Patterico's Pontifications

2/25/2009

Obama’s Homeland Security Chief: Why Is ICE Arresting Illegals?

Filed under: Immigration — Patterico @ 7:04 pm

You can’t make this stuff up:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has ordered a review of a raid earlier this week at a Bellingham, Wash., manufacturing plant that ended with the arrests of 28 illegal immigrants.

Napolitano told lawmakers during a hearing in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday that she did not know about the raid before it happened and was briefed on it early Wednesday morning. She has asked U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which conducted the raid, for answers.

“I want to get to the bottom of this as well,” she said. She said work-site enforcement needs to be focused on the employers.

So, now it’s wrong for ICE to arrest illegal immigrants?

Make no mistake: comments like that ensure that raids like that aren’t going to happen again. If a top federal official says she’s conducting a review of a raid because illegals were arrested instead of employers, lower-level bureaucrats will get the message loud and clear.

Look. I’ve repeatedly argued on this site that the federal government should prioritize deportation of illegal aliens who commit crimes after they enter the country. Had Napolitano said she wanted to see fewer workplace raids in order to divert resources to deport criminals, I’d be all for it.

But she didn’t say that. Instead, she made it sound like it’s wrong to arrest illegals. And it isn’t. They’re violating the law.

If you’re going to do workplace enforcement and you can prove the employer knowingly employed illegals, I have no problem with arresting the employers (as long as we deport the criminals first). But proving such violations can be a very tall order because illegals (including the ones described in the story) often use fake documentation.

If ICE agents can’t amass enough evidence to charge the employers, why on God’s Green Earth would it be wrong for them to arrest the illegals they find? And why would the head of Homeland Security be sending a message to ICE agents that arresting illegals is wrong??

Thanks to Michelle Malkin.

UPDATE: Slightly rewrote a sentence in the next-to-last paragraph for clarity (“that” replaced with “arresting the employers” and link added).

189 Comments

  1. Democrats are going to reduce enforcement just as unemployment is peaking. Brilliant. Once again, the Democrats work to the disadvantage of their supposed voter base.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/25/2009 @ 7:14 pm

  2. Because, silly, we NEED these people to fill the jobs that employers just can’t find anyone to do! We have such a low unemployment rate that jobs are just sitting open, untouched, and we need these illegals to do them for us.

    As found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/immigration/:

    Improve Our Immigration System: Fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.

    Comment by yourlilsis (9d1ada) — 2/25/2009 @ 7:20 pm

  3. This surprises you, why?

    Comment by JD (0e6191) — 2/25/2009 @ 7:21 pm

  4. “If you’re going to do workplace enforcement and you can prove the employer knowingly employed illegals, I have no problem with that (as long as all the criminals are deported first).”

    All the criminals?

    Are you suggesting illegal employers aren’t criminals?

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/25/2009 @ 7:38 pm

  5. ICE spokeswoman Lorie Dankers in Seattle declined to comment.

    I would so bad love that job some days I think.

    Comment by happyfeet (4eacbc) — 2/25/2009 @ 7:41 pm

  6. Hax, learn to read.

    It is implicit in what is written that employers are committing a crime and the issue being framed is “if in the course of busting employers you have the illegal aliens too, why not deport?”.

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/25/2009 @ 7:44 pm

  7. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

    This is the first honest thing it has said in weeks.

    Comment by JD (0e6191) — 2/25/2009 @ 7:46 pm

  8. Hax wants ICE to deport employers who are citizens.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:03 pm

  9. So Pat wants illegal employers deported? Somehow, I doubt that.

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:03 pm

  10. Hax said:

    Are you suggesting illegal employers aren’t criminals?

    Where, exactly, in his own words, does Patterico say this?

    Are you saying we should not deport illegal aliens? If so, why not?

    Are you saying people who employ illegal aliens should not be prosecuted? If so why not?

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

    You make no sense and that’s the reason you have no respect here. Do you understand that?

    Comment by Ag80 (3e2c59) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:03 pm

  11. Arizona was very happy to see the last of Napolitano.

    Comment by Mike K (2cf494) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:04 pm

  12. Someone please explain to him, patiently, why that just isn’t possible.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:04 pm

  13. Please bookmark for posterity the comment where Hax suggests that legal citizens employing illegals should be deported.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:05 pm

  14. Why be patient, Patterico? Hack knew he was dumping a load of troll manure with that line.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:06 pm

  15. So what you meant to write was: “deport all the illegal aliens first.”

    Am I correct?

    And why would that be?

    Why is their crime any more urgent?

    Seems to me like demanding that a drug user get the slammer before the dealer, or the strumpet before the panderer…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:06 pm

  16. Ah, value!

    And Patterico #12, you and I both know that the point is not for the person in question to receive an explanation. It’s all about being a “snarkass.”

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:06 pm

  17. “If you’re going to do workplace enforcement and you can prove the employer knowingly employed illegals, I have no problem with that (as long as all the criminals are deported first).”

    All the criminals?

    Are you suggesting illegal employers aren’t criminals?

    Translation: shouldn’t we deport the employers?

    Love. It.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:06 pm

  18. Patterico, I do think that your use of “that” in the pen-ultimum paragraph is confusing. I had to re-read to get it.

    Notwithstanding Hax is being douche waddle.

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:07 pm

  19. Oh, and Hax? Please go right ahead and start insulting Patterico for the horrific crime of quoting your own comments back at you.

    Can’t wait.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:07 pm

  20. So what you meant to write was: “deport all the illegal aliens first.”

    Am I correct?

    And why would that be?

    Why is their crime any more urgent?

    I love this! He’s arguing that we should deport the employers before we deport the aliens who are criminals.

    I really don’t have the patience to explain to him why that can’t be done.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:08 pm

  21. Well in Hax’s world, they deserved it and the illegal aliens don’t.

    Just feels RIGHT!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:10 pm

  22. “Where, exactly, in his own words, does Patterico say this?”

    He doesn’t, which is EXACTLY why I asked about it AND said I wasn’t sure what he was trying to say.

    Perhaps someone could point to where I recommend deporting illegal employers here…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:10 pm

  23. Patterico, I do think that your use of “that” in the pen-ultimum paragraph is confusing. I had to re-read to get it.

    Can someone translate that for me? OuA writes far too clearly for me to understand. If another commenter could direct me to the “pen-ultimum” paragraph where my writing is allegedly unclear, that would be a real favor.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:10 pm

  24. “. . . I recommend deporting illegal employers . . .”

    He’s doing it again.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:11 pm

  25. Do you have the patience to keep reading his contrarian drivel? That’s the $64,000 question.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:12 pm

  26. Why be patient, Patterico?

    Who sez I am? Someone’s gonna figure out what I’m doing here pretty soon.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:12 pm

  27. Hax said:

    So what you meant to write was: “deport all the illegal aliens first.”

    Am I correct?

    And why would that be?

    Why is their crime any more urgent?

    Because they’re illegal aliens. They are not United States citizens. They have no right to be here, under the law. If they’ve committed a crime, their home country should prosecute them. If they’ve not committed a crime, they should be in their home nation, anyway.

    Their employers should be indicted and prosecuted with the full protection of the applicable state laws and the Constitution.

    Again, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. But, I’m beginning to believe it’s nothing. You still make no sense.

    Comment by Ag80 (3e2c59) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:14 pm

  28. Patterico,

    If you’re going to do workplace enforcement and you can prove the employer knowingly employed illegals, I have no problem with that (as long as all the criminals are deported first).

    You have no problem with “THAT?” What is “that?”

    I assumed “THAT” was referred to if in the course of doing their job ICE found illegal aliens deporting them (THAT) is not a bad thing.

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:14 pm

  29. As I’m sure you’ve already seen in other threads, Patterico, the rest of us have chosen not to read Huxter’s comments. Some (me) have responded with musical interludes instead of reading what Huxter throws up.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:14 pm

  30. “He’s arguing that we should deport the employers before we deport the aliens who are criminals.”

    No, Pat. I’m just trying to get a better read on what you’re arguing.

    If you think illegal workers are a better, or equal, target for enforcement, I’m curious as to why.

    But it just isn’t clear from what you wrote…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:15 pm

  31. Again, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here

    Ag80, you are totally with the program. And patient, too.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:15 pm

  32. #26: Patterico, if I am ever back in LA, I hereby pledge to buy you a sizable adult beverage for the laugh you just gave me.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:16 pm

  33. Well Hax said himself in a prior thread that the employers are the root of all evil, not the illegal aliens themselves. It’s curious logic, but that’s what he thinks apparently. He considers himself an expert on efficient police work or so he claimed in that thread, so I’d be careful.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:16 pm

  34. #11 MikeK: You bet we were glad to see Janet go. And now we have a conservative Republican in office. It was a good thing for Arizona, but not so good for the country.

    Comment by PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:16 pm

  35. If you think illegal workers are a better, or equal, target for enforcement, I’m curious as to why.

    Poke around the archives, my friend. It’s been a hobby horse of mine for years.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:17 pm

  36. Now Uber has me even more confused.

    Are you, Pat, drawing a distinction between “illegals” as in non-fugitive workers and “criminals” as in fugitives?

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:17 pm

  37. Ag80, you need to throw out a few snide insults next.

    Then say you are just asking questions.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:17 pm

  38. Oh, this program is a rerun.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:17 pm

  39. Not what YOU said, that is. What *I* said. That’s the hobby horse.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:17 pm

  40. Deporting citizens sounds like a wonderful idea, Hacks.

    Comment by JD (277425) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:17 pm

  41. Are you, Pat, drawing a distinction between “illegals” as in non-fugitive workers and “criminals” as in fugitives?

    I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about, Patterico. Please, feed me. I’m so hungry.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:19 pm

  42. If you think all U.S. employers are a better target for deportation than illegal aliens who have committed crimes after entering the country, Hax, I’m curious as to why.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:19 pm

  43. Don’t answer him. ;)

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:19 pm

  44. Hax, stop being a liberal … don’t blame me for your problems.

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:19 pm

  45. Hax wrote:

    “He’s arguing that we should deport the employers before we deport the aliens who are criminals.”

    No, Pat. I’m just trying to get a better read on what you’re arguing.

    If you think illegal workers are a better, or equal, target for enforcement, I’m curious as to why.

    But it just isn’t clear from what you wrote.

    No, it’s very clear: They are illegal aliens. They should not be here. Should they be treated fairly and in a humane manner. Certainly. But they are not U.S. citizens. They should be deported to their home nations.

    You still make no sense.

    Comment by Ag80 (3e2c59) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:20 pm

  46. OK, OuA, I was unfair, as I was unclear in the penultimate sentence. Let me rewrite it for clarity.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:21 pm

  47. Hax – Are you sticking with your argument to deport the employers first if you can prove they knowingly employer illegal fugitive or non-fugitive aliens? Once you deported the employers, would you leave the illegal aliens in place? Even if they were fugitives?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:22 pm

  48. If the Republican Party wants to improve its standing and damage national support for Obama and the Democrats severely, they will jump all over this and not let up until Obama is forced to fire Napolitano.

    Comment by j curtis (915320) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:22 pm

  49. I’m not sure what you mean, daley.

    LOL.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:22 pm

  50. Oh my.

    Sometimes trolls can be hard to educate, but I’ve believed – up until now – that the possibility of education was there.

    I’ve been disabused of that notion.

    Can a troll be put into moderation for sheer, blinding idiocy?

    Comment by steve miller (a90638) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:23 pm

  51. I think I’ve identified Hacks. Stick to the first 25 seconds.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:27 pm

  52. OK Hax,

    I’ll cut the comedy for a second and assume for the sake of argument that you’re honestly misunderstanding.

    I rewrote a sentence in the penultimate paragraph (with an update to indicate what I did). “Deport the Criminals First” is shorthand for an argument I’ve made on this site for ages; follow the added link for more.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:27 pm

  53. Patterico, I could be very wrong. Dude, it’s you place. I am only providing my view on that one sentence.

    I am a conceptual person and don’t get bogged down in silliness, I understood your main points and agreed. Just trying to esplain Hax’s insanity.

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:28 pm

  54. Giuliani saud during the campaign that illegal immigration not a crime.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/08/2007-09-08_rudy_giuliani_being_an_illegal_immigrant-2.html

    Comment by Andrew (96ab30) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:28 pm

  55. Why does Hacks want to deport employers?

    Comment by JD (277425) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:29 pm

  56. Hax – If the employers that you could finally judicially prove were employing fugitive and/or nonfugitive illegal aliens were U.S. citizens could you actually deport them or would you have to sentence them to something like watching typical Joooo hating Palestinian childrens’ cartoons to educate them on moderate muslim culture while they were incarcerated in the U.S.?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:29 pm

  57. “Giuliani saud during the campaign that illegal immigration not a crime.”

    Look BUNNIES!!!!!!!!

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:30 pm

  58. Comedy….Gold, Mr. Frey!

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:30 pm

  59. Why is andrew always an idiot?

    I am just asking the tough questions …

    Comment by JD (277425) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:31 pm

  60. A former Fed Prosecutor said illegal immigration is not a crime?

    “Not” or “should not be?”

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:31 pm

  61. Pat: that would depend on what kind of crime the illegal worker committed, wouldn’t it and, also, what kind of crimes the employer committed.

    As a public safety issue, anyone, regardless of nationality, who is suspected of committing a violent crime and is a fugitive is of course a top law-enforcement priority.

    If that’s what you mean by “all the criminals first” then of you’ll find no disagreement from me unless you invent it.

    The crime of working illegal, and employing illegally is of much lower priority.

    But I think you’d agree that what you read could mean either that you wanted employers and workers (“all the criminals”) deported “first,” which doesn’t really make sense.

    It’s disappointing that it can’t go without saying that advocates of stricter immigration enforcement need to understand that concerns about nativism and it’s twin brother, bigotry, are legitimate. The best way to put paid to those concerns is to focus on illegal employers.

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:31 pm

  62. I always wanted to try rabbit stew. Would probably go good with my road-kill potpie.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:31 pm

  63. Argg, second paragraph you fucking moron!!!

    Should not be ….. which acknowledges it IS A CRIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:32 pm

  64. Andrew said:

    Giuliani saud (sic) during the campaign that illegal immigration not a crime.

    Well, thanks for clearing that up. You’ve added a lot to the discussion.

    Comment by Ag80 (3e2c59) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:33 pm

  65. Did you see that? Hax just called me a bigot again.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:33 pm

  66. RACISTS !!!!!

    It never takes long …

    Comment by JD (277425) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:34 pm

  67. “It’s disappointing that it can’t go without saying that advocates of stricter immigration enforcement need to understand that concerns about nativism and it’s twin brother, bigotry, are legitimate. The best way to put paid to those concerns is to focus on illegal employers.”

    Bullshit. How about the border fence? It’s shovel ready!

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:34 pm

  68. Giuliani said no such thing.

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:35 pm

  69. But I think you’d agree that what you read could mean either that you wanted employers and workers (“all the criminals”) deported “first,” which doesn’t really make sense.

    I didn’t confuse the 99.9999% of readers who already understand you can’t deport employers who are citizens. Only the ones like you, who are unclear on that concept, could possibly interpret my sentence in the way you just did.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:35 pm

  70. Ag80, you forgot to explain why Patterico called them criminals if illegal immigration is not a crime, according to Giuliani.

    Comment by Andrew (96ab30) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:36 pm

  71. Reminds me of the old, old story of the guy given a year to teach a donkey to sing.

    Who knows? It could happen.

    Comment by steve miller (a90638) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:36 pm

  72. “Look! John’s bein’ oppressed!”

    I haven’t seen MPATHG in a long time.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:36 pm

  73. This is how they make policy changes without officially announcing new policies. There is plausible deniability.

    The liberal media certainly isn’t going to tell the truth about it.

    Comment by Daryl Herbert (b65640) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:36 pm

  74. Yup, everyone who values national sovereignty is akin to a bigot, Hax said so.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:37 pm

  75. Patterico: “I have no problem with writing tickets to jaywalkers, as long as we convict and execute murderers first.”

    Hax: “Why do you want to execute jaywalkers! Your sentence is so AMBIGUOUS!!!”

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:37 pm

  76. Ah, but Patterico! You can’t prove he didn’t…did…something….whatever…

    Republicans suck.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:37 pm

  77. That is the Narrative, anyway.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:38 pm

  78. Roar!

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:38 pm

  79. “It’s disappointing that it can’t go without saying that advocates of stricter immigration enforcement need to understand that concerns about nativism and it’s twin brother, bigotry, are legitimate.”

    Feelings, nothing more than feelings.

    Why does it always come down to feelings with libs.

    Focusing on employers will lead to more of – I don’t care about your documents, they could be faked. I just don’t want to take the risk hiring your kind, explicit or implicit conversations. Unsurprisingly, liberals don’t understand that.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:39 pm

  80. Why is it that Leftists cannot help but cry racism just because someone has a different view than theirs? Are they just defective, non-functioning grey matter?

    Comment by JD (277425) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:39 pm

  81. As usual folks hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest.

    Giuliani said it should no be a crime (even though it is) because there was/is no way to actually prosecute that many people for crime.

    He was making a logistics point in order to argue for different law and also to justify a wall along the border.

    I call it deductive reasoning (I think).

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:39 pm

  82. daleyrocks,
    Haven’t you learned yet that Islam has its extremists, exactly like Christianity or any other religion? The fearsome Jesuseen warn unbelievers they’re going to Hell and might even pray for them. Why, that’s just as bad as Hamas instructing children to carry out suicide bombings for Allah!

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:40 pm

  83. Wait ’til your kids are in their teens. This pattern of argument will seem all too familiar.

    The day that the Tyson Chicken CEO does a perp walk will be a great day indeed. BUT!!! This can inly happen after employers receive badly-needed tools to crosscheck fraudulent social security numbers.

    Hey, is identity theft a crime? Just checking.

    Comment by carlitos (fc72cc) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:41 pm

  84. Giuliani said it should no be a crime (even though it is)

    Giuliani said illegal immigration is not a crime — even though it is.

    Then he switched to saying BEING an illegal immigrant is not a crime — which is true.

    But if you follow the link and read it, OuA, you’ll see he made the inaccurate statement first.

    As usual folks hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest

    Enough of your lies and jest.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:42 pm

  85. “I didn’t confuse the 99.9999% of readers who already understand you can’t deport employers who are citizens.”

    Patterico – C’mon, Hax is special. Normsal rules and language usage don’t apply to him. His facts are really things he makes up called analytical observations.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:42 pm

  86. Why does Hacks want to make it impossible for brown people to find jobs? Why do you hate brown people, Hacks?

    Andrew – Why do you feel the need to lie to make your “point”? Does not say much about your “point” if you have to lie to support it.

    Comment by JD (277425) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:43 pm

  87. Hey, is identity theft a crime? Just checking.

    Yeah, and I get your point, but it’s a lesser crime than violent crimes. Start there and work your way down. Then, and only then, do you worry about workplaces.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:43 pm

  88. Patterico – C’mon, Hax is special. Normsal rules and language usage don’t apply to him. His facts are really things he makes up called analytical observations.

    He thinks we should execute jaywalkers. At least, he thinks that’s what I was trying to say . . .

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:44 pm

  89. Analyze this.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:45 pm

  90. Hax said:

    Pat: that would depend on what kind of crime the illegal worker committed, wouldn’t it and, also, what kind of crimes the employer committed.

    As a public safety issue, anyone, regardless of nationality, who is suspected of committing a violent crime and is a fugitive is of course a top law-enforcement priority.

    If that’s what you mean by “all the criminals first” then of you’ll find no disagreement from me unless you invent it.

    The crime of working illegal, and employing illegally is of much lower priority.

    But I think you’d agree that what you read could mean either that you wanted employers and workers (“all the criminals”) deported “first,” which doesn’t really make sense.

    It’s disappointing that it can’t go without saying that advocates of stricter immigration enforcement need to understand that concerns about nativism and it’s twin brother, bigotry, are legitimate. The best way to put paid to those concerns is to focus on illegal employers.

    OK, one last time: The job of ICE is to enforce laws regarding immigration.

    It is not the job of the officers to judge whether the enforcement is just. It is their job to enforce the laws of the land. Those laws say that illegal aliens should be apprehended and deported. And it really doesn’t matter if they are “criminals” in the sense they have committed state or federal crimes. By being here illegally, they are criminals by definition.

    It is the job of the appropriate authority to prosecute the employers.

    It is the job of the Congress and state legislatures to implement or change laws. Then, the appropriate law enforcement officers will carry out those laws.

    If you believe that illegal aliens should have more rights, petition your congressman or congresswoman. If you believe that employers, who are U.S. citizens, should have fewer rights, amend the Constitution.

    Simply, if you don’t like the laws, then change them.

    And try to start making sense.

    Comment by Ag80 (3e2c59) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:48 pm

  91. Can I embed video? Because I don’t think you can hear my roll my eyes…

    Comment by steve miller (a90638) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:48 pm

  92. Patterico,

    The NY Daily News did not quote him properly in the first paragraph properly and in fact clearly omits his name as well as distorts his position in the first paragraph and headline.

    But then again it is the Daily News.

    Giuliani wants to decriminalize but acknowledges it is a crime. I have seen and heard Rudy on this several times. I have followed him since the early ’80s. But whatever …..

    Jest and lies? What are those big dog?

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:50 pm

  93. Re: identity theft

    Yeah, I know that is much less harmful and shouldn’t be a priority. 2 things:

    1- I get tired of hearing that illegals’ *only* crime was looking for work, when they have fraudulent documents that are a crime per se.

    2- the vast majority of illegal aliens are working at small businesses, who don’t have HR departments and lawyers to deal with this, and don’t want to illegally discriminate. So they look at the social security card and say “good enough.” Those who go the extra mile are both at a competitive disadvantage financially and at risk for litigation. Not good.

    Comment by carlitos (fc72cc) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:51 pm

  94. AG – Try screaming at a brick wall demanding that it learn Mandarin. Your chances of success are far greater than to get that asshat to be honest.

    Comment by JD (277425) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:52 pm

  95. Owwww! Between you guys on one side and Ted Nugent in Beer For My Horses, I think I’ve wrenched my back trying not to bust my guts…or at least, rip the Dacron sheet that holds ‘em in….

    Comment by EW1(SG) (e27928) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:52 pm

  96. Andrew said:

    Ag80, you forgot to explain why Patterico called them criminals if illegal immigration is not a crime, according to Giuliani.

    I didn’t realize that Patterico was a spokesman for Giuliani. I also didn’t realize the esteemed former mayor of New York (whom I admire) was the arbiter of what is correct in immigration law. My apologies.

    Comment by Ag80 (3e2c59) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:53 pm

  97. Troll-inspired song title

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:55 pm

  98. That settles it. All you pale-faces with forked-tongues get leave this land. You’ve ruined it.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:55 pm

  99. Hey, where did Hax go?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:55 pm

  100. get

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 8:56 pm

  101. RACISTS !!!!!! ZOMFG !!!!!

    could you bedsheet wearing KKKlansmen be any more overt in your hatred of and fear of the marauding hordes of brown people maybe this passes as acceptable behavior in your little bubble echo chamber but in the reality based community your not so thinly veiled racism is not tolerated because civil society is intolerant of intolerance now run back to your klaven meeting draw your swastikas on your forearms hug your guns and cuddle up to your religion while we go about implementing our collectivist ideals

    Comment by JD (277425) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:02 pm

  102. Just to be clear here, Giuliani as Mayor never really cared about pursuing anything with respect to illegal immigration in NYC.

    Point being is Giuliani doesn’t personally view being here illegally as akin to engaging in criminal behavior worth government action. His time as Mayor certainly supported this view.

    That is different than saying Giuliani said “illegal immigration not a crime.” “Should not be” as Rudy says presumes it already is.

    But hey now!

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:03 pm

  103. JD, you get out too, whitey.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:04 pm

  104. Hey, my daughters are only half-white. Maybe one of them can be the next half-white President.

    Comment by JD (277425) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:13 pm

  105. It sure got quiet around here.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:21 pm

  106. Then he switched to saying BEING an illegal immigrant is not a crime — which is true.

    I can’t buy into that nuance. You could more effectively argue that “being” a murderer isn’t a crime or “being” a jaywalker isn’t a crime, since the debt may have been paid, but an illegal alien is committing a crime with every breath he takes on American soil, which is pretty much the definition of “being”.

    Comment by j curtis (915320) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:21 pm

  107. “to be” vs “to do”

    The doing is the crime. The doing can cause the being. The being is not a crime but the doing is.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:24 pm

  108. Hacks never did answer why he wants to deport citizens …

    Comment by JD (277425) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:24 pm

  109. “A vast majority of illegal aliens are working at small businesses, who don’t have HR departments and lawyers to deal with this.”

    A legitimate concern, and one I share. But, then again, I also have sympathy for the actual circumstances of the workers. I wonder if carlitos does.

    “They don’t want to illegally discriminate. So they look at the social security card and say “good enough.” ”

    Indeed they don’t want to hurt anyone. Trouble is, they do, as we know. I suspect a few employers are looking a little more closely at their bottom line than at their hiring fairness, but let’s be certain to give them the benefit of any moral doubts here, shall we, since that’s what we’re doing for the workers as well, right?

    “Those who go the extra mile are both at a competitive disadvantage financially and at risk for litigation. Not good.”

    So making sure you obey the law is “going the extra mile?” Hmmm….I can see that actually. And hey, we can’t have an employer putting himself at a disadvantage, can we.?
    I wonder what kind of hay carlitos would try and make with someone who suggested illegal workers shouldn’t get hassled to stay out of the country because doing so “puts them at a competitive disadvantage.” Or that, enforcing immigration laws is “not good” because it increases the likelihood illegal workers may wind up in court.

    Since I assume carlitos isn’t a bigot, I wonder why he takes such a double standard on this?

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:25 pm

  110. But I am a bigot. Hax said so. Because I believe in national sovereignty, I’m a bigot. Hax said so.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:27 pm

  111. I’ve seen a lot of strawmanning in my days, but I have to credit JD with innovation. And even if he didn’t invent it, he’s surely the most prolific creator of the Pre-emptive Strawman. I can tell he’s kinda proud of that…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:28 pm

  112. To those saying that the NY Daily News distorted Giuliani’s words: No. It did not distort his words. Here’s the Youtube video where you can hear him say “No. It’s not a Federal crime”.

    Giuliani states several times that it isn’t a crime. He also said it shouldn’t be:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDo-ZVK4dc0

    Comment by Andrew (96ab30) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:29 pm

  113. Go back to buggering your goats and deporting citizens, Hacks. The calling people racists and bigots is so .. so … Bullshit.

    Comment by JD (277425) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:30 pm

  114. But I’m a bigot because Hax said so. I don’t want any of my own heritage illegally entering my country because I’m a racist bigot against my own kind. Hax said so.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:32 pm

  115. [...] Get the scoop from Patterico’s Pontifications [...]

    Pingback by Why Is ICE Arresting Illegals? « Random Thoughts (8f2320) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:39 pm

  116. Andrew – Find something better to do with your time.

    Comment by JD (277425) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:40 pm

  117. Bunkerbuster would say the exact same thing.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:40 pm

  118. Every time Hax brings up this “racist bigotry” thing when trying to argue against national sovereignty and I bring up my heritage, he suddenly has nothing to say about that. Like Arsenio would say, that’s one of those “things that make you go ‘hmmm’.”

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:40 pm

  119. The same thing re: #111, that is.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:41 pm

  120. Since I assume Hax is not a moron, I wonder why he thinks that legal citizens should be deported. And jaywalkers executed.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:48 pm

  121. You assume too much, Patterico.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:48 pm

  122. Oh, and I apologized over at that other thread where you were going to ask me a question but your phone lost connection or whatnot, just so ya know.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:51 pm

  123. Hax said:

    “A vast majority of illegal aliens are working at small businesses, who don’t have HR departments and lawyers to deal with this.”

    A legitimate concern, and one I share. But, then again, I also have sympathy for the actual circumstances of the workers. I wonder if carlitos does.

    “They don’t want to illegally discriminate. So they look at the social security card and say “good enough.” ”

    Indeed they don’t want to hurt anyone. Trouble is, they do, as we know. I suspect a few employers are looking a little more closely at their bottom line than at their hiring fairness, but let’s be certain to give them the benefit of any moral doubts here, shall we, since that’s what we’re doing for the workers as well, right?

    “Those who go the extra mile are both at a competitive disadvantage financially and at risk for litigation. Not good.”

    So making sure you obey the law is “going the extra mile?” Hmmm….I can see that actually. And hey, we can’t have an employer putting himself at a disadvantage, can we.?
    I wonder what kind of hay carlitos would try and make with someone who suggested illegal workers shouldn’t get hassled to stay out of the country because doing so “puts them at a competitive disadvantage.” Or that, enforcing immigration laws is “not good” because it increases the likelihood illegal workers may wind up in court.

    Since I assume carlitos isn’t a bigot, I wonder why he takes such a double standard on this?

    Again, you make no sense. Why do you assume — I’m sorry — not assume that carlito is a bigot. He raises a good point. Most employers don’t have the time, inclination — or money — to do deep background checks on who they hire.

    As a matter of fact, most of these employees are day laborers, who gather at state-funded and sanctioned areas where they can be found. Are you really unaware of this?

    Many states abet the hiring of illegal aliens for expediency’s sake, but that does not make their hiring any less legal under federal statutes.

    I have sympathy for those workers, also. But, again, I have to say, the law is the law. Is it the ICE’s purvey who should be apprehended or not?

    Comment by Ag80 (3e2c59) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:52 pm

  124. Those of you who are responding to the troll – AND YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!!! – just stop and think, please.

    Comment by steve miller (a90638) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:53 pm

  125. Sound familiar?

    Bunkerbuster, old boy, let me be direct: you’re making an ass of urself. If u wish to continue, Ill be happy to accomodate you– it’s rather amusing. Lots of people on this blog know my work over 30 years and right now they are writing you off as some sort of witless adolescent (though I suspect u are in reality a witless 20something!)

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:54 pm

  126. Steve, this is different. Patterico is one of the ones helping him twist and squirm.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:55 pm

  127. Andrew said:

    To those saying that the NY Daily News distorted Giuliani’s words: No. It did not distort his words. Here’s the Youtube video where you can hear him say “No. It’s not a Federal crime”.

    Giuliani states several times that it isn’t a crime. He also said it shouldn’t be:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDo-ZVK4dc0

    Again, thanks. What’s your point?

    Comment by Ag80 (3e2c59) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:55 pm

  128. “to be” vs “to do”

    The doing is the crime. The doing can cause the being. The being is not a crime but the doing is.

    Comment by John Hitchcock — 2/25/2009 @ 9:24 pm

    The illegal alien is “doing” and “being” simultaneously every second of every day. The two things aren’t even separable in the case of the illegal alien so it’s funny that this is the only time I’ve ever seen anyone try to draw this distinction.

    Comment by j curtis (915320) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:58 pm

  129. Patterico could sympathize with Marc Cooper being trolled by bunkerbuster:

    BB.. do u think I am stupid? Do you think I would “edit out” something when I provide a LINK to the read entire piece? Come on, man get with it. I excised the material for space and then provided the link so that geniuses like urself could read the whole think.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/25/2009 @ 9:59 pm

  130. Why deport 20 million illegals ans skew the 2010 census? Democrats need those 20 million illegals to ensure many more safe congressional districts and funding programs.

    Comment by Perfect Sense (0922fa) — 2/25/2009 @ 10:11 pm

  131. The two things aren’t even separable in the case of the illegal alien so it’s funny that this is the only time I’ve ever seen anyone try to draw this distinction.

    I believe the law draws this distinction.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 10:17 pm

  132. they are writing you off as some sort of witless adolescent (though I suspect u are in reality a witless 20something!)

    That would explain why he thinks we should deport citizens.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 10:17 pm

  133. I believe the law draws this distinction.

    It can’t in any cogent way. If a hobo breaks into your attic and takes up residence, when is he not in the act of trespassing?

    Comment by j curtis (915320) — 2/25/2009 @ 10:42 pm

  134. Keep flogging that double-standard, Pat. It’s a real bonanza for sun-state Democrats…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/25/2009 @ 10:43 pm

  135. I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue.

    Comment by steve miller (a90638) — 2/25/2009 @ 10:50 pm

  136. Keep speaking Truth to Power, Hax! It has worked SO well for you before…

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/25/2009 @ 10:53 pm

  137. Bradley – Those golden oldies of Hax/bunkerbuster are great. Puberty must be right around the corner now.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/25/2009 @ 10:54 pm

  138. So this is just BunkerBuster II: The Golden Years?

    Why pay attention to him?

    Comment by steve miller (a90638) — 2/25/2009 @ 10:58 pm

  139. Why are you trying to deny brown people the right to work, Hacks?

    Comment by JD (0e6191) — 2/25/2009 @ 11:02 pm

  140. Calling him a witless 20-something gives every other witless 20-something a bad name.

    Comment by steve miller (a90638) — 2/25/2009 @ 11:07 pm

  141. Now that, according to Hax, we’re free to deport citizens, who should we deport first?

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/25/2009 @ 11:08 pm

  142. I have some suggestions…

    Let’s start with people who claim to be citizens but won’t show their birth certificates. ;)

    Comment by steve miller (a90638) — 2/25/2009 @ 11:14 pm

  143. Can we start with Hax?

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 2/25/2009 @ 11:17 pm

  144. We agreed upon citizens first, remember? Not children under the care of guardians, especially when they don’t get much chance to play with sharp things.

    Comment by steve miller (a90638) — 2/25/2009 @ 11:19 pm

  145. “Why are you trying to deny brown people the right to work, Hacks?”

    JD – ‘Cause he hates him some brown people. If he starts with workplace enforcement, deports the employers and illegal workers who are earning a living, gow is that better than stopping pwople at the border? Pretzel logic is what it is. Hax hates him businesses I think too.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/25/2009 @ 11:21 pm

  146. So steve, it seems like bunkerbuster/Hax/other identities has finally gotten to you?

    Personally, I thought that watching Patterico work him like a speedbag was instructive.

    If he acts like a jerk, give him back his own antics, or ask him about his lack of a sincere apology to Stash, or his prior identities and what happened then to get him banned. Or his antics on other websites, as Bradley Fikes has uncovered.

    He might even behave civilly, if he learns that there is a clown nose waiting for him, ready to be honked at will.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/25/2009 @ 11:25 pm

  147. I would suggest that we start deporting people that have had so much botox that they are unable to blink or have otherwise normal human expressions.

    Comment by JD (0e6191) — 2/25/2009 @ 11:30 pm

  148. JD, did you ever see the movie “Brazil”? The protagonist’s mother has so much plastic surgery that…well…

    Check it out:

    http://www.themakeupgallery.org.uk/various/plastic/brazilm.htm

    So it seems to me that turning into a Joan Rivers-style freak show is its own punishment, far more humiliating than deportation.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/25/2009 @ 11:36 pm

  149. Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

    Let’s just deport the dirty little socialists then. Oops, there she goes again.

    Comment by JD (0e6191) — 2/25/2009 @ 11:38 pm

  150. Q. Why has Pat repeated the “Hax wants to deport citizens” meme five times in a row?

    A. He’s knows it doesn’t stick.

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (edacf7) — 2/26/2009 @ 2:40 am

  151. I would deport:
    -anyone in hollywood who owns a Tuscan villa to live in that villa.
    -chicago’s political/criminal class (at least those who aren’t in the white house) to an “exchange program” whereby they go to Lagos and the Nigerian Finance comes here to clean up the corruption.
    -gleen grenwald to brazil
    -a bunch of well-educated, arabic-speaking joooos to work in our arab embassies worldwide
    -deport me to home-office in Cabo San Lucas or Cancun
    -i believe that hacks has self-deported, so that is moot
    Hey, it’s just a modest proposal

    Comment by carlitos (fc72cc) — 2/26/2009 @ 6:15 am

  152. I am surprised that our host isn’t advocating asset forfeiture of businesses that employ illegals. After all if it’s good enough in drug-related cases, even at very low levels i.e. seizing a car or cash, why not in these cases?

    Comment by Horatio (55069c) — 2/26/2009 @ 6:19 am

  153. Patterico, did you see #150?

    He really didn’t get it, did he?

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/26/2009 @ 6:27 am

  154. why would the head of Homeland Security be sending a message to ICE agents that arresting illegals is wrong??

    Because illegal aliens are core voting block for Democrats, along with the dead and fictional characters.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/26/2009 @ 6:39 am

  155. I love this! He’s arguing that we should deport the employers before we deport the aliens who are criminals.

    I really don’t have the patience to explain to him why that can’t be done.

    Connecting the dots between the wide stances Hacks has taken, it’s clear he believes al’Qaeda members are more worthy of legal protection than American citizens.

    Either that, or he has no real idea what he’s arguing, why, or what it means, and is merely tossing shit out in an attempt to shut down discussion.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/26/2009 @ 6:44 am

  156. Hax, old boy – You seem to be under the impression that illegal aliens are primarily day laborers and are paid below market wages. Do you have any evidence to back the assertion up? If so, again, why do Democrats continue ro support allowing an unlimited supply of below market labor to enter the country to depress wages for citizens? It makes no sense except as a blatant political power play.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/26/2009 @ 6:49 am

  157. Further to 155 – Hax old boy, why would you advocate deporting American employers who are carrying out the wishes of the Democrats by employing the illegal immigrants your party wishes to enter the country? Again, it makes no sense.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/26/2009 @ 6:51 am

  158. Bunkerbuster, I’m enough of a reporter to know you are a fool. I think that is sufficient. Nor do I think it is exactly my obligation to make a financial disclosure to an anonymous internet troll.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/26/2009 @ 6:55 am

  159. The hits keep coming!

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/26/2009 @ 6:59 am

  160. Q. Why has Pat repeated the “Hax wants to deport citizens” meme five times in a row?

    Because that’s the implication of what you said. If you’re not going to stand behind your comments, don’t make them.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/26/2009 @ 7:03 am

  161. If so, again, why do Democrats continue ro support allowing an unlimited supply of below market labor to enter the country to depress wages for citizens?

    Democrats love poor people. You can tell by the way their policies create so many of them.

    Comment by Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 2/26/2009 @ 7:07 am

  162. Bradley #157: remember, we cannot “prove” that BB is HV. All you are asking are questions, after all.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/26/2009 @ 7:10 am

  163. daley,
    Glad you like ‘em! Here’s another episode of Hax/Bunkerbuster/Other’s Continuing Follies

    On the previous comment thread, Bunk whined on and on about how people — “chauvanist” people — said mean things about him and his surrenderist ilk. Here, his whole shtick is merely to run whatever variants he can think of, and that isn’t many, on “binary thinker” as a taunt. The simple fact is that he’s a troll, a swollen-headed troll ever since neo devoted a post to arguing with him, but a fairly dim example of the type at that (binary thinking being at least one level higher than the mono-thought that pervades his herd.)

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/26/2009 @ 7:17 am

  164. Q. Why has Pat repeated the “Hax wants to deport citizens” meme five times in a row?

    A. He’s knows it doesn’t stick.

    “I think you’d agree” that that is one interpretation of what you said.

    Is there some reason that you’re irritated by someone persisting in an unreasonable reading of your words?

    Why would someone continue to do it, then?

    That’s puzzler, that one.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/26/2009 @ 7:27 am

  165. Now that he has unequivocally called for martial law and extra-constitutional deportations of employers (translation: the bourgiousie), I wonder how long it would take for hax and his neo-fascist ilk to turn the US into another Zimbabwe.

    Comment by carlitos (e17dac) — 2/26/2009 @ 7:29 am

  166. Oh, now Patterico. Make the fellow work for it. You just gave it away!

    So much for the Great Dispassionate Intellectual!

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/26/2009 @ 7:29 am

  167. Is that what you call goosing the gander?

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/26/2009 @ 7:31 am

  168. Bourgeoisie… (Excuse spelling–blackberry did it)

    Comment by carlitos (e17dac) — 2/26/2009 @ 7:31 am

  169. Bradley, I found your links interesting. For someone (HV/BB/Other Names) who rails about people using “tired” arguments, I sure don’t see much different in his approach, complete with sneers and insults.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/26/2009 @ 7:32 am

  170. EB, righto. A unique combination of sanctimony, bad-faith argumentation, unecessarily flowery words and fake-compound words, then the closing summary which includes a strawman and / or insult. It could write for HuffPo, if it wanted 16 cents a word. Maybe later I will write a 5-6 page example, but work is busy today.

    Comment by carlitos (e17dac) — 2/26/2009 @ 7:38 am

  171. Eric,
    Here we go with another chapter in Picking On Poor Hax/Bunkerbuster/Other

    Then bunkerbuster wrote:”If the drift toward religious authoritarianism in the U.S. doesn’t abate, someday, will be as violently freaky as the jihadis. Then, Chris K, you won’t have to worry about pesky magazines “amazing” you with dispresect for your psuedo-religious symbols of nationalism.”
    My psuedo-religious symbols of nationalism? How in the world did you get that from my statement about disrespecting the flag?
    bunkerbuster seems to think that my post was “hysteria”, mainly because I gave the definition of treason in my previous post and pointed out the fact that we haven’t prosecuted that law in a long time. Probably because people like bunkerbuster would hire a team of lawyers and say that it’s his “right” to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
    So bunkerbuster, although it was very nice of you to “bust my bunker”, I think you are the one that is paranoid and looking for any reason to slam America. And I noticed you commented on everything I posted except the beheadings, because my “hysteria” over the flag and treason is far more worthy, and easier to tackle right? Or, you just have no opinion on the beheadings, or worse.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 2/26/2009 @ 7:43 am

  172. “Is there some reason that you’re irritated by someone persisting in an unreasonable reading of your words?

    Why would someone continue to do it, then?”

    Why indeed?

    Heh!

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 2/26/2009 @ 7:51 am

  173. A more thorough Fisking of a Troll I’ve rarely witnessed – congrats to you all.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/26/2009 @ 8:17 am

  174. Why would they arrest the very people they are trying to register to vote?

    Duh.

    Comment by Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 2/26/2009 @ 8:28 am

  175. #84 et al, again Giuliani’s position is simply that while being an illegal immigrant is a misdemeanor (a crime) he does not want to make it a felony (a serious crime).

    He does not deny it is a misdemeanor but he argues vehemently it is not a (felony) crime which requires the level of Federal attention that Glen Beck, Tom Tancredo (spell?) want.

    A distinction which makes a difference.

    That is to say, Giuliani is not arguing a point of law but distinguishing as to avoid the sloppy, wanton use of the word “criminal.”

    What some of your readers are engaging in is in painting Rudy as being ignorant on the law. He clearly knows it even if that requires a few sentences to fine tune the thought. If for that an apology needs to be issued then so be it if makes folks “feel good.”

    If we use this line of reasoning “he said it” and engage in quote hijacking then Ronald Reagan said he was going to send B-52 bombers to the USSR …… HE DID SAY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. He did not mean it but he did say it and present this “quote” as a fair representation of his position is ignorant.

    Rudy is not arguing its misdemeanor status only saying it is unimportant both legally and spiritually and as POTUS he would prefer to use Federal Resources on stopping the inflow more so than deporting misdemeanor criminals. The misdemeanor criminals would get a path to citizenship.

    You can agree or disagree on that last point and present your case.

    Comment by Obama über alles!!!!! (da3d2f) — 2/26/2009 @ 8:44 am

  176. Wow, got to this conversation late. Read the first few comments. Saw the troll-bait tossed in the water by Hax. Scrolled to the bottom, and guess what?!? After 174 comments it is STILL being discussed!

    I can see why “Hax Vobiscum” changed his name from “Pax”. He doesn’t exactly exude concord.

    Comment by Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 2/26/2009 @ 10:31 am

  177. You know, seat belt laws are in the process of moving from secondary enforcement (only getting a ticket for failure to wear seat belts if you were pulled over for something else) to primary enforcement (pulling you over and ticketing you for not wearing seat belts). Does this mean that illegal immigration is moving from secondary enforcement (arresting illegals who are found when ICE is looking for criminal aliens) to tertiary enforcement?

    And what would tertiary enforcement be? Arresting illegals only if their employer knowingly broke the law in hiring them? That way, if they can successfully fool the system (not so hard from what I hear about the govt database) then they get a pass!

    Comment by Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 2/26/2009 @ 10:34 am

  178. I think I drove Hax off the thread!

    Comment by Patterico (513a18) — 2/26/2009 @ 5:30 pm

  179. Now, if someone could just drive him off of the site.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS (cd7b06) — 2/26/2009 @ 5:37 pm

  180. Ya think? It is only my respect for you and your blog that keeps me from accurately characterizing that asshole.

    And again, here in real life, I had a similar conversation with the teenager: moving of goalposts, nitpicks as to word choice, evasion of yes/no questions, mischaracterization of argument, etc.

    Comment by carlitos (30eb96) — 2/26/2009 @ 5:37 pm

  181. Maybe Hax will show back up and claim that “deportation of citizens” is not a quantifiable, its like being pregnant, either you are or you are not.

    I work here is done!

    Comment by ML (14488c) — 2/26/2009 @ 5:44 pm

  182. “I think I drove Hax off the thread.”

    Well, that’s ONE way to win an argument.

    Apparently, the only way in this case…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum (23258e) — 2/26/2009 @ 5:50 pm

  183. I agree, it likely could be the only way to win an argument with a dishonest troll, driving it off.

    Comment by John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 2/26/2009 @ 5:54 pm

  184. I agree, it likely could be the only way to win an argument with a dishonest troll, driving it off.

    Good point.

    Comment by Patterico (cc3b34) — 2/26/2009 @ 8:42 pm

  185. Well, Patterico, the beclowning was a thing of beauty. And how long it took the object of your japing to “get it” was hilarious.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/26/2009 @ 8:44 pm

  186. But I’m just asking questions. It also depends of the definitions of all the words involved.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8d54e0) — 2/26/2009 @ 8:45 pm

  187. I don’t understand what you mean, Eric.

    Comment by Dmac (49b16c) — 2/26/2009 @ 9:02 pm

  188. Just like the clueless Energy Secretary Chu, Obama seems to be surrounding himself with appointees that seem to be on the bottom of the gene pool, at least mentally.

    Comment by Neo (cba5df) — 2/27/2009 @ 8:20 am

  189. Put Mexican police uniforms on them and dump them off in Ciudad Juarez.

    Comment by mojo (8096f2) — 2/27/2009 @ 11:32 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5008 secs.