Read My Lips: "NO NEW AMNESTY!"

Hello Thinkers!

Those of you outside of New England might not know this, but the northeast corner of the People's Republic of MA has been getting pounded for the past several days with hellacious rain. It has been non-stop. Massachusetts and New Hampshire have declared a state of emergency, as has the southernmost county in Maine. I was surprised to see my hometown listed among the carnage of rainfall reports around the state last night, receiving over 12 inches of rain with this last storm and now another 3+ inches is in the forecast thru this week. As I look at the regional NEXRAD out of Taunton, I can see two more nice orange bands lining up Cape Ann and the North Shore in their sites.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060515/D8HK5HI00.html

In addition to the tasks associated with our oldest child's proms, recital and high school graduation party later this month, our dog recently had an operation to remove a toe that had a nasty growth on it. Zak has been walking with a noticeable limp from tenderness in his right front paw, and I have been walking with a noticeable limp from tenderness in my ass where my wallet used to be. Adding salt to the financial wound, for the next several days, we have to wrap our dog's bandaged paw in a plastic bag, put him on a leash and walk him out to the back yard to answer his call of nature. This has added a certain Je ne c'est quoi to the usual drudgery of my AM ritual since instead of just letting him out in morning, I am getting up 20 minutes early to stand in the darkness of bone-chilling downpours, cursing my canine while he sniffs for just the right spot to take a dump. From time to time he stares at me, two big brown eyes centered inside a big wet plastic cone, probably laughing inside - if dogs can do that. What used to take just a few seconds now takes the better part of a painful half an hour.

So, why am I whining about this situation? There is a point, believe it or not. The pain of my new morning routine and the pain of the time wasted is a perfect analogy for Bush's primetime speech on immigration reform I had to suffer through last night. While he spoke of "protecting our border" and even made a token gesture of utilizing the National Guard, I know (and most of you probably know) that it is cheap, hollow rhetoric. How do I know this? Simple, George "Open Border" Bush is a creature of habit. If you recall this tidbit from my last rant, Federal agents, in a well covered dog and pony show, arrested almost 1,200 illegal aliens and several managers who hired them. Where are they now?

For even before [Homeland Security czar] Chertoff had spoken (but not before blogger Michelle Malkin had predicted it), four-fifths of the illegals arrested had been ... released. Two hundred and seventy-five of them were deported. The rest were sent away in return for a promise to return for a court hearing. Many, probably most, will disappear. And since the government's computers were "down," their brush with immigration enforcement may not even be officially recorded.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/67461.htm

And last night, Bush made these statements:

We are a Nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws...

For many years, the government did not have enough space in our detention facilities to hold them while the legal process unfolded. So most were released back into our society and asked to return for a court date. When the date arrived, the vast majority did not show up. This practice, called "catch and release," is unacceptable -- and we will end it...

At the same time, we must ensure that every illegal immigrant we catch crossing our southern border is returned home....

As a result of these actions, we have ended "catch and release" for illegal immigrants from some countries....

And Bush expects us to believe him? And for what country have we stopped this "catch and release" policy? Liechtenstein?? Even his childish shell game with the National Guard is destined for uselessness:

Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities -- that duty will be done by the Border Patrol.

Will Bush ask the Guard get tea and crumpets ready for the overstretched Border Patrol when they come off of their shifts?

And we will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain illegal immigrants.

...funny how he did not address the 'Sanctuary Cities', like Cambridge, Chicago and San Francisco. But the part that really frosted my walletless butt was his setup for the big amnesty program:

Fourth, we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully -- and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration.

Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant -- and that any proposal short of this amounts to amnesty. I disagree. It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently -- and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law...to pay their taxes...to learn English...and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship -- but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have just described is not amnesty -- it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.

So basically, if you have been adept at breaking our immigration laws, you will be "punished" by being put at the back of the line - but a line that STAYS IN THE US! That sounds alot like amnesty to me.

Tonight, I want to speak directly to Members of the House and the Senate: An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive, because all elements of this problem must be addressed together - or none of them will be solved at all.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2006/nf20060515_7922.htm

Who says George? Secure the border first. Make sure it is secure and THEN let's talk about what to do with the people who have ignored our immigration laws. In a post 9/11 America, our negligence of the porous border situation is nothing short of criminal. The steps needed to secure our country are the same ones you need to keep mice out of the house (something I've learned much about over the years). Step 1, remove the food supply. Step 2, arm the perimeter - heavily and permanently. The order is unimportant. In fact, neither step is time-bound. Both must be constant. Even if you are for letting Pedro into the country to pick your lettuce, then drugs, terrorists and criminals are going to use the same open border like a tick on a mouse's back.

The fact that this fundamental security issue is virtually ignored by every elected official, with the possible exception of Tom Tancredo and House Republicans, is what makes listening to Bush's 'tough talk' so agonizing. Apprehension of employers who hire illegals has completely disappeared under Bush, and there is nothing other than useless gesturing to mark the start of the election season the way the changing leaves mark the fall.

http://www.teamamericapac.org/

What Bush, Kennedy, and the rest of the open border crowd don't seem to realize is that when it comes to problems associated with amnesty and uncontrolled borders - when it rains, it pours.

A Day Without Illegal Aliens? How About a Decade Instead??

Hello Thinkers!

A while back I posed this riddle to you:

Q: What is a racist?

A: A conservative who is winning an argument with a liberal.

Now it seems that I have adjust the answer to be:

A: Any citizen who thinks our immigration laws should be enforced.


I do not think I have seen a non-terrorism issue unify the taxpaying, (legally) registered voters of this country like the illegal alien issue has in recent months. And if not for the House of Representatives (thank God for short terms in the House), we would probably all be be looking at a US flag with thick red and green vertical stripes on it. It is absolutely stunning to me, not only that the White House and Senate are ready to replace Uncle Sam with Pedro the Pinata, but that I am being labelled a racist simply because I believe in the rule of law (unlike Bush and the US Senate). Under this definition, the vast majority of legitimate Americans, on both sides of the political chasm, are racist as well. What most of us "racists" want is pretty simple and quite frankly should have been done by now:

1. Stop the uncontrolled flow of people coming into this country. A nasty wall or fence would be good, along with the National Guard. Anti-personnel land mines would be a nice touch, but not necessary - yet.
2. Punish hard those who knowingly hire illegal aliens. (Hint: Pretend they evaded taxes.)
3. Repeal the "Anchor Baby Amendment" which subverts our immigration laws.
4. Make English the official language of the US.

...then we can talk about "temporary guest workers."

I find my moniker of "racist" as quite odd since, assuming I was not betrothed to the lovely and charming Mrs. Tuff (a semi-frequent reader of my blog), I would never kick Selma Hayek out of bed for eating galletas. Does that sound racist to you? Sexist maybe, but definitely not racist. In addition, my issue has never been with immigrants, regardless of their origin. My issue has been with the problems that come from uncontrolled illegal immigration.

Our nation has to be the one to determine when and if we allow foreign nationals to enter this country. When our economy is strong, we allow more. When the economy hits a cyclical skid, we allow less. This has to be left up to America - period, not the whims of those who cannot improve the situation in their homelands. In fact, if the desire to enforce our immigration laws was racist, then why are black activists joining the Minutemen to protest the virtually unchecked flood of illegals aliens over our southern border?

Black Activists Join To March With Minutemen
Apr 23, 2006 7:54 am US/Pacific

/(CBS)/ /LOS ANGELES/ Several black activists plan to join members of the Minutemen Project to protest illegal immigration, which organizer Ted Hayes touted as the "biggest threat to blacks in America since slavery."

http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_113105613.html

It's funny how when you reward a particular behavior, you seem to get more of it:

Guest-Worker Hopes Spark Rush To Border
Apr. 12, 2006 11:31 AM

*NOGALES, Mexico (AP)*—At a shelter overflowing with migrants airing their blistered feet, Francisco Ramirez nursed muscles sore from trekking through the Arizona desert - a trip that failed when his wife did not have the strength to go on..... The shelter’s manager, Francisco Loureiro, said he has not seen such a rush of migrants since 1986, when the United States allowed 2.6 million illegal residents to get American citizenship. This time, the draw is a bill before the U.S. Senate that could legalize some of the 11 million people now illegally in the United States while tightening border security.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0412mexico-border-rush12-ON.html

Even what appears to have been a recent "crackdown" on illegal aliens and those who hire them was little more than a cheesy attempt by the Bush administration pandering to what used to be it's base.

And last Wednesday federal agents "swooped" on plants in 26 states belonging to IFCO, a U.S. subsidiary of a Dutch firm supplying wood pallets and plastic containers to industry, and arrested 1,187 illegal immigrant workers. Seven former and current IFCO managers were also charged with employing illegal aliens. The next day, Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff held a press conference to stress that such tough enforcement of immigration law, internally as well as at the border, would now be the rule.

Having established its willingness to crack down on illegality, the administration's political machine crossed its fingers and hoped that this display would now help passage of the "Not an Amnesty" law. All this was not only timely; it was powerfully symbolic. What it symbolized, however, was not the tough enforcement of immigration law but its colander-like leaky ineffectiveness.

For even before Chertoff had spoken (but not before blogger Michelle Malkin had predicted it), four-fifths of the illegals arrested had been ... released. Two hundred and seventy-five of them were deported. The rest were sent away in return for a promise to return for a court hearing. Many, probably most, will disappear. And since the government's computers were "down," their brush with immigration enforcement may not even be officially recorded.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/67461.htm

I wonder if W's administration equates their drooping poll numbers to the abnegation of their conservative base? Even compared to the Clinton administration, the enforcement of immigration laws under Bush has been not just "liberal" but downright "socialist." From the same article:

The Clinton administration in fact managed some (albeit patchy) "internal" enforcement of employer sanctions. For instance, the period 1995-1997 saw 10,000 to 18,000 worksite arrests of illegals a year. Some 1,000 employers were served notices of fines for employing them. Under the Bush administration, however, worksite arrests fell to 159 in 2004 - with the princely total of *three* notices of intent to fine served on employers. Thus, worksite arrests under President Bush have fallen from Clintonian levels by something like 97 per cent - even though 9/11 occurred in the meantime.

Amidst all this, May 1 was designated as "A Day Without Immigrants." Notice how they try to guilt us into feeling bad by not calling it "A Day Without Illegal Aliens." We have gone from calling them what they are, illegal aliens, to "illegal immigrants", to "undocumented workers", to "temporary guest workers." And the press has never questioned the nomenclature of "A Day Without Immigrants." Why is that? Are they stupid? Do they not know that most Americans comprehend the difference between legal and illegal immigration? It couldn't be that they are promoting an agenda, could it? And if we cannot trust the media to see through this razor thin veneer of terminology, how are we supposed to believe the idea that these illegal aliens are all "hard working" and "peaceful?" Now, for the bonus prize, does anyone out there know what other special anniversary May 1st is? These guys know the ANSWER:

Rally organizer tied to Marxist party

By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 11, 2006

One of the key organizers of the immigration protests and rallies nationwide, including yesterday's in Washington, is a group whose leaders are tied to the Workers World Party, a Marxist organization that has expressed support for dictators Kim Jong-il of North Korea and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) Coalition, which also has proposed a nationwide boycott on May 1 to protest congressional efforts at immigration reform and border security, is an offshoot of the International Action Coalition, an anti-capitalism group founded by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark.

...Its March 25 rally in Los Angeles and its planned "Great American Boycott of 2006" on May 1 are part of a series of large-scale events that the coalition hopes will sway lawmakers to put millions of illegal aliens in the United States on track toward permanent residency and U.S. citizenship. ANSWER has denounced attempts by Congress to secure the United States' borders and criminalize illegal aliens as "racist," saying all working people should back full amnesty for all of the estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060410-094710-4817r.htm

...Ahhh, anarchists, communists and illegal aliens. Could it get any better? Sure! How about throwing Islamic groups with ties to terrorism into the mix:

Joining illegal immigrants in their march on May 1: radical Islamic front groups the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): CAIR are now in the mix- will march with illegals.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20300_Muslim_Groups_Will_March_with_Illegals&only

And just in case you think I've gone off the conspiracy deep end, here are some photos of the May 1st rallies that you WON'T see in the NY Times:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005112.htm
http://forums.pwchicago.com/viewtopic.php?p=5392#5392

So you have a group of communists and anarchists who are relatively small in number but well organized. Add to that a large number of not-so-organized illegal aliens who want to continue living off of your tax dollars. Then throw in other anti-US fringe groups and what do you get? A Reuters puff-piece about the countless throngs of people demanding "immigration rights."

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A one-day nationwide strike and business boycott gathered steam on Monday to demand legal rights for millions of illegal immigrants, with many U.S. businesses shutting down voluntarily to avoid disruption.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060501/ts_nm/usa_immigration_dc_4

All of this brings to mind one critical question I cannot seem to find an answer to. Why do all these other countries suck so much? Swarms of illegals are coming from south of our border waving their national flags and demanding "rights" (ie. your cash). Well, why can't their countries develop the things that attract so many immigrants to this country? You know, highways, rail systems, universities, hospitals, and growing economies? According to most of the world, America is evil - right? We are little more than war mongering, child murdering, baby harp seal clubbing (no wait - those are Canadians), fat, lazy Americans. Why would anyone want to live here, among us? It's not like these nations are poor in natural resources. Mexico's oil export revenues are expected to reach $25 billion in 2006 according to the US DOE.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/opecnon.html

And this report was done in June of 2005, before the most recent runup in oil prices.

The fact is, there is no answer to why illegal aliens should be given any preferential treatment, and trying to do so is a slap in the face to those struggling to immigrate to the US legally. One of whom, a co-worker, I had to say goodbye to last week because work visa restrictions forced him to leave the country for at least one year. And he contributes more to this nation and our economy than someone picking heads of lettuce. This is just one example of the people I have met in the medical and technology industries who have been forced to leave the US while illegal aliens have been swarming over the Rio Grande by the millions. But try to explain to people that your issue is about those illegally entering this country regardless of their skin color and you are still pegged as another Sen. Robert Byrd.

All of this is too much to think about right now. Maybe I'll peruse Selma Hayek's website for the rest of the day.... Ewww! How racist of me!