Archive for the 'Washington Times' Category

Perpetual Comprehensive Amnesty v. Comprehensive Enforcement

June 13, 2007

Enforcing immigration law is a state of mind. To keep people out, society has to have a mentality to do so. That only happens when there are no amnesties and legal immigration is close to zero. When there are amnesties and high legal immigration, then judges, juries, and police feel that enforcing the law in individual cases is personal individual cruelty, not upholding a societal policy. Perpetual Comprehensive Amnesty, PCA, means always giving amnesty, which means no enforcement.

Agents, courts, juries, employers, etc. won’t go through the motions of enforcing the laws when there are perpetual recurring amnesties. Because then its just cruelty. A jury or a judge or policeman enforces the law as part of a system of a civil society, not to harm the particular person in their power. But when that crime is being amnestied on a regular basis, then individual acts of enforcement are just cruelty.

A jury will go along with imposing a penalty on someone, or a judge or policeman, because they are upholding the law. If its just to hurt that person for fun, they won’t go along with it, unless its murder or something big.

Administrative law, like citizenship and residence won’t be enforced in individual cases if its an act of
random cruelty. The law will be enforced only if each
jury, judge, policeman, etc. feels they are part of
a group effort to apply a law for the benefit of society.

This is why there is no enforcement today. The amnesties, lack of enforcement, the sanctuary city resolutions, etc. send the message this law is not being enforced by society. Thus each individual act of enforcement is presented as an act of personal cruelty.

In Operation Wetback in the 1950’s, the society and the
government had a concept of deportation as a society wide effort. That worked. It worked because individual acts of enforcement were not individual acts of cruelty. Instead, they were part of a sustained society effort. Everyone was part of enforcing that law and it was enforced. The result was a rapid deportation.

Its a matter of social cohesion. If society’s policy
is amnesty on a rolling basis, then individual case
enforcement is just personal cruelty by the judge,
jury, police officer engaged in that individual act.
That’s not something they want to do. So it doesn’t
happen.

If society’s policy is deportation, then each individual act is in support of the team. Not acting is betrayal. That is why Operation Wetback succeeded.

The 1986 Amnesty was a betrayal of the system of law.
It stopped the enforcement of the law, it didn’t
sustain it. The law has not been enforced since 1986.
What the 1986 Amnesty did was say that enforcing
the law in individual cases by a judge was that judge’s
personal cruelty, not the backing of society. So
judges, prosecutors, police, etc. stopped enforcing
laws where it was just their personal individual
act of cruelty, and not part of a society mission.

People won’t enforce a law after mass amnesty. Mass
amnesty says its not a crime, and deporting seems
a heavy burden to the person deported. They can’t live
with us, which is a big penalty for us to impose on
someone. Amnesty destroys the basis of enforcement.
That is what happened in 1986.

Legal immigration also undermines enforcement of the law. When there is heavy legal immigration, it seems arbitrary who gets in and who doesn’t. So again, illegal immigration is tolerated. Society isn’t able to say no when its saying yes at the same time. To end illegal immigration, we must end legal immigration.

The 1930’s were a time when illegal immigration was low. It was also a time of low legal immigration, about
50,000 per year. The only way to end illegal immigration is to make legal immigration under 50,000 per year. Society can only understand no or yes. If we want to say no, we have to make legal immigration zero. When legal immigration is zero, then society sends the message that its unfair for anyone to get away with illegal immigration.

We have to fight the impact of the rolling amnesties that have applied since 1986. The way to do that is to end legal immigration, not just increase enforcement. Even in a pause, a halt to legal immigration sends a message to the illegals to go home. It sends a message to judges and juries and police that they are enforcing society’s will in each individual case, not engaging in personal cruelty, racism or bigotry.

The open borders crowd know that amnesty and legal immigration combined imply no enforcement on illegal immigration ever. They know this amnesty means open borders. They know they got that in 1986. That is why the immigration in the 1990’s was so huge, both in legal and illegal terms. Society had adopted open borders. The result was to put a tidal current against
young people and older people that they can’t fight in many cases.

The figures on median wages and fertility both show that immigration creates a tide that pulls people under. The force of immigration is too strong for individuals. That is why business is for it. The country of the middle that America had in the 1950’s has been replaced by a country of the elites. That is why the government can openly break many laws, not just those on immigration. We have a government for the elites not the people.

==References Washington Times

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070612-085200-4196r.htm

Also, aliens who fail to register as sex offenders, aliens convicted of domestic violence, stalking or crimes against children and aliens convicted of at least three DUIs would be given a stay-out-of-jail free card. And this is only a partial listing of what is wrong with the bill.

This is part of ending the rule of law.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070613-120635-9285r.htm

President Bush visited with Senate Republicans behind closed doors yesterday, promising that he will follow through on border security, pleading with them to give his immigration plans a second look and trying to overcome hard feelings that arose from his recent charge that opponents are guilty of trying to “frighten people.”

The reason Bush behaves this way is because he is pushing open borders and perpetual amnesty. That the date for getting amnesty is the start of 2007 and not 2001 as in the 2006 Senate Bill, S. 2611, shows that it is about perpetual amnesty. This is just another amnesty in a series of amnesties.

The reason this amnesty is comprehensive is that it does more than other amnesties have.

=Vdare
Central Americans Already Have Their Amnesty

[Allan Wall] @ 6:44 am [Email author] [Email This Article] [Print This Article]

A UPI article
reports a Washington Post article in reporting that

“the Bush administration is granting temporary protection for 312,000 Central Americans. “

It’s actually an extension to a previous amnesty, as the UPI points out:

” Temporary amnesty has been granted for the last decade to illegal immigrants from Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador because of devastating earthquakes and hurricane there…”

Kennedy has always been part of amnesties and larger legal immigration.  For Ted Kennedy, legal immigration greater than zero and amnesty go together.  To Ted Kennedy, there is no reason to have enforcement if you have any legal immigration.  TK can’t get that you should enforce the limits on legal immigration, if you have legal immigration in the first place.  If TK can’t get it, then society can’t.  Its either zero legal immigration and no amnesty or open borders.

Advertisements

DOJ Should Investigate Martinez Election RNC

January 20, 2007

Wash Times

from “RNC Elects Martinez as Head”
By Ralph Z. Hallow
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 20, 2007

Mr. Haugland told The Times afterward: “They didn’t follow the rules or the opinion of the independent certified parliamentarian. The breach of rules continues.”

Mr. Martinez was elected in a voice vote, instead of the secret ballot that opponents had sought.

Before yesterday’s vote, North Dakota RNC member Curly Haugland, one of the opponents of creating a general chairmanship, offered the written opinion of an accredited professional parliamentarian that the move violated RNC rules. The rules governing the RNC, adopted at the 2004 Republican National Convention, call only for an elected chairman and co-chairman.
The wheels came off Mr. Haugland’s drive to use Roberts Rules of Parliamentary Procedure and the RNC’s own rules to have a secret ballot on the creation of a general chairman when Robert M. “Mike” Duncan, the newly elected day-to-day RNC chairman, quickly called for a voice vote.

Was there a conspiracy to take over the RNC involving President Bush, Senator Mel Martinez, Ken Mehlman, Robert M. Duncan, or others? Did this violate federal law?

Are all funds spent by Martinez or the conspirators illegal spending, for which they are personally liable?

Equitable Relief Sought from civil or criminal actions:

1. Remove Martinez from his position at RNC.

2. Remove those involved.

3. Those involved, incuding President George W. Bush, Senator Mel Martinez, and others would be expelled from the Republican Party.  This might include everyone who voted for Martinez in the voice vote.
This article is opinion, hypotheses, or speculation. All other disclaimers apply.

%d bloggers like this: