if other states really do get serious about the problem. Which takes us back to square one. Immigration in a nutshell.

Calypso Facto said...

I'm with Hoosier, Danielle, we don't need comprehensive immigration reform to enforce existing laws.

As to the usual "Bush did it too" refrain, I've already acknowledged that it's a long-standing problem (that has recently become more urgent). (And Bush's Attorney General has already been fired, so no point in beating that dead horse.) Holder's had 16 months...time to do something besides confusing law enforcement with racism.

LarsPorsena said...

Danielle:

As to immigration enforcement F**K Bush too. Feel better?

Robert Cook said...

Hoosier Daddy said,

"Actually we're blaming them for breaking our immigration laws."

No, it's not about the immigrants at all, really.

I'm not saying we should allow noncitizens to stroll or fly across our boards unimpeded and be allowed to set up households unbothered. I'm saying the point of the false alarm raised about them is meant to distract us from the real cause of most of the ills facing our nation, mainly, the wealthy and powerful in government or corporate boardrooms who steal us blind and who claim ever greater power for themselves.

Thus is has always been: blame the powerless for the crimes of the powerful, focus public resentment in the wrong direction, and the real troublemakers are left untroubled to do their dirty deeds.

Hoosier Daddy said...

No, it's not about the immigrants at all, really.

Um, yeah its about the illegal immigrants, really.

When you have a population 3x the size of Denmark living illegally and no efforts at containing additional influx in the country, you have a problem.

Again, please provide a reason why our immigration laws should be ignored.

Mick said...

Robert Cook said,

"
"Thus is has always been: blame the powerless for the crimes of the powerful, focus public resentment in the wrong direction, and the real troublemakers are left untroubled to do their dirty deeds."

The focus is squarely on both ends. That is what the Tea Parties are all about. It is not about class warfare, it's about adhering to the Constitution and the laws of this country, rich or poor.

Glen said...

Althouse said...
Where's the theatrical magic needed to induce the suspension of disbelief?

This form of theater is called agitprop. The audience arrives at the theater with its disbelief already willfully suspended.

Its purpose is to agitate that audience.
-

Sofa King said...

I'm not saying we should allow noncitizens to stroll or fly across our boards unimpeded and be allowed to set up households unbothered.

Except here you are, condemning as illegitimate the slightest attempts to enforce the law. By reacting so hysterically to what is in reality a modest enforcement measure, then, yes, that is what you are saying.

Let's remember: the massive media hysteria was all because of *opposition* to this law.

Moira Breen said...

Robert Cook: Frankly, the whole "illegal immigrant problem" is a ginned-up, exaggerated fraud, meant to appeal to people's fears, racism, or other insecurities...

You neglected to insert a reference to "the Other", Robert. Any smug progressive finger-wagging about immigration worth its salt needs to have a reference to "ignorant fear of the Other", no matter how much other high-quality vacuous twaddle it contains.

I'm saying the point of the false alarm raised about them is meant to distract us from the real cause of most of the ills facing our nation, mainly, the wealthy and powerful in government or corporate boardrooms who steal us blind and who claim ever greater power for themselves.

Even if uncontrolled immigration and the kleptocrats were two separate problems, it's a fairly low-level mental feat for one mind to be able to recognize, and think clearly, about both of them, without distraction. I'm sorry it's an intellectual bridge too far for you, as indicated by your failure to see the obvious connection between the two. Do you think we'd have uncontrolled borders if this weren't to the benefit of the people "stealing us blind"? It didn't "just happen" because they were too busy looting the treasury to notice the border dissolving, dude.

grandrants said...

I have a simple question: how were these "police chiefs from about a dozen cities" selected to discuss this important topic with AG Holder? Was it a blanket invitation? Was there a questionnaire or form to fill out, listing what each chief's view on the law was, and invitations issued based on the responses, perhaps?

Okay, and another one: Why invite them from anywhere but Arizona, for that matter? This law only affects that state, as far as I know. So why not invite ALL Arizona police chiefs instead? Could it be because the majority of law officials in AZ actually are in support of the law, so they had to reach farther afield in order to further the agenda that SB1070 is bad?

I'm getting REAL tired of this administration (actually, I've been tired of it since January 2009).

2012 can't come soon enough.

Hoosier Daddy said...

In the insurance industry, many states have what they call 'recipricol laws' or 'retaliatory provisions' which means if your state has higher form filing fees, capital/surplus requirements, licensing obligations, etc, then to do business in my state you follow your state's laws if they are more stringent than mine.

I think that's fair and perhaps we should have retaliatory immigration laws which means we will subject Mexican immigrants to the same laws as they impose on immigrants to their country.

Rich B said...

They could only get a dozen cities? At first I read it as states - how hard can it be to get a dozen police chiefs from Democrat controlled cities?

Theater, sure. Puppet theater.

c3 said...

Hoosier;
no efforts at containing additional influx in the country, you have a problem.
Do you honestly believe there have been NO efforts to contain additional immigrants.

FWIW, my position. I believe immigrants are a net positive for the country. That being said, yes there need to be controls on the borders.

I like the guest worker concept; I don't believe you're going to get 11 million people to march back across the border so yes I believe in a path to citizenship for some of those already here. And yes I understand the "unfairness" of that approach for those who came here legally.

As i've stated above I question motivations and public pronouncement of those from the left and the right.

And finally it must be said, we (the US) have been here before (see here, here, and here. Many other historical examples)

Robert Cook said...

Do you think we'd have uncontrolled borders if this weren't to the benefit of the people "stealing us blind"? It didn't "just happen" because they were too busy looting the treasury to notice the border dissolving, dude."

Of course...where do I say otherwise? The ruling class is working us from both ends, and turning us against each other so our attention and anger is diverted away from them.

It benefits the plutocrats to have poor, illegal aliens available who will do dirty, hard, dangerous work for pennies, and who have no recourse to governmental protections against poor working conditions, and who do not cost the employer in social security wages, overtime, income tax deductions, workers comp, etc. It also benefits the plutocrats to have those poor, undocumented illegal aliens to raise alarms about in order to foster fear and resentment and hatred of them among working-class Americans, who are convinced to think the illegal aliens are stealing their livelihoods, when in fact all of us are victims together of the brutal human lawnmower.

c3 said...

It benefits the plutocrats to have poor, illegal aliens available who will do dirty, hard, dangerous work for pennies

Mr. Cook plays the opposites against the middle. So those on the right oppose illegal immigration because of their deep-seated racists tendencies or they secretly support it because they need cheap, oppressed labor (or are you suggesting on the "plutocrats" on the right believe this and the rest of the right is "deluded".)

Boy, now I really feel bad about agreeing with in any way, shape or form

Moira Breen said...

Robert Cook: Of course...where do I say otherwise? The ruling class is working us from both ends, and turning us against each other so our attention and anger is diverted away from them.

Nice "wash, rinse, and repeat" there, Robert. Whose attention is being diverted from what, Robert? If you turn your attention to the, yes, *real* problems at the Arizona border are you no longer capable of comprehending the financial news? Who's this easily distractable "us" duking it out while ignoring the depredations of the fat cats?

Maybe those ignorant "blue color workers" who've got this bizarre notion that importing workers who "have no recourse to governmental protections against poor working conditions, and who do not cost the employer in social security wages, overtime, income tax deductions, workers comp" have some concrete effect on their wages or livelihoods? Why, it defies every tenet of economic science! Whoever heard of cheaper workers costing less than less cheap workers? It's racism-fueled crazy talk! Probably pick this crap up from talk radio. (Sheesh, Cook, even the nuttiest of open borders nutjob economists will admit that illegal immigration really is screwing lower-class Americans economically.)

Do you understand "proximate" and "ultimate" re causes of problems, Robert? No, "ultimate" does not mean "real" or "true", and "proximate" does not mean "false" or "an illusion consequent to being propagandized against one's own best interests". For example, if large numbers of illegal immigrants are straining local services to the limit, they are the *real* proximate cause of budget woes and a degradation of local living standards. Understanding that their migration was ultimately caused by the preferred policies of the klepto-class on both sides of the border doesn't put any more revenue in the coffers, nor does vaporing on about the alleged "racism" or ignorance of the people at the illegal immigration coal-face. (Talk about "distracting".) Those people are still faced with *real* problems, which they must work to solve "doing what they can, where they are, with what they've got" - like working to have the law enforced.

Hey, ever stop to think that maybe they've rationally arrived at the conclusion that enforcing immigration law will stick it to the brutal human lawnmower far more efficaciously than marching in solidarity with La Raza, sporting a jaunty Che beret? Nah, can't be. They're just a festering mass of false consciousness.

roesch-voltaire said...

New H you are so right about cops:They're the richly-paid armed enforcers of the Obama regime. Of course they're "concerned".

They might actually have to get up off their fat fucking asses and ... you know ... enforce our fucking laws.
And of course when they did try to enforce the laws that they were killed by anti-government hater Jerry Kane Jr. Go figure.

JAL said...

The Sherriff of Maricopa County is Joe Arpaio.

@TRO Especially the guy who just ordered 1200 troops to the border to stop the flow.

My husband wondered if he sent them down there to protect the illegals from the Arizonans.

I heard the police chief of Tucson was there?

The quote I heard today was that this law destroys the trust the police have built with the illegal community, and the crime rate will go up (?) and there will be more unsolved crimes because they won't have illegals coming to them with info.

On the other hand how about if there is more ID checking and more deportations there will be *less* illegals around to perpetrate crimes?

JAL said...

... Maricopa county being the place with a decreased crime rate that c3 linked to ... the one with the "drop houses" and comcentration of illegals. And Joe Arpaio.

They have a 94% conviction rate, and as other pundits and bloggers have noted with amazement, the more crooks you put in jail ... the fewer there are to commit crimes.

Milwaukie guy said...

At the risk of being tedious, I too would like an answer to Hoosier Daddy's question:

Again, we have laws and regulations governing entry and residence into this country. If liberals believe that Mexicans, Central and South Americans are expected to be exempt from these laws then please just say so and provide a legal and logical explanation as to why that should be.

Another part of the immigration debate I like is when amnesty advocates acknowledge that privileging the rights of the undocumented is a slap in the face to the millions who are trying to immigrate legally. But BFD, right?