DOJ says Texas law stands in the way of illegals exercising constitutional rights.

At least I stopped running guns to Mexico

I’m glad our Dept. of Justice is on this, I really am.  After all, if the DOJ spends all of its time blocking state legislation that requires would-be voters to prove they’re not dead, then it has less time to give guns to Mexican drug cartels and then proceed to lose them.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department’s civil rights division on Monday objected to a new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas because many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification.

[...]

Photo ID laws have become a point of contention in the 2012 elections. Liberal groups have said the requirements are the product of Republican-controlled state governments and are aimed at disenfranchising people who tend to vote Democratic — African-Americans, Hispanics, people of low-income and college students.

Sigh.  Always with the “civil rights,” Whitey thing…will it ever end?  Question: Why would a photo-i.d. law disenfranchise “African-Americans, Hispanics, people of low-income and college students?”  In all honesty, I can’t comment on African-Americans because I’ve never emigrated to the U.S. from Africa, and maybe there are some strange rules for why they can’t get photo identification.  If I had known this was such an issue, I would have asked some of the African exchange-students I met in college.  Missed opportunity there.

What about the others?  Is it so difficult for members of the aforementioned groups to find the secretary of state’s office?  If the answer to my question is in the affirmative, then they should probably consider whether voting is something they’re qualified to do.  After all, we all remember how difficult it was for some people in Florida to punch those paper ballots.

Put another way, why is this such a big deal?  Anyone who is 18 and a citizen of the U.S. can vote.  So why is this law necessary and, more importantly, why would the DOJ move to block it?  Here’s a hint: it has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with politics.

In a letter to Texas officials that was also filed in the court case in Washington, the Justice Department said Hispanic voters in Texas are more than twice as likely than non-Hispanic voters to lack a driver’s license or personal state-issued photo ID. The department said that even the lowest estimates showed about half of Hispanic registered voters lack such identification.

This isn’t about low income people, or minorities, or college kids.  This is about illegal immigrants, period.  See, registering to vote is about as difficult as falling off a log.  In Illinois (and every other state I’ve looked up) for example, all it takes to register is signing an application promising that the applicant a U.S. citizen.  That’s it.  As you can see, my dog could register to vote (if I had a dog).

It’s when the hopeful voter shows up to vote that an “effort” is made to figure out if he or she is a real person.  This is also astonishingly easy…unless you’re an illegal in Texas under the new law.  In Illinois, if the voter didn’t provide any sort of i.d. when he registered (like the aforementioned example), then he must bring something to the polling place to “prove” he’s the person who registered.  All he would need to bring in to a polling place, however, is a paycheck or bank statement with his address on it.  That’s it.  Thus, not only could my imaginary dog register to vote in Illinois, he could also vote.

Everything is the same in Texas, except the law at issue doesn’t allow a voter to use a bank statement or paycheck.  It requires a state-issued photo i.d.  So you can see the problem.  It would be much more difficult for the citizen-challenged voter to vote if he or she needed to have a government i.d., as opposed to a paycheck written in crayon.

So what have we learned?  It’s not about civil rights, it’s about politics.  If the illegals were presumed to vote for the Repubs, the outcry would likely be reversed.  Of course, the “you’d cry too” argument doesn’t hold water since the Constitution that limits potential voters to American citizens who are at least 18 years old.  In other words, we love America, and the left enjoys kicking puppies.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Law Requiring Workers to be Legal. Left is Confused.

In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law which allowed for the suspension or revocation of a business’s license to do business in Arizona if the company was found to be intentionally employing illegal immigrants.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which obviously has some significant members that like cheap labor, challenged the law, arguing that it is preempted by federal law.  For those of you out there who are aren’t boring, “preempted” simply means the federal government controls the issue completely, thereby leaving nothing for the states to do.  Here, the feds had enacted their own law that punishes businesses that knowingly employ illegals with civil or criminal sanctions (money damages or jail time).  The federal law also expressly prohibits state laws from doing the same thing.  Thus, preemption.  However, the federal law also expressly allows states to impose their own sanctions “through licensing and similar laws.”

The majority, made up of the so-called “conservatives” on the court, ruled that Arizona’s law, which instructs courts to suspend or revoke the licenses of Arizona businesses that knowingly employ illegals, clearly fell within the federal exception allowing a state to issue sanctions through its “licensing” laws.  To that I say: Hooked on Phonics works.  The majority also upheld Arizona’s law that required each employer to confirm the immigration status of potential employees by using the E-verify system.  E-verify allows an employer to send information supplied by the employee to the federal government via the internet, and then be told whether the employee is able to be legally employed.

This was a beneficial decision because it will allow Arizona to try and put an end to illegal immigration by targeting its catalyst: employers.  It also gives every other state a template to use in their own legislation.  Finally, it was also an easy decision, because the Arizona law does exactly what the federal law said it could do: impose sanctions through its business licensing laws.  Of course, three of the four “liberals” on the court sided with the Chamber of Commerce; although not because they like big business (the fourth lib, Elena Kagan didn’t hear the case).

I’m not going to bore you with the details of the three dissenting opinions.  Let me just say that the justices had to go through some serious contortions of law and the English language to even approach well-reasoned decisions.  Their “legal” reason for trying to strike down the law: while Congress may have specifically made sanctions through “licensing laws” an exception to federal preemption, Congress didn’t actually mean it.  The real reason why they wanted to strike down the law: it increases the possibility of a business discriminating against someone of non-European heritage (despite the existence of anti-discrimination laws).  Oh yeah, the law also makes it harder for illegals to get jobs.  And without jobs, the illegals may go back to their countries of origin, thereby making it more difficult for community organizers to get them registered to vote so that they can vote for Democrats.  [Places broad brush back into bag].

Bottom line: good decision.  The easiest, and cheapest, way to combat illegal immigration is to go after the businesses that employ them.  And since the federal government has no interest in enforcing its own immigration laws, while at the same time turning a blind eye to cities like Chicago that blatantly advertise themselves as “sanctuary cities,” someone had to do something…and Arizona’s on the front lines.  Oh, and the law clearly falls into the federal exception.  So no “activist” judges here.  Which is good.

Obama: Border Agents to Fight Gangs With Limited Edition Beanie-Babies

This camo blazer makes me hard to see.

Woops, there goes my mom to apply for a job as a border patrol agent (she hearts beanie-babies…especially the limited edition ones).  But seriously folks, things are getting a bit dicey south the border (or almost south of the border).  Apparently a gun battle broke out near Nogales, Arizona, the evening of December 14, 2010.  Sort of.  While the bad guys were armed with guns and real bullets, our border patrol agents were packing Red Rider BB guns:

Border Patrol agents shot beanbags at a group of suspected bandits before the men returned fire during a confrontation in a remote canyon, killing agent Brian Terry with a single gunshot, records show.

[...]

The documents say the group of illegal border entrants refused commands to drop their weapons after agents confronted them at about 11:15 p.m. Two agents fired beanbags at the migrants, who responded with gunfire. Two agents returned fire, one with a long gun and one with a pistol, but Terry was mortally wounded in the gunfight.

Not surprisingly, Brian Terry’s brother Kent found our border patrol policies a bit out of whack,

‘You go up against a bandit crew that is carrying AKs, and you walk out there with guns loaded with beanbags – I don’t get it,’ Terry said in a phone interview from Michigan. ‘It’s like going to the Iraqi war with one knife. It boggles my mind. …

That would be pretty dumb, huh?  Going into the Iraq war with a knife.  Of course, while our soldiers did have guns, Barry’s military policy in Afghanistan wasn’t much more effective than having a knife: don’t shoot the bad guys until they shoot at you first.  Anyone noticing a pattern here?

And what were the agents like Brian Terry doing at the time of the shootout? 

On the night of the shooting, Terry and his crew were targeting a ‘rip crew’ that robbed and assaulted drug runners and illegal immigrants, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

That’s right.  Terry was killed while targeting a group of criminals that robbed and assaulted other criminals.  Shouldn’t we be in favor of such activity?  Does anyone else find this to be a waste of resources? 

Oh yeah, then there are those allegations about where the bad guys got their guns in the first place:

The Terry family remains upset about allegations that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed a gun smuggler it was investigating to purchase and smuggle into Mexico the weapons used in the shootout in which Terry died.

Yes, they’re just allegations, but allegations that have not been denied by the feds.  To borrow a line from Charlie Sheen, our Mexican border policy was written by droopy-eyed armless children.  Definitely not winning.

But wait, there’s more!  Even though we have border agents in Mexico to assist Mexican police in dealing with heavily-armed drug cartels, our people don’t carry guns; despite the fact the one of our immigration agents, Jaime Zapata, was killed last month while in Mexico.  Barry’s response, after meeting with Mexican president Felipe Calderon:

‘There are laws in place in Mexico that say that our agents should not be armed,’ Obama said, describing the U.S. role south of the border as an ‘advisory’ one. ‘We do not carry out law enforcement activities inside of Mexico.’

But yet we’re in Mexico providing advice to Mexican law enforcement.  Why?  Is Tijuana nice this time of year?  Well, at least Felipe is looking into it,

Calderon said Mexican officials are ‘deeply analyzing alternatives.’

Huh?  The only other alternative is not getting shot at by drug cartels.  And that plan isn’t working very well either.  Hey, maybe the translation was bad.  Maybe Calderon actually said “Mexican officials are heavily consuming tequila.”  That would make a little more sense, right?  Of course it would.

The Federal Govt. Sues Arizona: Your Tax Dollars at Work

Some call it an attempt to distract us from the economy…as if that’s possible. Others call it a noble attempt to stop racism…tell that to J. Christian Adams. I simply call it a monumental waste of my tax dollars. As many of you probably know by now, Obama’s DOJ filed suit against the State of Arizona yesterday for its immigration law. You know, the one that requires Arizona cops to make an effort to identify criminals and then arresting them…novel concept.  According to our esteemed government attorneys, any and all aspects of immigration are within the exclusive purview of the federal government. Thus, in legal terms, Arizona’s law violates the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution…or so the argument goes. I haven’t read the complaint, and I’m not sure I will, but the Wall Street Journal apparently has, so that’s got to count for something right?

The suit, filed in Phoenix, said that the state had ‘crossed a constitutional line’ that interferes with the federal authority over immigration. It alleges that the state law would burden federal agencies, diverting resources from such higher priorities as tracking illegal immigrants implicated in terrorism cases, drug smuggling or other crimes.

If this is the best the federal government’s got, then I want my money back.  Now, courts can do all kinds of strange things, like deny unopposed motions for example, so I guess anything’s possible.  That being said, how the hell can enforcing federal law interfere with federal law?  In fact, the feds are doing more interfering than Arizona, due to their refusal to enforce their own law.  Oh, and when did the Supremacy Clause include a section about not diverting resources from higher priorities?  That’s called the “let’s throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” argument.

‘Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility,’ Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. ‘Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.’

As an initial point, this is the equivalent of the Chicago police department sitting outside my front door and watching my family be attacked by an intruder, and then arresting me when I kill him.   But Holder’s right.  Setting immigration policy is within the exclusive purview of the federal government.  I’m not so sure about enforcement though.  After all, what constitutes “enforcement?”  The State of Arizona certainly can’t deport the illegals.  But can they arrest them for being here illegally and hold them until I.N.S. deports them?  My gut tells me they can…but that may just be the Chipotle I ate last night…which was awesome by the way.   The learned, ivory tower types have thrown in their two cents as well:

‘I think the federal government is going to win and the Arizona law is going to be shown to be unconstitutional,’ said Karl M. Manheim, professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. ‘States don’t have any power to regulate immigration.’

This opinion begs the question though: does the Arizona law “regulate” immigration?  I think the federal govt. would have a difficult time arguing that the law does any regulating.  It’s simply a criminal statute piggy-backing on a federal statute which already defined who is here illegally.  Arizona’s law hasn’t made being here illegally more illegal than it was before.

As usual though, Gov. Jan Brewer hits the nail on the head with respect to the practicalities of the lawsuit:

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer called the federal lawsuit ‘a massive waste of taxpayer funds’ and said the money ‘could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.’

She said that the Obama administration, if worried about a patchwork of laws, could have chosen to sue local governments that adopted ‘sanctuary” policies instructing police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.

She is absolutely correct.  The Obama Administration doesn’t give a rat’s ass about a “patchwork of laws.”  Controlling the border is right in the wheelhouse of the federal government, and its failure to do the controllin’ is the sole reason why states are being forced to pick up the slack.  In fact, the DOJ’s complaint constitutes an admission of this.

Of course, as the article goes on to point out, this is all about politics.  Obama doesn’t care about immigration.  If he did, he would have pushed a bill through Congress before he lost his filibuster-proof majority.  Instead, he has continued to dither on the issue, now hoping that the lawsuit will bring the democrats the hispanic vote in November.  I personally doubt that the immigration law is going to bring the Dems any more votes then they already have…but we’ll see.

In the meantime, be sure to send a little love note to your Congressman, thanking him or her for the wise use of your tax dollars.  After all, the only reason the Arizona law was enacted in the first place was because they have failed to do their jobs…again.

It’s apparently illegal to not pay illegals fairly, even though they’re here illegally

Well, I’m pretty sure the border won’t be secured under this administration.  In fact, I wouldn’t be shocked if we just started giving illegal immigrants cash at the border.  The payout had better fairly compensate them for their trip though.

So, if I’m reading this right, an illegal immigrant is being paid an unfair wage. So he calls up the U.S. government, and says he’s being paid an unfair wage. Won’t the fact that the worker is here illegally come up at some point? What then? Do they send him back?

Many seem confused about the Evangelicals being pro-amnesty

Religious conservatives want immigration reform

Apparently a group of evangelical leaders are in Washington D.C. meeting with Nancy Pelosi to discuss a position they share: amnesty for illegals.  Some are confused about the pro-amnesty position of so-called “conservative” evangelicals, including one of my favorite bloggers Allahpundit at Hot Air. He states,

I’m fascinated by the prospect of this blowing up into a running doctrinal debate among prominent Christian conservatives, with border enforcers on one side and holier-than-thou amnesty shills on the other trying to the answer the WWJD question.

Except … are there any prominent Christian conservative pols who oppose a “path to citizenship”?

Well A.P., while I may not be prominent (yet), I am a Christian conservative who is against amnesty.  There is some confusion out there about why Evangelicals would be pro-amnesty.  I have two potential answers.  First, the confusion can be found in the over-use of the term “Evangelical.”  It has come to describe far too many Christian denominations.  Second (and this answer/opinion will likely offend some) modern evangelicals are more interested in getting butts in the pews then they are delivering actual doctrine (that may offend someone).  It’s no coincidence that the mega-church movement has largely marched in lock-step with the rise of modern evangelicals.  Also, while evangelicals may be conservative politically, they are not necessarily conservative doctrinally.

Simply put, the Bible teaches us to follow the law of the person whom God has placed in a position of authority (with some obvious exceptions).  While I really don’t like playing the “W.W.J.D.” game, I’m willing to bet a nickel on non-citizens obeying the law and having to stand in line.  In any event, at the end of the day, Leith Anderson, president of the National Evangelical Association, has the same interest in the illegals that the politicians do: they constitute numbers.

It appears that the Arizona law worked

Arizona Gets Border Soldiers; None for Texas

Hopefully not rewarding bad behavior

Being a parent of three children, I can tell you this is not the way to convince Arizona that it should repeal its immigration bill.  President Obama’s choice to send soldiers to the Arizona border, while ignoring Texas Governor Perry’s request, probably sends an unintended message: the federal government will only help you with your illegal immigration problem if you enact a law similar to Arizona’s.

If I’m Gov. Perry, I’ll be proposing the Arizona law in the Texas legislature ASAP.

Ugh. When will we be free of these Kennedys?

M9SMMRCYNMZ3

Rep. Kennedy Says Mexican President ‘Right On’ in Criticizing Arizona Immigration Law

More pandering.  I can at least accept it from a state like California, which has its own illegal immigration problems.  If Councilman Reyes thinks Arizona should sink into the quagmire that is California’s budget nightmare, then so be it.  But to have to listen to a Kennedy issue edicts on Arizona policy from behind a walled compound in the northeast makes me vomit in my mouth a little.  Instead, the Kennedys should simply continue campaigning on global warming while objecting to a wind farm being placed within their line of sight.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D.-R.I.) said last week that Mexican President Felipe Calderon had been “right on” in criticizing Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law…“Well, he’s right on,” Kennedy told CNSNews.com. “I mean, it violates the spirit of our own Constitution.

Well, I’m convinced.  I’m not sure what the “spirit of our Constitution” is, but I’m quite certain it doesn’t include people residing here illegally.  Rep. Kennedy then does what a liberal does best, completely ignore the statute in question, and brings up some completely irrelevant history:

“So, you know, we had a tragic history in this country,” said Kennedy. “The most shameful parts of our history were when we had our slave trade, when we, when we, the Trail of Tears–what we did to our Native Americans.  And, you know, the proudest moments in our history are when we had the Civil Rights Act, when we moved forward on integration and expanding the opportunities for all of our citizens.

Don’t forget about the internment of the Japanese-American citizens during World War II.  That was racial profiling at its best.  Rep. Kennedy, I’m failing to see the similarities between approaching those suspected of being here illegally and the slave trade.  In fact, I’ll go one step further and say there’s absolutely no similarity between the two.

Kennedy’s response:

“So, this idea of, you know, racial profiling, takes us backwards and really goes to the worst character of our nation and it’s, it’s demeaning to our country that we would move in that direction,” said Kennedy. ”It’s beneath us as a people.”

Is it too much to ask of our elected representatives to actually read something before offering an opinion on it.  The statute says, very specifically, that racial profiling may not be used as a basis for questioning someone.  “It’s beneath us as a people” to enforce our own laws?  A more appropriate statement would be: it’s beneath us as a people to fall for a liberal’s crying racism at every possible moment simply to gain votes.

This is Your Brain on Immigration

L.A. approves boycott of Arizona

So, L.A. decides to boycott Arizona.  Why?  Because its City Council is full of morons.  Case in point, Councilman Ed Reyes:

“As an American, I cannot go to Arizona today without a passport. If I come across an officer who’s having a bad day and feels that the picture on my ID is not me, I can be … deported, no questions asked. That is not American.’’

You sir, are an idiot.  In fact, you’re worse than an idiot.  You’re a purposefully misleading, pandering idiot with authority.  The Arizona law does not require you to carry a passport.  Any government-issued I.D. will work.  And I’m assuming the picture on your drivers license looks like you.  In fact, unless you’re sitting on the side of the road with twenty other individuals with coolers, waiting for a pick-up truck to drive by, I think you’re going to be o.k. (uh-oh, that may just be a stereotype).

In response to L.A.’s behavior, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer finally provided the real reason why the Arizona law isn’t the end of America as we know it.

“It’s already the law in the United States, and I have a responsibility to stand up and protect the people of Arizona and we will do that,” Brewer said Tuesday.

That’s right.  The Arizona law, which everyone is gnashing their teeth over, doesn’t actually change anything.  It’s nothing more than a shout-out to the Washington politicians, who are busy figuring out how to use illegal immigrants to get themselves re-elected.  It was illegal to be in this country illegally before the law.  What is it, more illegal now?  Also, the Arizona police were allowed to stop someone on reasonable suspicion of breaking the law before the legislation; that includes being here illegally (that is illegal, right?).

L.A., and the entire State of California, is so ass-backwards it could be mistaken for Greece.  Arizona should be (and probably is)happy about the boycott…now it won’t have to deal with all of those bouncing checks.

“It’s mean-spirited”

Tennessee Debates Bill To Require Proof Of Citizenship To Vote

Illegal immigration is the political/social hot-button issue that confuses me the most because I don’t understand why it’s even an issue.  If you’re here illegally, then you are breaking the law.  If you hire illegal immigrants, then you are breaking the law.  Is this really so complicated?  Apparently yes.

In Tennessee, for example, you have the legislature debating a law which would actually require people to prove that they are citizens before voting in an election.  That this law is even necessary is astonishing to me; but not as astonishing as the fact that there are actually elected representatives voting against it.  The reason

“It hampers people who want to be a part of the system,” said Sen. Thelma Harper, D-Nashville.

What?  Who?  The only people it would hamper are illegal immigrants.  In fact, it wouldn’t just hamper them, it would stop them.  So what?

Perhaps I’m dumb, but I thought one needed to be an American citizen to vote in an American election.  Isn’t citizenship a Constitutional prerequisite to vote?  Is the issue of non-citizens voting actually being debated anywhere else in the world?  When can I send my absentee ballot to Venezuela?

I don’t get it.  That the issues of illegal immigration, and protecting our borders, and maintaining our sovereignty are even debated is, in my opinion, the single most obvious sign that our representatives don’t care what we think.  In fact, it’s proof that they aren’t representatives at all.