When the Democrats want to find a loophole, there tends to be one.
When Republicans are being unconstitutionally prohibited from enforcing immigration laws that will help keep our country safe, alas! No loopholes are to be found.
For example, the Democrats found that there is no provision in the healthcare bill, or, gasp, the almighty executive order, that would prohibit federal funding of abortion in high-risk insurance pools.
The high-risk program, called the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, was meant to help those denied coverage over pre-existing conditions until the broader provisions of the law go into effect in 2014. The law set aside $5 billion in federal subsidies for the program, which is supposed to be either administered by the state or the Health and Human Services Department.
Of course, abortion in these cases would be prohibited unless the life of the mother was in danger, or in the case of rape or incest. Which leaves room for the "health" of the mother, or if the baby has an even conceivable possibility of minor deformities. Which is code for "we cover abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever." You are either for or against abortion. If you're for it at all, you're for it. At all is a modifier, but the meaning is the same.
It doesn't matter what you tell the public. The executive order cannot trump a law. The insistence that you don't cover abortion except in certain cases is not true. YOU STILL COVER ABORTION. Innocent babies still die, no matter how you label it. If I was getting aborted, I wouldn't care if my abortion was termed "covered" or not. The outcome is still the same. And if you support any abortion at all, any abortion at all is supported.
Now for the Republicans' issue. Instead of cracking down on immigration to keep our country safe, the Democrats are engaging in petty squabble over perfectly legitimate legislation. "Well, I have a lot of illegal immigrants on hand right now who can tell you just how illegitimate this law seems to them, how it's impacting their lives and families, how it's making living in America harder for them, illegal immigrants who could tell you just how unfair this monstrosity of a law this really is. Oh, what's that? The immigrants don't speak English? Can we get a translator up here? Ah, yes, thank you. Now, according to our translator, this illegal immigrant thinks that it's not fair that he can't get a job, according to Arizona's law, just because he illegally moved his family here and is now mooching off the taxpayers. He says he applauds Judge Bolton's decision to let him get a job and protect him from racial profiling by invasive officers." Well, then. (Just in case it's not too clear, that's a make-believe scenario.)
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked some of the toughest provisions in the Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state's attempt to have local police enforce federal immigration policy.
Though the rest of the law is still set to go into effect Thursday, the partial injunction on SB 1070 means Arizona, for the time being, will not be able to require police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.
Well, it only makes sense to block the toughest parts of a law whose aim is to crack down on illegal immigration, right?
And of course they should be able to get a job. I mean, they're just law-abiding citizens like the rest of us. (Except they don't pay taxes, they aren't citizens, and they broke the law by setting foot in this country. But other than that, yeah, I'm totally happy to remain unemployed for the sake of a drug-smuggling, pot-smoking vagrant who has no intention of respecting the American dream other than to steal it. It's all good.)
There is no reason to oppose any part of this law other than nothing more than a blatant contempt for the American way of life. Borders are there for a reason. Once they become meaningless, once our very identities as Americans become meaningless because anyone can be an American easily (and untaxedly), there will be no more America. At least then Obama can be our President legally.
Get this: the Mexican government applauds the decision (imagine that). Kind of like when Fidel Castro praised Barack Hussein Obama. Wonder what our old buddy Fidel thinks of this? Or is he already on the White House staff?
Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa told reporters that the injunction was a "first step in the right direction."
Yeah, no. It's a step over the line (and the border).
"The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money," the ruling said. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws."
Of course, unless you take "disregarding" to mean "disregarding". If the court "by no means" disregards Arizona's interests in controlling the immigration problem, why are they not allowing Arizona to control the immigration problem?
And if Arizona's interests are consistent with those of the federal government, what's the problem? It is, actually, in the public interest to enforce "preempted laws". The feds are too busy bailing out Wall Street and need a bit of help. And who better to help them than the BORDER STATE with the biggest immigration problem? If they won't let Arizona help, won't let them enforce the laws, who do they expect to get it done? Alaska? How many illegal immigrants from Mexico do you think cross into Alaska every year? I've got a pretty good guess. Maybe Michigan or Wisconsin, North Dakota, Montana, Washington or Oregon? How about Maine? I think they'd do a GREAT job addressing the illegal immigrant problem. I mean, they're in such a prime position to deal with drug traffickers and smugglers from Mexico, don't you think? Hey, let's ask Canada to help!
Or maybe we could let a state pass an effective law to help solve their immigration problem. If Arizona's law isn't what the feds and the courts are looking for, do they have a better plan? Maybe they could make it illegal for a police station to have more than two Latinos in custody the way they do (or at least did) with young Arab men on the airlines (pre-9/11 and possibly post-9/11). That seemed to work well!
If the Arizona law is preempted by federal law, then there shouldn't be a problem. It should be at most helpful, at the least harmless. Correction: it IS at most helpful, at the least harmless. To say there's "nothing wrong" with it is an understatement. It's what the feds should have been doing all along. The federal program should encourage the passage of laws like this if it's immigration they really care about.
Wait a minute. They do care about immigration. Or, rather, immigrants. They think they should get jobs, raise families, get healthcare--all without paying taxes (because only law-abiding citizens do stuff like that). In some ways, the illegal immigrant is more protected, revered, and benefited than the U.S. citizen. If that doesn't scare you... you must be a Democrat.
"This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens," said Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona. I hate to break it to you, Jan, but there's no such thing as a "citizen" anymore.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans his 17th crime and immigration sweep. He planned to hold the sweep regardless of the ruling.
Arpaio, known for his tough stance against illegal immigration, plans to send out about 200 deputies and volunteers who will be looking for traffic violators, people wanted on criminal warrants and others. He has used that tactic before to arrest dozens of people, many of them illegal immigrants.
"We don't wait. We just do it," he said. "If there's a new law out, we're going to enforce it."
Great idea. I just hope he doesn't get a lawsuit filed against him by the President of the United Stataes.
Honestly, I cannot comprehend this. First of all, the Arizona law is perfectly legit, and that's an understatement. It's constitutional, it follows federal regulations, and has great potential to impact the illegal immigration situtation in America in a very positive way.
Second, the President should not file a lawsuit against an individual state for an individual state law. It is just wrong. It's communism, that's what it is.
Third and finally, doesn't Obama have better things to do? Like, I don't know, murder innocent babies, pass socialist reform bills, take over Wall Street, bow to foreign royalty, have lunch with Bill Ayers... that kind of thing? Does he really have time to file a lawsuit against a legitimate and beneficial piece of legislation that corresponds with federal regulations and aids the feds and the American people in conquering illegal immigration?
Maybe he had time for the lawsuit on his vacation.
I have the highest respect for the highest office in America. I do not have respect for anyone who refuses to respect that office. B. Hussein, as I am going to start calling him, is questionably legally (he is possibly an illegal immigrant himself) and constitutionally (socialism, murder, communism, lying [he hasn't raped anyone yet, but we can still impeach him]) the President of these United States. He is not the ultimate authority; the Constitution is. And as a Christian and a minor, I will respect authority.
But I'm sure B. Hussein will find a loophole in the Constitution (presumably one he makes himself as he shreds it) that will allow him to continue his undeserved tenure as President of the United States of America.
No comments:
Post a Comment