Patterico's Pontifications

10/18/2010

Martin O’Malley’s Euphemism for Illegal Immigrants: New Americans

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 6:31 pm



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing]

I already showed how the term “undocumented” to refer to illegal aliens distorts the debate.  Now Maryland’s governor Martin O’Malley gives us a new euphemism: New Americans.

And I love his final position on immigration reform.  Let me paraphrase it: “it is my belief that someone else needs to handle this.”  Well, fair enough, that the feds do need to step up, but what do you do in the meantime?

Oh, and dig the moonbattery in the middle.  I half expected him to say, “Bush lied, soldiers died!

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing]

19 Responses to “Martin O’Malley’s Euphemism for Illegal Immigrants: New Americans”

  1. True. “False-documented” is more accurate than “undocumented” when it comes to illegal immigrants who are working, at least those who are working on the books.

    This leads to a related point. The solution to the problem of illegal immigration lies not in securing the border, because that is practically impossible, and because it ignores the problem of those who enter the United States legally and then overstay their visa. No, the solution is found in the two principal magnets that attract illegal immigrants—jobs and welfare.

    To prevent illegals from getting jobs, e-Verify (the Department of Homeland Security’s system that verifies a job applicant’s immigration status) should be mandatory for all employers. Right now it is only voluntary. If e-Verify had been around when Whitman hired her maid she could have avoided this mess. Is e-Verify perfect? No, but what system is?

    As for the welfare benefits, this country just needs to toughen up. You would not believe how many illegal immigrants in California are walking around with Medi-Cal cards in their purses and wallets. I know because I’ve seen it. I’m tired of seeing illegal immigrants shower the likes of Ted Kennedy and other liberals with adulation because those politicians support(ed) benefits for illegals. I guess these people think that money grows on trees.

    norcal (6727d1)

  2. I prefer soon-to-be-deported.

    NEW POST:

    CONFIRMED: COLUMNIST EUGENE ROBINSON HATES WHITE CONSERVATIVES
    http://heir2freedom.blogspot.com/2010/10/confirmed-columnist-eugene-robinson.html

    heir2freedom (d9456e)

  3. I still say that we simply need to make our own policies similar to Mexico’s regarding its own Southern border. I want the Left to say openly that they strongly disagree with Mexico’s border policy. My guess is that their heads will explode. I don’t think that they are capable of criticizing the action of any nation that criticizes us.

    Or so it appears.

    Eric Blair (84e072)

  4. Eric Blair, that would require a level of honesty that they are not capable of. If they were, there house of cards would fall.

    Hi Norcal, long time no see…. While I agree with both your points, I think due to the cartels extraordinarily brazen aggressive presence on U.S. soil, the border must be secured. It’s way past the point of just squelching the magnets that attract the average illegal immigrant here. We now know that terrorism does exist on American soil and to not close the borders just makes it that much easier for a foothold to be had.

    And while the vast majority are still families searching for something better el norte, there is just far more money to be made here – by both hard working illegals and criminals.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  5. there their house of cards would fall

    Oh good grief.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  6. Dana,

    It’s always nice to hear from you.

    I agree that the border is important, and I do not advocate abandoning enforcement at the border, but a lot of people think that focusing on the border will solve the immigration problem. It won’t.

    First, there is the problem of people entering legally and overstaying. Second, the kind of measures that would really be effective at the border–walls, dogs, etc.–are forever tainted because of the Eastern European experience.

    The drug cartels could be dealt with by legalizing drugs. It is so sad seeing what’s happened to Mexico because of all the money to be had in the drug trade. People just don’t understand economics. It should be no surprise that when governments create conditions conducive to black markets criminals will thrive.

    Trying to stop drugs from entering the country is counter-productive. In fact, the more aggressively the war on drugs is waged, the higher the price of drugs on the street, which means that addicts have to steal that much more to obtain money to feed their habit.

    If drugs were legal they would be as cheap as flour and sugar. This may result in more overdoses, but at least those dying would be doing so by choice. Right now, it’s the innocent bystanders that are dying.

    Too many people fall into this mindtrap: Drugs are bad; therefore, they should be illegal.

    There is a famous road paved with good intentions.

    norcal (6727d1)

  7. How about this: “Informal citizens”.

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  8. _____________________________________

    The drug cartels could be dealt with by legalizing drugs.

    While they’re at it, the Mexican government also needs to legalize kidnapping.

    Now let’s all hold hands and sing a round of Kum Bah Wah.

    NPR.org, August 26, 2010

    As Mexico pushes forward with its offensive against the drug cartels, violence has spread and the country has been rocked recently by a wave of high-profile kidnappings.

    One of the most powerful political figures in the country, Diego Fernandez de Cevallos, known as “El Jefe Diego,” is currently being held for ransom.

    Last week the mayor of a small city outside Monterrey was abducted, tortured and eventually killed. Over the weekend Olegario Guzman Orquiz, a prominent construction magnate in Chihuahua state and close friend of the governor-elect, was grabbed from his country club.

    Official statistics on reported kidnappings in Mexico show a 15 percent increase in the crime this year, but security analysts say official figures grossly undercount abductions. Most victims never report what happened to the authorities.

    Kidnapping in Mexico doesn’t only affect the wealthy. People from all levels of society — farmers, street vendors, small-business owners, professionals — get kidnapped.

    Carlos Seoane, vice president of Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations in Mexico, says kidnapping in Mexico is a business. The sophistication of the kidnappers varies, he says, but it’s always an organized crime.

    Seoane says that one of the difficulties in Mexico is that the drug cartels have now gotten into kidnapping to supplement their income. He says some of these gangs don’t understand the complexity of ransom negotiations and they also tend to be much more violent. Seoane says there used to be a criminal code of conduct in Mexico, but not any longer.

    Mark (411533)

  9. If drugs were legal they would be as cheap as flour and sugar

    Absent price supports, and import restrictions, sugar would be even cheaper.

    AD-RtR/OS! (ed07ac)

  10. norcal – The solution to the problem of illegal immigration lies not in securing the border, because that is practically impossible…

    It depends on how strictly you define “secure.” How much would illegal immigration from Central America decline if we built a wall along the Mexican border and adequately patrolled it?

    I’m not necessarily against e-Verify, but burdening private industry with another layer of government bureaucracy wouldn’t be my first option.

    Scrutineer (e1f362)

  11. How about we start with just shutting down the dang border? Can we just start with that, see how that goes?

    The Mayor of Maryland and Governor of Baltimore Martin O’Malley has been a disaster here in Maryland. He’s moaning now about Erlich raising property taxes when he knows darned well that the governor can’t do that. He’s also bragging about keeping tuition the same for four years. Nice – is anyone asking him how he’s doing that when tax revenues have fallen precipitously because he’s been driving millionaires out of state?

    We’ve got our very own “New American” issue in Monkey county – a nice little MS13 infestation. At least we can get some good Peruvian chicken out of the deal.

    O’Malley is a huge incompetent idiot.

    Vivian Louise (c7cad6)

  12. 7.How about this: “Informal citizens”.

    Comment by Steven Den Beste

    How bout “Documentally Challenged?”

    BT (74cbec)

  13. Norcal,

    I’m not sure if you’re referring to legalizing drugs at large or just marijuana but as was pointed out at another post earlier this week, the RAND study showed that legalizing pot in Cali would indeed decrease cartel profits but only by about 3%. Apparently we prefer to grow our own.

    Both Calderon and President Barack Obama agree the vast profits cartels collect in the U.S. — estimated by federal authorities between $18 billion and $35 billion a year — fuel drug wars south of the border.

    RAND found that less than $2 billion of those profits come from marijuana and that losing the California marijuana market would cost cartels about $180 million — or 3 percent — of all the money they make exporting drugs to the U.S.

    “This report shows that despite the millions spent on marketing the idea, legalized marijuana won’t reduce the revenue or violence generated by Mexican drug trafficking organizations,” said Kerlikowske, head of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy. “The bottom line is that increased access and availability to marijuana jeopardizes the health and safety of our citizens.”

    In light of current polling numbers, it doesn’t seem that the Easter European experience has much influence on voter’s views of a border wall. According to a July, 2010 Rasmussen poll, 68% of Americans favor a border wall with Mexico. The percentage has steadily increased over the past 5 years, not decreased.

    Americans more than ever want the border secured.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  14. Gah, a friend of mine used that recently, and I felt compelled to point out that the “New Americans” aren’t Americans. The memo must have gone out.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  15. New Americans are recently-naturalised citizens. Aliens, even perfectly legal ones, are not Americans, new, old, or ancient.

    Milhouse (c63c35)

  16. “I prefer soon-to-be-deported. ”

    Or, “free traders.”

    imdw (ae4d0b)

  17. BT: i got it. “obedience-to-the-law challenged immigrants.”

    Milhouse:

    yes, there is so much wrong with what O’Malley said its hard to know where to begin.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  18. So if somebody breaks into my house tonight, do I have a “new family member”?

    mojo (8096f2)

  19. If the rematch between O’Malley and Ehrlich had been held in Indiana or Oklahoma, Ehrlich would have beaten O’Malley. Especially after O’Malley made that absurd reference to illegal aliens as the new americans. In the State of Maryland, Only entitlement loving, city dwelling sheeple and insipid libtards were willing to ignore that comment and vote the guy back into office. I feel sorry for the nice, NORMAL folks who live in Maryland. I lived there for over twelve years before moving to the midwest.

    Rich (ce74a5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0737 secs.