Friday, May 28, 2010

Pitting Citizen Against Citizen

That would be President Obama in his recent press conference. Now I understand why this "eloquent" "brilliant" "orator" does not do more of these things. Wow. We thought Bush was bad. But eve Bush never pitted one American citizen against another like this:

Obama said claimed that the US has a history as "a nation of law and as a nation of immigrants." Yes, but that does not mean we should be a nation of ILLEGAL immigrants, and I am pretty sure our nation's laws deals with that very issue of people coming here illegally.

"I'm President of the United States (stop reminding us). I don''t endorse boycotts or not endorse boycotts..." I'm sorry, WHAT did you say?? You cannot flat out, categorically condemn the boycotting of an entire STATE by municipalities in other states for implementing a law that MIRRORS federal law, and is taking action where you are NOT? So much for that "nation of law" bullshit.

How about this, Mr. President, you are SUPPOSED to be the president of all 50 states and all LEGAL citizens, whether they voted for you or not. Perhaps you could try something more like: "I cannot condone the boycott of one state by another, or by cities in another state over people crossing our borders illegally. We have a serious issue with illegal immigration in this country. It is an issue that has been long in developing, and short on solutions by the Federal government in the past. I am going to work hard to change that now, to protect our borders, to give our border states all the help they need to protect their borders, and their border towns. Not just for those states, but for all states in our Great Union who are feeling the financial strain of illegal immigration through elevated costs for housing, medical care, and education.

Moreover, in these difficult economic times, we do not need to have cities and states threaten other states with economic hardship. We must pull together now, not fracture and splinter apart. We are not just Californians, or Arizonians. We are AMERICANS, and we must work together."

Just a thought, Mr. President. Feel free to use any and all of that - no charge.

My other favorite quote was Obama saying they were reviewing the AZ law because we can't have "a patchwork of immigration laws." Well, holy crappydoo, if the current laws were ENFORCED, states would not be forced into this situation now, for crying out loud. Again, ironically, CA has a FAR stricter law on the books than AZ, which the elected officials there clearly, willfully, ignore on a regular basis.

Guess who has joined Arizona in crafting a stronger law? Massachusetts has with a new proposed amendment, as this article highlights, Mass. Senate Passes Crackdown On Illegal Immigrants:
With one lawmaker citing President Lincoln's respect for the rule of law, the Massachusetts Senate passed a far-reaching crackdown this afternoon on illegal immigrants and those who would hire them, going further, senators said, than any immigration bill proposed over the past five years.

In a surprising turn of events, the legislation replaced a narrower bill that was passed Wednesday over the objections of Republicans.

The measure, which passed on a 28-10 vote as an amendment to the budget, would bar the state from doing business with any company found to break federal laws barring illegal immigrant hiring. It would also toughen penalties for creating or using fake identification documents, and explicitly deny in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants.

The amendment would also require the state’s public health insurance program to verify residency through the Department of Homeland Security, and would require the state to give legal residents priority for subsidized housing.

Ohmygosh, say WHAAAA?? People are going to have to PROVE they are here legally?? Show ID?? It's an outrage, I tell you!!!! Are Los Angeles, San Diego, Oakland, San Francisco, and school administrators in IL going to boycott MA now?? Ahem. Here's more:
The amendment will now be part of negotiations with the House as part of the entire state budget.

Supporters, especially Republicans, struck patriotic notes and spoke of the sanctity of the law as they spoke on the Senate floor.

“It was President Lincoln -- and I’m going to paraphrase here -- who suggested that respect for the law should be preached from every pulpit taught by every mother to every child,” said Senator Bruce Tarr, a Gloucester Republican.

But one supporter said that the measure was being passed for practical purposes and would hurt people.

Senator Frederick E. Berry, a Peabody Democrat, complained that one of the Republican sponsors acted like the "Patriots had just won the Super Bowl. ... I am going to vote for it, but I don’t think we ought to rejoice."

Democrats had resisted such a sweeping proposal, but spent last evening negotiating today’s measure, shortly after a new polled showed 84 percent of the liberal-leaning state’s voters supported tough immigration rules barring state services to illegal immigrants.

Sonia Chang-Diaz, a Boston Democrat who opposed the amendment, said the measure had not been properly vetted and would add undue obligations to businesses and state government when they could ill afford it. She said it would cost the state money, while programs for children and public safety are being cut and people in her city are being shot at.

"I just don't think this is an appropriate time to be enforcing an additional cost burden on the state, doing things that are not our job," Chang-Diaz said.

Huh? I lived and worked in MA. I can tell you for a FACT that I was asked to produce my original Social Security card and other documentation which was photocopied and put into my file. This was at a non-profit organization. Why did they do that? Because it was the LAW. No one complained that it was an undue burden, certainly not me, and I am sure the pennies it cost to make that copy didn't break the organization, which also received state funds. It was done to comply with state law. So what is this excuse about how it will "hurt" companies doing business with the state? If they aren't complying with the law, they shouldn't be allowed to do business with the state. It's as simple as that. Again, in these economic times, I bet there are any NUMBER of companies who engage in legal hiring practices that willb e willing to work for the commonwealth.

And the amendment would do even more:
The measure would also close what supporters say is a loophole that allows businesses to register cars under a company name, without identifying the owner by Social Security number and federal tax identification number. It would also crate (sic) a toll-free hot line for anonymous reporting of companies that employ illegal immigrants.

The measure comes weeks after immigration measures failed in the House, and amid heightened debate over illegal immigration fueled by the state's election season and Arizona's passage in April of the toughest immigration law in the nation.

Recent polls have found that, while voters supported blocking illegal immigrants' access to public benefits, they were split over whether the Bay State should have a law such as Arizona's.

Thursday's Senate amendment would also authorize the state attorney general's office to broker an agreement with federal authorities to help enforce immigration law. That would be a stark departure for Attorney General Martha Coakley, who has increased outreach to immigrants, encouraging them to file employment complaints, regardless of their legal status. Scores of immigrants whose bosses allegedly failed to pay their wages have turned to her for help in recent years.

The legislation also would increase penalties for driving without a license, one of the main problems facing illegal immigrants in Massachusetts. In November, a panel commissioned by Governor Deval Patrick urged him to push to grant driver's licenses and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, among many other recommendations. Patrick sent the recommendations to his cabinet for study and pledged to return with a proposal in 90 days, but the results have not been made public.

Most immigrants in Massachusetts are here legally, but an estimated 190,000, or 20 percent, are here illegally, according to the census.

Gosh. How draconian they are in Massachusetts. I wonder when Obama is going to come out and challenge THIS new amendment, huh? Is he going to turn Eric Holder loose on Massachusetts? I doubt it.

So riddle me this, Bat-people: why did he do it to Arizona? Why did he and his Justice Department attack Arizona without even reading the damn law first?? He hasn't attacked California's. Or any other state - all states? - who have illegal immigration statues on the books currently. So why Arizona? Just for votes? Is that the only reason he is using our tax dollars to have the Justice Department work day and night looking to sue them? Just for votes? I'd sure like to know.

And since we are talking about illegal immigration, I will leave you with this video courtesy of my fellow NQ writer, Linda Anselmi. If you were wondering what has happened to Bertha Lewis since she helped lead ACORN down the tubes, wonder no more:

Maybe there is some justice in this world, even if her arrest wasn't for all of the nefarious activities of ACORN...


SFIndie said...

The Pretender is as far from being an "eloquent, brilliant, orator" as Mr. Magoo. And, I think he's deliberately stirring up animosity amongst the citizens. That way, we'll all be so enmeshed in the resulting chaos we won't pay attention to his incompetence. Or so he thinks. But then, he's not a very deep thinker, is he?

Congratulations to MA. Good for them! But I don't get this part: ...would require the state to give legal residents priority for subsidized housing. Can someone please tell me why anyone who is here illegally would get subsidized anything? I know they do, it just is absurd. They get schooling, medical care, housing, etc. all at taxpayer's expense. If we stopped that, people would stop coming here. If we enforced the laws and made illegal entry into this country ILLEGAL, and stopped rewarding illegal behavior with housing, schooling, and medical care....well, it's pretty obvious, isn't it?

States like California are deliberately violating the law. Cities like San Francisco, "sanctuary" cities, are deliberately violating the law. Someone needs to prosecute every state, every city, every company that is violating the law.

Let's start with The Pretender, shall we? He's the main enforcer and he's not doing his job. Prosecute him.

Oh, and as long as I'm ranting, Sonia Chang-Diaz needs a lesson in economics. She says the measure would add undue obligations to businesses and state government when they could ill afford it? She said it would cost the state money, while programs for children and public safety are being cut and people in her city are being shot at? Hey Sonia, have you done an analysis of how much illegal entrants are costing your state? I'm guessing a hell of whole lot more than enforcing a law.

Deny benefits to people who have no right to be here, and I'm pretty sure they'll eventually leave.

Where's that Pied Piper when you need him!

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

SF, you said it - and beautifully, I might add.

No, he isn't a deep thinker, and I never thought he was an eloquent speaker. I think he reads well, if you can stand listening to him, which I mostly cannot. Especially with his fake Southern accent. Pisses me off, that whole "folksy" kind of thing. Blech.

What you said abt CA is spot on. And this is what infuriates me - the Justice Department is going after AZ because: Justice Department is preparing a challenge to Arizona's immigration law that will argue that the law unconstitutionally infringes on the authority of the federal government to enforce immigration laws and that it could violate the civil rights of Latinos in Arizona who are there legally. (

Say WHAT? Well, if the Federal Gov't DID its job, AZ wouldn't HAVE to try and enforce federal law! What a convoluted, BS basis on which to attack this state. Good grief.

Oh, I know - Chang-Diaz is another one who made an incredibly illogical assertion. Hell no, people who aren't legal shouldn't get SUBSIDIES for housing! Are you kidding me? And she is worried abt economics? Sounds to me like she should worry abt getting reelected with that kind of logic.

I am all for prosecuting Obama. The way things are going, he may very well be. Well, if our Congress had any backbone, that is.

Good grief. All of this just boggles the mind!