Those Legal Insurrection Readers are Tough!

So, I've got a guest post up over at Legal Insurrection today.  Go check it out.

It's about Marco Rubio.  Bill Jacobson asked a while back if conservatives could "fall in love with Rubio" again.  As one of the original Not One Red Cent bloggers, he asked me to respond, and I did.

The comments are scathing over there; I quit monitoring them!  They hate Rubio and don't like me much, either!

Hey, I didn't say I was voting for him; way too early for that.

But here's the thing.  Cruz is wonderful but he's too good.  He won't pull all the demographics we need to get the Executive branch back.  Scott Walker is great - not enough name recognition.  Rubio isn't perfect.  The Gang of Eight deal will haunt him forever, but he's got a good answer for immigration which I highlight in my LI post.

If we sit around and wait for Reagan to rise from the dead, we're going to end up with President Hillary.

I'm NOT for blanket amnesty.  I AM for enforcing the laws and the border.  But I also see reality and I like Rubio's current plan.  The issue the LI readers seem to have for Rubio is trust.  They don't trust him anymore; Rubio will have to work to earn that trust back.

Anyway, go check it out.  I'm not monitoring comments over there so feel free to comment here, too.

The Border Crisis is By Design

On October 8, 2005, Barack Obama  vowed to "fundamentally transform America" and he has certainly lived up to his promise.  With one crisis and scandal after another (IRS, NSA, VA, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, an out of control EPA, Obamacare, and negotiating with terrorists, to name a few) we are a much weaker and less esteemed country than ever before.  We are more racially divided, we are angrier, and we have little trust in our government or optimism for the future.

It's all by design.

He told you he was going to do it, and he did.

Obama's plan to transform America is no more evident than in the border crisis.  Andrew McCarthy has an excellent post on this topic at National Review Online:

The president has spent nearly six years giving effective legal immunity to millions of illegal aliens already here. His administration, meanwhile, hooks them on the government gravy train and fights state efforts to detain them, deny social services to them, and prevent them from fraudulently voting. Under those circumstances, the rolling out of a federal red carpet for teeming masses of illegal aliens must be understood as intentional.

It is absolutely intentional.

And, of course, Obama blames Bush for this.  No, really.  Andrew McCarthy explains that this is a clever ploy by Obama because much of this controversy involves a Clinton-era anti-human trafficking law which during the Bush years, in re-authorization, picked up an amendment added by Feinstein and Biden; in short, the anti-human trafficking law concerns those children who are "coercively trafficked into the country for purposes of sex-slavery or other indentured servitude."   

That is not the case here; so the blame-Bush's-law defense of the left does not play.  The Bush-era law attempts to protect those kids brought here unwillingly; the current crisis involved illegals coming quite willingly.

McCarthy again:

The January 2014 solicitation published by DHS’s bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement foretells (a) the arrival of 65,000 “unaccompanied alien children,” and, tellingly, (b) the administration’s intention to transfer them to “Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelters located throughout the continental United States.” 

Refugee Resettlement.  That does not sound like deportation.

It is team Obama's plan to relocate these illegals throughout the United States and into your neighborhoods.

The end result is thousands of new, unskilled workers on the public dole, a further erosion of our American values, an increased drain on our already troubled education system, and utter havoc in an already ruined health care system.  Of these illegals that are, in fact, children (and not all of them are - get that image of sweet, doe-eyed, hungry toddlers out of your head), how many are vaccinated and know English?  How many will want to assimilate into our American culture and become productive members of society?

Lest I be perceived as a heartless bigot, let me assure you, I'm all for legal immigration.  I know people who have done it the right way and as Americans, we welcome them with open arms.  That is our way.  This, however, is not the Ellis Island of your ancestors.

These new immigrants are not refugees from war torn countries; they are political pawns.

One of the more troubling aspect of all this is the secrecy; the administration touts "privacy rights."  Some of these illegals are being housed at Fort Sill, OK, yet an Oklahoma congressional representative was barred from visiting the immigration center.

The administration won't say where all these kids are going.  Two hundred of these illegals were sent to Nebraska yet the governor was not notified and the administration won't identify them or their locations.

"Governors and mayors have the right to know when the federal government is transporting a large group of individuals, in this case illegal immigrants, into your state," Mr. Heineman told The Wall Street Journal in an interview on Saturday. "We need to know who they are, and so far, they are saying they're not going to give us that information."

Here in Louisiana, Senator David Vitter sent a letter on July 10 to find out how many and where these illegals might be coming to this state.  He got no response.  According to the Louisiana Hayride:

And now, four members of the state’s congressional delegation – Bill Cassidy, John Fleming, Charles Boustany and Vance McAllister – have sent a similar letter.

Camp Minden is a possibility and local news station KSLA reported that Hirsch Coliseum has been contacted about holding some of them.  (Shades of Katrina refugees ... ).

Senator Vitter and Rep. Cassidy have introduced bills in both the House and Senate that would:

• Requires mandatory detention of all unaccompanied minors upon apprehension by border agents.
• Gives unaccompanied minors the option to voluntarily return to their country of origin.
• Places unaccompanied aliens children affiliated with gangs in an “expedited” removal proceeding.
• Raises the standards for “credible fear of persecution” to “substantiated fear of persecution” for unaccompanied minors seeking asylum under the law.
• Places unaccompanied minors without claims for asylum on the next available flight to their home countries within 72 hours of an initial screening, barring cost, feasibility, repatriation agreements with the minors’ countries and the health and safety of the minor.
• Extends the bar to reentry for all illegal aliens to 10 years.
• Requires Secretary of Homeland Security to submit an annual report to Congress detailing voluntary departures, deportations, and grants of refugee or asylum status.

In the end, it comes down to how much the states are willing to take of this nonsense.  As McCarthy pointed out:

And if a renegade United States government is not going to secure the borders of the United States, the states must secure their borders or surrender. As the Supreme Court recognized in 1837, each state has a sovereign right and duty of self-defense ...

Obama voters got what they wished for:  a fundamentally transformed America.

Dear Gallup: For WHAT is Obama Most Admired, Exactly?

Gallup has issued the results of its annual poll of Most Admired men and women.

I find the results quite depressing and ominous for the future of the country.

My initial response after reading the list was "who in the hell answered this poll?  Where did they get these people?"  Apparently Gallup says that the respondents are equal parts cell phone users and land lines;  they are supposedly from all 50 states, and are all over age 18.  In short, it seems like a fair poll on the surface.  A total of 1031 adults were polled.

And the best we can do is Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?  Seriously?

What, exactly, are we admiring Barack Obama for?  I'd be interested in a follow-up question to the Gallup respondents to see if they can cite one thing that these people did that are truly worth admiration.  Or do they just say "Barack Obama" because he's president?  Or Hillary because she's famous (infamous?).  Are these respondents political at all?  Informed on the issues?  Educated? Just breathing?

What is it that we admire about Barack Obama?

His efforts to get to the truth about the massacre in Benghazi?  Ooops, no.  Not so much.  His attempts to protect his Ambassador to Libya while stationed in Benghazi?  Nah.  Can't be that.

How about his program to sell weapons to drug cartels in Mexico?  Was that admirable?  I don't think the family of Brian Terry would think so.

Do we admire him for his absolutely relentless push to pass Obamacare, a law that is still being deciphered, its faults and foibles still revealing themselves, and the inoperable, poorly written website that accompanies it?  Do we admire him for the amateur roll out of this unworkable, giant new entitlement program?

His commitment to keep education at the state level and keep the federal government out of your child's classroom?  Not even close.

Maybe its his ability to relate to the common man, the little guy, the average Joe on the street.  Hmmm, no, it's probably not that either.

I guess it could be that people admire Obama for his commitment to the privacy of American citizens and his adherence to the Fourth Amendment.  Wait, no..., that can't be it.

His protection of the Second Amendment?  Nope, not that either.

Immigration.  That's it - protecting America's borders and saying no to amnesty.  The idea that immigrants need to follow the laws in place and follow the path to citizenship that millions have followed before.  The protection of American values and culture, the belief in American exceptionalism!  Dang it, no.  That's not it either.  Obama has just vowed to fight for amnesty (probably trying to protect the Democratic politicians on the chopping block this cycle.)

His refusal to bow to foreign leaders?  Nah.  He's done that at least eight times, not to mention chumming it up with dictators.

I don't get it.  Maybe we admire him for his golf game, his lavish vacations and White House parties, his general ineptitude and his arrogance.

As far as Hillary Clinton goes, I see nothing admirable there either.  It was on her watch as Secretary of State that four Americans were murdered in Benghazi, a situation that should never have happened given that the consulate there asked repeatedly for increased security and was denied.

On the Gallup poll Barack Obama gets 16% of the vote; runner-up to him is George W. Bush with 4%.  Hillary is at 15% with Oprah Winfrey behind her at 6%.

I just don't get it.  At best it's a dismal sign of things to come.  If we are to assume that the poll respondents are informed, educated Americans (and there's certainly no evidence of that) then all hope for conservative values in this country is lost.

At best these are people that vote.

Scary.

H/T:  Memeorandum

Rep. King Promises a Lawsuit While Romney Takes a Knee

There's a poll out today from Bloomberg reporting that 64% of likely voters approve of Obama's decision to stop enforcing immigration laws:

Sixty-four percent of likely voters surveyed after Obama’s June 15 announcement said they agreed with the policy, while 30 percent said they disagreed. Independents backed the decision by better than a two-to-one margin.

That said, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air took a look at the Bloomberg polling data and has a few questions about the results.  He notes the absence of any demographic data as well as the absence of any party affiliation, so it's difficult to weigh the bias of the poll.  As to whether or not Obama "is winning" the immigration discussion, Morrissey also questions that:

Furthermore, we have other consistent data to check.  For instance, Gallup’s tracking polls would have already shown a significant bump in the rolling averages if this issue really moves the needle as Team Obama hopes.  As of this morning, Obama’s approval in the three-day cycle that included Friday and the two days following the announcement sits at 46/47.  The addition of Sunday’s data added a point to his approval and deducted two from his disapproval, which means Obama got some small bump over the weekend … but hardly a game-changer.  The seven-day rolling average on the head-to-head race went from Romney up over Obama 46/45 to a 46/46 tie. 

 And if you go by Rasmussen, according to Morrissey, "there's even less impact."

So did this dictatorial fiat help Obama?  Probably not, in the end.

Rep. Steve King was on Fox News this morning discussing his intent to sue Obama over the immigration mandate.  King insists this is an over reach and a rule "by edict."  He expressed even more Constitutional outrage in pointing out that "we take an oath to uphold the Constitution, too.  Our Founding Fathers envisioned that each branch of government would jealously protect the authority granted to it in the Constitution."  He called this a "vast and insulting" over reach.

King is suing on the separation of powers issue;  he also points to Article 2 that the laws of this nation be "faithfully executed" not created by the president.  Watch the whole thing:



The point is clear that this edict, or "mandate by press conference" that Obama has thrown down is a political move.  It's another pandering move by a politician who doesn't have a record to campaign on.  It's a continuation of his intent to separate and divide us all and initiate class warfare among Americans.  It's all he knows how to do.

Obama issued this edict intentionally before Sen. Marco Rubio could introduce his version of the DREAM Act which, according to Daniel Foster, has a passing chance at legitimate, bipartisan, lawful immigration reform:

It’s simple. On Friday, retiring Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) told National Review editors that he expected the version of DREAM he cosponsored with Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) to be greeted with “tolerance by our most conservative friends, and enthusiasm from the rest.” 

Of course he said this even as the Obama administration was Friday-dumping the DHS memo on the public. Forty-eight hours later it was clear any momentum a Republican-friendly version of DREAM had was dead. As Rubio put it: “People are going to say to me, ‘Why are we going to need to do anything on this now. It has been dealt with. We can wait until after the election. . . . And it is going to be hard to argue against that.”

This is a dangerous precedent that Obama has initiated and it must be struck down.  Lawful reform must prevail.


Romney's response to the whole mess was dispiriting.  Milquetoast.  Weak.  John O'Sullivan has what Romney said when asked if he would overturn this edict and what he SHOULD have said:

Interviewer: But would you repeal it? 

Romney: I hope that when I am inaugurated, this illegality will already have been withdrawn or ruled unconstitutional. It is not too late for the president to have wiser second thoughts. But if it is still standing, then of course I will withdraw it and ask Congress to consider a wider and more thoughtful review of immigration law — one that strengthens our borders and ensures that immigration and citizenship are determined by the American people and their elected representatives. You cannot have our immigration laws determined by some people who smuggle people into America and others who manage to evade the police once here. You cannot have U.S. citizenship granted to people who break into our country and manage to have a child before they are caught. You cannot have two presidents in succession breaking their vow to uphold the Constitution. The people must be able to trust those they elect.

Romney should take a lesson from O'Sullivan and from Rep. King.  The weak-kneed response he gave just reinforces the concerns that conservatives had about him in the first place.

Charles Krauthammer says Romney's deference is the correct move and he makes a valid point; Krauthammer says that any day Romney is not talking about the economy is a day that Obama wins.  I think the two issues are linked and Romney should make that clear.  With up to 800,000 new work permits on the line, that must certainly figure into American unemployment numbers.

Krauthammer suggests it is Congress who should be outraged and offended as Obama has usurped their power.  Unless we have a cadre of fighters like Rep. Steve King in Congress, I'm not expecting much from them.


(More at Memeorandum)

We Are Now Under the Rule of a Dictator: "It's Not Amnesty!" (UPDATED)

I spent a lovely morning shopping four great estate sales today picking up a few little treasures for my various collections.  On the way home I stopped at the grocery store to get a few things and was tickled to see that they had three six-packs of my Sam Adams favorite, Latitude 48 IPA in stock.  It's a good thing I bought all of them because when I came home, fired up the computer and saw that Barack Obama is enacting the DREAM Act by fiat I had to go open one of those IPAs just to get my blood pressure back down to normal.

In case you haven't heard, from the New York Times:

Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children will be able to obtain work permits and be safe from deportation under a new policy announced on Friday by the Obama administration.

Obama says these illegal immigrants are "essentially Americans" and that this makes the immigration system "more efficient, more fair, and more just."  


Just not MORE LEGAL. 


Congress has repeatedly rejected the DREAM Act, but in ObamaWorld, that just doesn't matter:

Republicans were quick to criticize Mr. Obama, saying that he was overstepping his powers in an end run around Congress. But he said he acted only "in the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system."

Never mind the rule of law!


Is there no end to what he won't do through executive fiat?


Is there no limit to the blatant political pandering?


Pirates Cove responds:

Even the AP can’t stop themselves in pointing out that this is simply campaign year politics, rather than serious policy. What Democrats always forget when they essentially push some type of amnesty is that these people still can’t vote, and the other illegals that want these policies can’t vote, either. And those who came to the US and obtained their citizenship the proper way aren’t particularly keen on voting for those who give illegals a free pass.

Well, they can vote in Florida where the DOJ is suing to stop the purging of illegals from voter rolls.

Rush Limbaugh:

What's that gonna do to the unemployment number?  Are we gonna count 'em looking for work or not?  If we don't, the number won't drop. If we do, the number will go up.  What's it gonna do for those of you trying to get work to learn that 800,000 new illegals are in the job market who will work cheaper than you do?  And what's next is home mortgages and student loans.  Those are the next two things that are gonna fall.  

Rush is calling this the "Catch, Release, Vote" program.

Janet Napolitano:

"This is not immunity, it is not amnesty," said Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, which oversees immigration enforcement. "It is an exercise of discretion."

Well, that's certainly parsing words.

Ed Morrissey:

So …. he’s going to hand out hundreds of thousands of work permits when unemployment is at 8.2% nominal, 14.8% U-6, and the civilian participation rate is near the 30-year low Obama set last month (now 63.8%)?  The only thing this accomplishes is driving the labor rate further downward and the unemployment rate further upward.  Work permits make sense when you’re creating jobs, but not when jobs are scarce.  I’m not sure that’s going to endear Obama to unions and blue-collar voters struggling to find work already. 

Well, as Rush asked, are we going to count them in the unemployment numbers or not?

Back to the New York Times and the parameters:

The policy, effective immediately, will apply to people who are currently no more than 30 years old, who arrived in the country before they turned 16 and have lived in the United States for five years. They must also have no criminal record, and have earned a high school diploma, be in school or have served in the military. 

My first question is how were they enrolled in school if they were illegal in the first place?

And obviously these age parameters include a whole new voting block for The One.

This will certainly open the borders for many more who want to come on over.  Nobody is going to stop you anymore unless you confess your membership in some drug cartel.  Sounds to me like all you have to do is come on in, go to school, stay for five years and you're all good.  That ought to make all those going through the proper channels feel all warm and fuzzy.

Obama will use Republican outrage as a campaign point in his re-election.  He will say that Republicans are anti-immigration and want to shut the doors on immigration.  This will be false.

All he needs to do is to craft a plan that will get through Congress - a plan that is acceptable for both sides of the aisle.  But the BrilliantOne has been unable to do that.

And so instead, he's going to rule America like a dictator.

Until November, that is.


Added:

Mark Krikorian:

The debate over this must not focus on the substance of the DREAM Act. We have a branch of government that does that kind of thing and it’s called “Congress.” The problem with today’s announcement is that it’s an unconstitutional expansion of executive power that can be applied to any area of law. If a future Republican president can’t get Congress to agree to a reduction in tax rates, say, or a change in environmental rules, he can just use this “discretion” to change things on his own. Democrats in Congress should be terrified of this precedent and stand with their fellow members across the aisle to put a stop to it. This is about the rule of law and nothing else.

Update:

Rep. Steve King (R-IA)  is suing to stop this unconstitutional ploy:

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King said Friday that he plans to sue the Obama administration to halt implementation of its newly announced selective illegal immigration law enforcement policy. He told Mike Huckabee on the former Arkansas governor’s radio program Friday that he successfully sued his own state’s governor — and won — over a similar separation-of-powers issue. 

“I will tell you that — I’m not without experience on this — I’m prepared to bring a suit and seek a court order to stop implementation of this policy,” King said

Update 2:

Over at Legal Insurrection, Professor Jacobson reports (and has video & Twitter reaction) of the heckling of Obama at his speech today.

From CNN:

President Barack Obama did not respond kindly Friday to an interruption during his Rose Garden announcement of new immigration rules, telling the man shouting that it was neither the time nor the place to field questions. 

The reporter, who was wearing a temporary press badge, was identified as Neil Munro from the conservative website the Daily Caller. He later told CNN, "I have to ask the questions you all won't ask," referring to the reporters gathered who regularly cover the White House.

Here's the video:




Update 3:

Ed Driscoll reports that the Obamabots are making it a racial issue that Dear Leader was "heckled" or asked a question.

Update 4:

Senator David Vitter responds:

President Obama shows again how he isn't serious about securing our border or reforming our immigration system. He's certainly shown how serious he is about the politics of it. Like other DREAM Act proposals before, Obama's executive action today goes well beyond helping minor children caught in a policy loophole - it essentially grants amnesty to adults almost 30 years old.

Update 5:

Heh.  ABC News calls Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro "eccentric."

President Obama flashed anger for the first time in recent memory today as an eccentric conservative reporter interrupted his speech on immigration in the Rose Garden.

Even more curious, I'm wondering where ABC has been when they suggest that Obama hasn't "flashed anger" recently.  The man is a walking cesspool of anger.


More at Memeorandum and Instapundit.

I'm Running for Mayor of South Podunk: Immigration and the Republican Field

Newt caused quit a stir at the foreign policy debate with his stance on immigration (emphasis mine):

So I think you've got to deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border, as the governor said. I believe ultimately you have to find some system -- once you've put every piece in place, which includes the guest worker program, you need something like a World War II Selective Service Board that, frankly, reviews the people who are here. 


If you're here -- if you've come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home. period. If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.

The Creeble Foundation is a very good red card program that says you get to be legal, but you don't get a pass to citizenship. And so there's a way to ultimately end up with a country where there's no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone.

Gingrich was referring to The Krieble Foundation plan, here.

Newt's idea of a "Board" to review people is rather odd, it seems.  Mark Steyn makes the point:

So the North Podunk Town Meeting could vote to deny you your Green Card but ten miles down the road the burghers of South Podunk could vote to give one to your cousin? That sure sounds like a plan.

It’s a tribute to Mitt Romney’s soporific caution and Herman Cain’s blithe indifference to the bit on the map marked Rest of the World that Newt is now what passes for the GOP’s deep thinker.

And why should this be the problem of the folks in South Podunk, anyway?  Maybe Newt hasn't thought that one through.

And is Newt offering amnesty as Bachmann claims...:

Well, I don't agree that you would make 11 million workers legal, because that, in effect, is amnesty. And I also don't agree that you would give the DREAM Act on a federal level. And those are two things that I believe that the speaker had been for, and he can speak for himself.

And as Romney claims...:

 “Newt Gingrich supported the 1986 amnesty act, and even though he conceded that was a mistake, he said that he was willing to repeat that mistake by extending amnesty to immigrants who are illegally in the country today," Romney adviser and spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said in the spin room following the AEI/Heritage Foundation debate in Washington, DC.

I don't think Newt is offering amnesty to all.  He said, "there's a way to ultimately end up with a country where there's no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone."


Andrew McCarthy says Newt is just offering "common sense":

All he said was, “Let’s be humane in enforcing the law.” That was my reaction last night when Newt Gingrich argued that the federal government should refrain from deporting illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. for many years if the effect would be the break up of a family.

I did not take him to be proposing a new law conferring amnesty. To do what the former Speaker proposed would require no change in U.S. law. All you’d need is the sensible application of prosecutorial discretion.

Part of the argument, though, seems to be about "magnets."  Romney fired back at Newt during the debate and insisted that not to deport them all would be legitimizing a magnet and serve as an incentive for others to come:

Look, amnesty is a magnet. What when we have had in the past, programs that have said that if people who come here illegally are going to get to stay illegally for the rest of their life, that's going to only encourage more people to come here illegally. 

Andrew McCarthy again:

In my mind, if you are in the country without authorization and we elect not to use our power to kick you out, you are the recipient of humane treatment and a very valuable benefit. You don’t rate more than that. We simply leave you alone: You don’t get the windfall of some sort of legal status, we don’t make it easier for you to work, and it’s not our job to relieve your anxiety over your status — you brought that anxiety on yourself when you entered or stayed illegally. If being here without authorization is causing you grief, go home and try to come back through the legal process. If you don’t want to do that, you takes your chances — period.

Now that, to me, is common sense.  I'm for the McCarthy plan!  We leave you alone.  If you're here illegally, you don't get free social services, you don't get to vote, you don't get a driver's license, you don't get in-state tuition in Texas or any other state.  If you're a criminal, terrorist, drug user, or other burden on society, we'll use our resources to deport you.  Is that a "magnet"?  Probably.  So secure the border, already.

I think it is, frankly, unrealistic to think that with the current staffing of ICE that we would or could deport every illegal.  I also think Newt makes a bit of sense when he suggests we must be humane about it all. 

It's sort of like this Republican field.  There's no perfect answer.  There's no real conservative option. 

Rick Perry On the Defense in Tampa

Monday's Republican debate in Tampa should be interesting and I'll be watching and probably live-blogging.  This debate is sponsored by CNN and the Tea Party Express and the Miami Herald is promising some unusual questions:

The two-hour debate, co-sponsored by the Tea Party Express and CNN, promises to include some topics that rarely come up in national political forums, such as the candidates' views of the Constitution and the Federal Reserve.

Immigration is also expected to come up:

"We should ask them their constitutional reasoning for wanting to legalize illegal aliens. Where do they find that authorization?" asked Jerry DeLemus, chairman of the Granite State Patriots Liberty Political Action Committee, which includes several New Hampshire tea party groups.

I'm interested in that line of questioning because I want to hear Rick Perry explain why he signed the bill offering in-state tuition to children of illegals.   Oh, I've heard him explain about border security and how we can't even discuss immigration reform until we secure the border, but I disagree.  I think they're two separate issues, but I think Perry has to explain his position on immigration.  He can't just say, Oh well get to that later, and walk away.

Removing "the magnet" or the incentives is important, at least, according to Romney:

"We must stop providing the incentives that promote illegal immigration,’’ Romney told more than 100 people attending a Republican Hispanic conference in Tampa. " As governor, I vetoed legislation that would have provided in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants and I strengthened the authority our state troopers had to enforce existing immigration laws."

On the other hand, Rick Perry says he doesn't want to punish young people for their parents' actions.

Perry himself says that he and the media have not "done enough to educate the public" about the bill.  Well, now here's his chance.

Another topic he needs to clarify is his Social Security position.  Well, his position is pretty clear:  he thinks it's a Ponzi scheme, which it is, although as the Wall Street Journal points out, "if not a criminal enterprise." 

Unless Perry better articulates that he means reform rather than decapitation he runs the risk of scaring the bejeezus out of senior citizens and others currently dependent, or approaching that point, on their Social Security.  They won't listen to one other word he has to say unless he clarifies that.

The Wall Street Journal:

In other words, the program is building up debt even as benefits become less sustainable as the baby boomers begin to retire and the ratio of workers to seniors shrinks. The feds will then have to pay out of other tax revenue to meet Social Security's obligations. This is the long-range problem Mr. Perry should attempt to explain, and the danger is that his rhetoric will scare the elderly rather than reassure them that reform is necessary for the sake of their grandchildren. He's now running to represent Republicans as their Presidential nominee, not hawking a book on conservative talk radio. 

And so, this debate Monday evening is fairly important for Rick Perry.

The front-runner always gets the most intense scrutiny and Perry is taking some heat (no pun intended) over both these issues as well as his handling of the Texas wildfires.  One of his aides had the total lack of tact to say that Perry's fundraising "is going like wildfire."  Ouch.

Perry is also getting criticism for cutting funding to the Texas Forest Service, and volunteer firefighters, by 75% over the next two years.  With some 50 or more wildfires burning across Texas, this is, well, awkward.

I suspect much of this works to Romney's benefit as Perry is forced on the defensive on these issues rather than the offense.

Perry is likely to maintain front runner status, and there is much he says that I support and agree with.  But he will need to better articulate some of these issues or run the risk of losing out to the seemingly more moderate and less blustery Romney (who in fact has his own albatross.)

Perry's Stance on "Strategic Fencing" Does Not Translate to Soft on Immigration

Rick Perry's position on the border fence is not necessarily a weakness.  At a rally in New Hampshire yesterday, Perry said:

"No, I don't support a fence on the border," he said, while referring to the long border in Texas alone. "The fact is, it's 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good."

Instead, Perry said he supported "strategic fencing" and National Guard troops to prevent illegal immigration and violence from Mexican drug cartels.

According to the AP report, Perry's audience didn't like this answer, but frankly, I don't see anything wrong with it.  

Unless you're going to build something like the Berlin wall with armed guards shooting down those who breach the boundaries, Perry's answer could be a rational one.  He'll have to provide more details to satisfy the Tea Party voters.

In Fed Up, Perry discusses his immigration views.  He acknowledges that drug cartels and drug violence is a huge problem and equates those people to terrorists.  Perry says that the "federal government's actions [on immigration] fall somewhere between raging incompetence and outright dereliction of duty" (119).    No disagreement here.

Perry distinguishes between "border security" and "comprehensive immigration" and makes the case that you must deal with them separately.  Maybe you can legislatively deal with them separately, but one does feed the other.  The incentives for coming illegally must be removed. 

Legal immigration is the way to go, Perry says, but it needs reform:  "The visa  and naturalization system is not working efficiently for anybody," he says.  Deportation is backlogged and most orders are simply unenforced.  Case in point:  Uncle Omar.

Perry even criticizes fellow republican George W. Bush for not doing as much as he'd hoped on enforcing immigration laws already on the books, while at the same time, conceding that Bush did "step up workplace enforcement."  Obama, Perry says, has "reversed course."

Mitt Romney in Tampa this week highlights one of the differences between himself and Rick Perry:

“Our country must do a better job of securing its borders, and as president, I will,” Romney told the Republican National Hispanic Assembly in Tampa, according to his prepared remarks. “That means completing construction of a high-tech fence, and investing in adequate manpower and resources.”

 

Will Perry's approach to building a high-tech fence at "strategic locations" and using National Guard troops elsewhere cost him enough votes to give Romney the win?  

I think Romney's albatross of RomneyCare will be a bigger problem.

On the other hand, Perry signed into law a bill allowing illegals in Texas in-state tuition, which drew the ire of the Tea Party.  He'll have to do a better job explaining his position in the debates, and I'm sure he will.  The AP and the Obama-media will try to paint Perry as soft on immigration and likely won't report it when Perry clears that up. 

Tuesday's Loose Thoughts

Real life has trumped blog life again...well, at least since school started three weeks ago.  My site stats are in the tank, negative numbers, almost, but between school and taking care of my mom, by the time I get to my computer I'm brain dead.  I pretty much quit checking my sitemeter ages ago when I realized that I'm not making any money blogging and that I'll probably die of old age before I join the "million hits" club.  It used to bug me but it doesn't anymore. 

Anyway, there have been some stories that I've been following.  This Gibson guitar thing is just bizarre.  Powerline has a great encapsulation of the whole thing if you're behind the curve like I've been.  And the Michelle Obama twist makes even more crazy.  Gotta love it.  Doesn't the DoJ have anything else to do besides harass one of the few companies that still produces an American product?   Major fail.

Elsewhere, this post by Doug Powers is enough to make one's skin crawl.  "Federal family"?  Really?  Doug:

If my “family” was $14 trillion in debt I’d put myself up for adoption. Oh, and the “federal family” member who would have normally caught the spelling error in “preperations” was out tending to family, so we can forgive that oversight.

This has helped soften the image of the federal government to such a degree that the IRS is now considering referring to themselves as America’s “little audit buddies.”

Seriously.  Skin creepy crawlies.

And then we have Darryl Hannah getting arrested at the White House for a another Hannah-esque liberal unicorns and rainbows sit-in:

"Sometimes it's necessary to sacrifice your freedom for a greater freedom," Hannah said in Lafayette Park before her arrest.  "And we want to be free from the horrible death and destruction that fossil fuels cause, and have a clean energy future."

The video at the link is just bizarre; Hannah is arrested and frisked to a round of thunderous applause and chants of "Darryl, Darryl, Darryl!" She beams and basks in the moment like a red carpet event.  Irrelevant celebrities I can do without.

All I have to say about this one is that streaks were made to be broken.  

And finally, the tale of Obama's Uncle Omar gets weirder and weirder.  The Boston Herald reports today that Uncle Omar had a valid Social Security number even though he's an illegal alien ordered to be deported.  How'd that happen?    Mark Krikorian explains how it could have happened.

Oh and one last thing:  I watched the George Bush interview about 9/11 on Nat Geo last night.  Powerful stuff.  Powerful.  Catch it if you get a chance; it was well done. 

Eric Holder's DOJ Files Suit Against Alabama

Eric Holder's DOJ and the Obama administration have filed suit on yet another state for their attempt to control illegal immigration in absence of the feds attempt to do so.

This time it's Alabama.

"Today's action makes clear that setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility that cannot be addressed through a patchwork of state immigration laws," said Attorney General Eric Holder.  "The department is committed to evaluating each state immigration law and making decisions based on the facts and the law. To the extent we find state laws that interfere with the federal government's enforcement of immigration law, we are prepared to bring suit, as we did in Arizona."

I'm trying to find an example of "the federal government's enforcement of immigration law."  I'll let you know if I find one.

Obama: Our Immigration Laws are "Too Hard"

Is it really "too hard" to follow the immigration laws of the United States?

Obama thinks so.  In his Twitter town hall yesterday he said,

 We’ve got an immigration system that’s broken right now, where too many folks are breaking the law but also our laws make it too hard for talented people to contribute and be part of our society.  And we’ve always been a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.  And so we need comprehensive immigration reform, part of which would allow entrepreneurs and high-skilled individuals to stay here -- because we want to be attracting that talent here. 

Tell that to the 100 immigrants who took their oath during a naturalization ceremony at Mount Vernon on July 4.  Or to the 77 who took the oath at Monticello the same day.  And to the 680,000 who are sworn in year round:

Each year, about 680,000 U.S. immigrants from all corners of the globe take the Oath of Allegiance, in which they promise to "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies," says the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which conducts naturalization ceremonies year-round.

"Too hard"?  I don't think so.  If these people to which he refers are so "talented" then they can figure out how to go through proper channels.

Victor Davis Hanson points out:

The old liberal ideal of a racially blind, melting-pot society where the law is applied equally across the board has descended into the new postmodern practice of enforcing many laws only selectively — and based entirely on politics, matters of race, ethnic chauvinism, and national origin.

And Hanson has plenty of questions:

Why does the present administration oppose new anti-illegal-immigration laws in Arizona and Georgia that are designed to enhance existing federal law — but not so-called “sanctuary city” statutes that in some municipalities deliberately contravene federal immigration law?

Read the whole thing.

Hanson points out that the people who go through the legal channels are bound to be resentful of those who don't:

In the old immigration narrative of the 1960s and 1970s, affluent, profit-minded white American employers often exploited cheap workers from Mexico. But that matrix has been largely superseded. So-called whites are no longer a majority in California, where large Asian and African-American populations often object to illegal arrivals from Mexico who cut in front of the legal-immigration line, tax social services, and raise costs to the detriment of American citizens.

Yet Obama contends that our laws are "too hard."  If "too many folks are breaking the law" you don't just change the law - you enforce it.  If  "too many people" started robbing banks because the economy is too tough, would you change the law and open the banks?  If "too many people" found the laws restricting drug smuggling "too hard" would you declare amnesty for drug dealers?

He's right about one thing:  "We've always been a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants."  So you enforce the laws.  You don't abandon them.  It's good enough for the 680,000 plus people each year who get it done.






Update:  In a semi-related issue, here's the Memeorandum thread on Obama's statement about White House salaries in the Twitter Town Hall.

Team Obama Steps Into Humberto Leal Case

Everyone knows Texas has an "express lane" when it comes to death row.  The next execution scheduled in Texas is on July 7 for Humberto Leal, however, via Pecan Corner, it seems that the UN and the Obama administration are calling on the Supreme Court to halt the execution.  An AP story reports:

The Obama administration took the unusual step Friday of asking the Supreme Court to stop Texas from executing a Mexican citizen convicted of raping and killing a 16-year-old girl.  The administration said the court should delay the planned July 7 execution of Humberto Leal for up to six months to give Congress time to consider legislation that would directly affect Leal’s case.

As it turns out, Leal, a Mexican national from Monterrey, was not advised of his right to consult with the Mexican consulate after his arrest.

The backstory:  In May, 1994, Leal raped, tortured and murdered 16-year old Adria Sauceda in San Antonio.  They had been at the same party and her nude body was found abandoned on a dirt road 100 yards from the party, near a creek, with a piece of lumber with a screw in it still protruding from her vagina.  She had been bitten and the bite marks on her body were later matched to Leal.  She was bludgeoned with a 35 pound piece of asphalt.  Her bloody blouse was found at his home.  He was unanimously convicted.

Supporters of Mr. Leal have a website in which they claim he did not get a fair trial, that his attorney was inadequate, that the victim had been raped by several others while at the party, that Mr. Leal was a victim of sexual abuse by his parish priest and he lived in poverty.  They claim he has brain damage, learning disabilities, and was beaten by gangs and his parents.

NPR reported on this story last month:

On the night of May 21, 1994, 16-year-old Adria Sauceda attended a party on the south side of San Antonio. Witnesses testified that the teenager ingested so much alcohol, cocaine and marijuana she became extremely intoxicated. A group of eight or nine young men took her into the backyard and took turns sexually assaulting her. Anyone who tried to intervene was told to back off.

Sandra Babcock, Leal's lawyer and a professor at Northwestern University Law School, says when Leal arrived at the party and learned what happened to Sauceda he "became very upset and said that he was going to take her home."

Leal says that on the ride home, Sauceda tried to get out of the car. Leal pulled over, she got out, he tried to get her back in, they argued, he pushed her and she hit her head. But Leal maintains he didn't kidnap her and he didn't rape her.

Keep in mind, this case has made its way through the appeals process; he's been on death row since 1995.  And so here we are, very near the execution date, and we have team Obama stepping into the mix.  This is rare but not unprecedented.  George W. Bush also dealt with this issue in the case of Jose Medellin:

The issue then and now is whether the state has to give in to a demand by the president that the prisoner be allowed new hearings and sentencing. In the 2008 case, President George W. Bush made that demand reluctantly after an international court concluded Medellin was improperly denied access to his consulate before his original prosecution, a violation of a treaty signed by the United States decades ago.

John Bellinger, then legal adviser to Bush and currently a lawyer in Washington, said the move by Bush was an extraordinarily difficult but necessary step to take.

"It is important for us to comply with our international law obligations, not because of some airy principles of international law or because of the reputation for the U.S. or world federalism," Bellinger said. 

Medellin was executed.

We know where Justice John Roberts stands on the issue:

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the state at the time, saying the president had no unilateral authority to force the state to comply with international treaties, absent some specific congressional legislation.  To do so, said Chief Justice John Roberts, would violate state sovereignty. He said the International Court of Justice's ruling "is not domestic law."

And even though politics shouldn't matter in something like this, I'm pretty sure the Supremes haven't forgotten the unprecedented beat down Obama gave them at his 2010 State of the Union address.

The question over at Pecan Corner is why now?

His execution date has already been postponed once on this claim: Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton have had an entire year to ask Congress to pass the law they claim to want but Congress wisely chose not to even introduce a bill during all that time, so now they want to use it for a PR stunt.

So which is it? Where did our laws go? What happened to predictable governance?

NPR asked Governor Rick Perry's office for comment but received none, however....

Perry's staff in the past has said, "The world court has no standing in Texas and Texas is not bound by a ruling or edict from a foreign court. It's very important to remember that these individuals are on death row for killing our citizens."

Leal's website cries out for justice, but where is the justice for Adria Sauceda?  When will we tire of illegals killing our citizens?  When will we quit making excuses for heinous criminals and demand justice?

Update:  There's now a Memeorandum thread on this story.

Judge Sides With ACLU in Georgia

As a follow-up to my post last week about the controversial immigration bill in Georgia, it is to be noted that federal judge Thomas Thrash, a Clinton appointee, has sided with the ACLU in striking down major parts of that bill:

Judge Thomas Thrash granted a request to block parts of the law that penalize people who knowingly and willingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime. He also blocked provisions that authorize officers to verify the immigration status of someone who can't provide proper identification.  Thrash wrote that under parts of the law, the state is enforcing immigration law that should be left to the federal government.

It's that "left to the federal government" part that just kills me.

Note to ACLU and Judge Thrash:  the states are trying to do the job the federal government WON'T do.  Get out of the way and let them.

You've Been Served: Mexico Sues the United States

In an attempt to continue the infiltration of the United States by hoards of illegal immigrants, Mexico, "and the governments of several Central and South American countries filed court papers…in support of efforts to halt Georgia’s tough new immigration enforcement law," according to this post at Big Government.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center and several other civil and immigrant rights groups filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Georgia's law this month and are now asking a judge to halt the measure pending the outcome of their case. They argue the measure – also known as House Bill 87 – is preempted by federal law and is unconstitutional.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has been busy protecting illegals lately.  The Alabama state legislature has passed a bill that  makes it a misdemeanor to rent property to illegals:

The provision is contained in a single sentence: “It shall be unlawful for a person to harbor an alien unlawfully present in the United States by entering into a rental agreement … with an alien to provide accommodations, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is unlawfully present in the United States.”

Once a violator collects ten violations (TEN!), the charge is upgraded from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C felony.  This doesn't sit well with the SPLC:

Sam Brooke, an attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center, says, “If you were a [landlord] found to have a number of properties and apartments with more than ten individuals, you could face up to 20 years. … [I]t’s incredible that they would have the audacity to do this.”

Hey Mr. Brooke, how about seeing to it that these people have proper papers?  If you want to help them, help them get proper documentation.  

The SPLC mission statement says:

The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Using litigation, education and other forms of advocacy, we work toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality. 

No objections here to fighting hate and bigotry; the SPLC should be using its resources to help illegals get legal papers rather than filing suit against lawfully passed legislation that upholds the United States Constitution.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, farmers are lamenting the lack of Hispanic farm workers now scared by the new bill.  Georgia Governor Nathan Deal suggests paroles take up the slack.

In Georgia there are those who support the law:

Supporters of the law say that shows it is already working. They want the law to clear the state of illegal immigrants, who they say are taking advantage of Georgia's schools, hospitals and workplaces, draining public funds as they take jobs that could help the unemployed.

"I think we're the only country that allows people to come in and take over," said Sheila Bryan, 58, who cleans homes around Tifton, a farming community in South Georgia. "I'm sure there are enough legal people to do the work."

...and those who don't:

“This law is hurting us very badly because many workers are afraid and as Georgia is one of the few states that have this kind of law, they prefer to simply avoid Georgia and go to another state, Gary H. Paulk, owner of Paulk Farms & Vineyards, told Efe.

Paulk, who runs the farm with his father and brother, usually hires around 300 workers every year to harvest his grapes, blueberries and blackberries, but is currently short more than 100 field hands.

“Never before have we had problems getting qualified workers for our fields like now, and not only I, but all the other farmers are having problems and I think it’s due to the law,” he said.

Mr. Paulk laments the lack of "qualified workers" for his fields?  What are the "qualifications" that make blueberry picking so challenging?  I wish he'd explain "qualified" to me.

At any rate, now it seems that the courts will have to decide if Georgia's law will stand:

Nevertheless, Clinton appointee U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash will ultimately decide, and has indicated that he “might rule from the bench …on the plaintiffs’ request to halt the law” on the first day of the hearing. The way Judge Thrash rules will determine whether Georgia, on behalf of the United States of America, wins or loses a battle against the unrelenting influx of illegal immigrants, the dictates of foreign countries, and the insane demands of liberal organizations that are oblivious to the safety and security concerns of America.

The law is scheduled to go into effect July 1.

Added:  You will remember that Obama felt free to espouse his opinon of the Arizona immigration bill; will he opine on the Georgia or the Alabama bills?  Memeorandum links to this report that Hispanics are miffed at Obama's non-appearance at their annual conference. 

The Debate Begins On the DREAM Act: LIVE BLOGGING

The debate in the House has begun on the DREAM Act; John Conyers just finished speaking and simultaneously fumbling through notes.  He says that the majority of Americans support the DREAM Act.  Stay tuned.

Update #1:  Lamar Smith (R- TX):  makes points about American unemployment rates and how the DREAM Act will exacerbate that.  He points out that no hearings have been held and that the bill considered in the vote was only introduced last night.  No Amendments will be allowed.  "What happened to the Democrats promise to allow Americans 24 hours to read the bill?"

Smith says "the DREAM Act will mean amnesty for over 2 million illegal immigrants."  He fears massive fraud in the application process which requires no proof, but simply claims by those who apply.

Once they file an application, the federal government can no longer deport them.

Smith says this bill will push illegal crossings even higher as illegals attempt to get inside the border.  These immigrants will also swell the welfare rolls.  Illegals can use fraudulent documents because there is no check and verification process.

There have been no hearings and no amendments allowed.  "This is a desecration of the democratic process," Smith says.  "It puts the interests of illegal immigrants" ahead of American citizens.

Update #2:  Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) in speaking in support of the DREAM Act.  Because California isn't in enough trouble already.

Update #3:  Rep. Steve King (R-IA) says the cost is quite high; much higher than proponents admit.  It triples the number of DREAM cards.  King says it's an "affirmative action amnesty act."

Update #4:  Sheila Jackson Lee.  "We are ALL created equal!"   Now Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) laments that there has been no markup, no committee, no amendments, as if this was "perfectly drawn and perfectly brought here" as is.  We're going to "pass it without the minority to offer changes to the bill."  He says the DREAM Act offers amnesty to those who entered the country before they were 16 years old.  The bill does not define "hardship" - a huge loophole.

Goodlatte, no matter how spurious, files an application, the federal government is prohibited from deporting him.

Maxine Waters (D-CA) says the DREAM Act is good for the economy and well thought through.  Because California isn't broke enough.

Update #5:  It seems the supporters biggest selling point is that these illegals didn't ask to be here.  They're here through no fault of their own.

Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA)  "This bill is the amnesty dream... Adults up to 30 years old will now be eligble for amnesty under this....illegal immigrants who have been convicted of less than three misdemeanors will be eligible for this...this is a nightmare for America."

Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX) making a case for the DREAM Act in this season of "hope and love and joy."  It's Christmas so let's push an amnesty bill.

Update #6:  Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) says the DREAM Act allows for preferential treatment for illegals at the expense of our citizens and legal immigrants in education.  It places a burden on our "hard pressed" government programs.  He says the bill will encourage millions to cross the border and "bring their kids...ALL of them."

Conyers says there is no preferential treatment:  "They are treated equally," he says.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) point out that this bill is "not compassion" but "politics."  "This is a Harry Reid deal; he promised he was going to do it, so he's doing it."  Kingston says "How do you prove who was here when they were 16 up to 30?"  "You only have to prove it to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Homeland Security", he says.  No worries!  "Who keeps up with the records of illegal aliens?"  he asks.

Two million people will probably become citizens under this, Kingston says.  "This is politics in the eleventh hour in a lame duck Congress and should be rejected under that alone."

Update #7:   Rep Sam Farr (D-CA) equates illegals to the founders and says we should give those illegal kids a dream.  Because California isn't already screwed.

Rep. Cathy Castor (D-FL)  is all about breathing "hope and life" into these illegals who just want an education and to serve in the armed forces.

Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) says this is the only country these kids know.  It's the American dream.

Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA)  "It is wrong to unfairly punish young people who come to America through no fault of their own."  This bill will strengthen America, he says.

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY)  "Thank God the Native Americans didn't have these immigration laws when they were 'discovered' by other people!"

Update #8: Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) "...these people were uprooted from their homes when they were young children...have sacrificed blood and tears for this country."

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD)  Says he's speaking for those children who "didn't break the law".  Their parents broke the law.  These kids grew up in this country and are "proud to be an American" and Steny Hoyer is pretty sure they sing Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA."

Update #9:   Michelle Malkin has thoughts, comments, and links.

Update #10:   Hoyer is still waxing rhapsodic about the young chillens who came here as youngsters  and have been in school and know only America as their home; he doesn't address at all those criminals who apply for amnesty that can't be deported....it's all about the little ones.  Up to age 30.  Yeah.

Update #11:  Apparently, according to Hoyer, these kids are going to be trillion dollar earners.  We need 'em.   Hoyer cites Michael Gerson's support of the DREAM Act and repeats over and over "George Bush's speech writer" as if that's a good thing all of a sudden.

Update #12:   Rep., Dan Lungren (D-CA) disagrees with bringing this bill without the opportunity for members to have their ideas heard through amendments.  "Everyone should have an equal opportunity to come to the United States," but when you come illegally you are discriminating against those who play by the rules.  He says we should allow an amendment that says those who benefit from this should not have the option to have those who DID break the law benefit from this bill.

Update #13:   Rep. Gregory Meeks says those who would benefit from this bill don't even know they aren't American citizens.  Whaaaa......t????  He says they are every bit as American as all of us.  Except for that citizenship thing....

Update #14:   Rep. Steve King (R-IA) points out that when his ancestors arrived at Ellis Island, 2% were sent back.

Awww lordy here comes Queen Nancy.

Update #15:  Nancy is harking back to the founders.  The Founders settled on equality for the people, she says.   Pelosi cites "The American Dream" which she defines as making America better for the next generation.  Apparently the DREAM Act will do that.  It'll make America "more American."  Hunh?

Many of these illegals have no idea of their immigration status until ICE shows up at their door.  "Some of them don't even speak the language of the country of origin of their parents."  These illegals serve in the armed services and "strengthen our national security," she says.  "They have an array of skills and talent."  (I'll leave that one alone.)

Nancy Pelosi says "we have the opportunity tonight to solve a problem for our military" and that this bill doesn't cost money.  These young people will pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes "when they reach their working potential."

Apparently we owe it to our founders to pass this bill which makes America "more American."

Update #16:  And now we're wrapping up.  Rep Lamar Smith (R-TX) reminds that there has been no discussion on this bill and that this particular bill has only just been made available. " Illegals get amnesty if they use fraudulent documents,  even if they have committed crimes like DUI and document fraud...it encourages fraud and even more illegal immigration."  Unemployment is over 9% , he says, but the DREAM Act means more competition for American workers who are in need of those jobs.  It puts the interest of illegal aliens over the interest of American citizens.

Rep. Howard Berman, (D-CA) says the word "amnesty" is scary.  These kids did nothing wrong.  "This is a whole universe of people" who did nothing wrong.  The Republicans are using scare tactics by talking about chain migration.  Chain migration is a "bogus argument" just like "amnesty."

Berman cites the "affirmative action" argument by saying these illegals can't apply for Pell Grants, food stamps, etc.  He says the country will benefit from the talents of these illegals.

Update #17:  Voting is underway.  Michelle Malkin writes:

Appalling. The House “debated” the DREAM Act that few actually have read — but there was no real debate because the Dem leadership prevented any amendments from coming to the floor. It was an abuse of the lame-duck session and a legislative farce. Most ethical and open my you know what.

Agreed.

Update #18:  The DREAM Act passes the House.  216 -198.  The names of the 8 Republicans voting "For" coming up.  Senate votes tomorrow at 11 ET.

Update #19:  Republicans voting for DREAM Act:

Cao, Castle, Diaz-Balart, L., Diaz-Balart M., Djou, Ehlers, Inglis, Ros-Lehtinen,