Patterico's Pontifications

6/27/2014

Putting Americans First…Not So Much

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:14 am

[guest post by Dana]

We now come to find out that President Obama is tired of waiting for Congress to act on illegal immigration, so he is discussing ways to speed it up with Homeland Security’s Jeh Johnson.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest discussed it further on MSNBC:

“[W]e’re not just going to sit around and wait interminably for Congress,” he explained. “We’ve been waiting a year already. The president has tasked his Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson with reviewing what options are available to the president, what is at his disposal using his executive authority to try to address some of the problems that have been created by our broken immigration system.”

Earnest added that, although Obama was exploring executive action, it was “not a substitute for robust Congressional action” on immigration reform.

“That’s why we’re trying to focus on getting that done,” he concluded.

And in another Why Can’t Those Republicans Roll Over And Die Already briefing, Earnest inferred blamed obstructionist Republicans for poor border security resulting in the surge of illegal immigrant crossings:

If we really wanted to solve this problem, one good way to do it is for those Republicans to get on board … and support common sense immigration reform.

Because enforcing the laws already on the books is not being on board with securing our borders and thus fulfilling the mandate our government is charged with. But of course, securing the borders isn’t what this is about.

And, to again evidence how inactive the Republicans are regarding illegal immigration and its consequences, the Democrats killed two bills that would have required companies to verify the legal status of people before they hire them, as well as another one that would stop the government from giving child tax credits to illegal immigrants.

Led by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who claimed the hiring of illegal immigrants is causing a decrease in the wages of American workers and driving higher costs, the Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa.), was rebuffed by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). It would appear that Durbin wants to put illegal immigrants before Americans:

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) argued that this e-verify provision was in the Senate’s broad immigration bill that passed a year ago, and said Democrats aren’t looking to negotiate passage of sections of that bill.

“We are not going to take that bill apart piece by piece, as the senator from Alabama suggests,” Durbin said. “I object.”

Sessions said if the e-verify program can be accepted by Democrats in the larger bill, they should be able to approve it quickly this week.

“[I]f it’s so good, why don’t we bring it up and pass it now?” Sessions asked. “Why do we have to pass along with it a bill that will double the number of guest workers in the country, and would increase immigration?”

Sessions then tried to pass the Child Tax Credit Integrity Preservation Act, which would change the law to ensure illegal immigrants cannot receive child tax credit benefits. But Durbin objected again, and seemed to indicate he believes these benefits should flow to non-citizens.

“I want to make sure that working families with small children have the helping hand of our tax code,” he said. “I want to stop any fraud in any program in our tax code, but I don’t believe this bill is a balanced approach to solving the problem, and I object.”

That left a stunned Sessions to note that the Treasury Department’s Office of Inspector General has said $4.2 billion in child tax credits were given to illegal immigrants.

“I am flabbergasted, amazed that we would sit by and $4 billion in child tax credit payments to go out that are not justified,” he said.

Welcome to America, we’re always here to serve you…first!

–Dana

79 Responses to “Putting Americans First…Not So Much”

  1. Wealthy liberals are having their designer one child then calling it quits.
    The single women’s vote is made up of, um, single women, so they aren’t reproducing at much of a rate.
    Only about a quarter of gay and lesbian couples are raising children.

    Of all the groups in the Obama/Democrat coalition, immigrants are the only ones who can possibly produce a legacy of Democrat voters.

    JVW (feb406)

  2. A Disturbing Prediction…..

    We can fight them there, or we can fight them here; the choice is ours.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  3. Ah, yes, the presidential power to decree laws if Congress won’t pass them.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  4. I am expecting Obama to declare that his pardon power extends to granting unconditional amnesty to all the illegals, and then doing so. His administration will then treat the action as if it had legal meaning, precipitating a constitutional crisis in which impeachment will be hard to avoid.

    Kevin M (b357ee)

  5. i hate e-verify

    that’s making employers responsible for border security

    but border security is a duty what falls to America’s sad ineffective corrupt government

    a duty which it is pointedly not even trying to fulfill

    because it sucks ass

    the idea that we’ll see businesspeople getting fined for not getting their paperwork right while America’s corrupt joke of a government remains unserious and unaccountable

    oh.

    this is a quintessentially American idea actually

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  6. Think of e-Verify as a way to confirm that your accounting dept will be sending all those deductions to the correct account at the IRS.
    If the SS# doesn’t match against the other info, the ID’s are most likely all fraudulent, and you shouldn’t allow this individual through the front door. If you hire them anyway, you could be considered an accessory to ID Fraud.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  7. it’s not that benign

    e-verify gives america’s ruthlessly vicious and dishonest bureaucrat whores yet another truncheon with which to beat the already ridiculously encumbered small business owner

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  8. They have that truncheon as long as businesses are licensed by government at whatever level, and have to report wages and withholdings to the IRS, and State authorities.
    Get rid of those, and you have no truncheons.
    Personally, I want to know that those that I may hire are legally eligible to work for me, and that they won’t magically disappear at some point when they may become entangled within the justice system – for whatever reason.
    It’s bad enough with ‘legal’ employees: Had one who disappeared the day after being told that the IRS had garnished his wages over a tax dispute – never saw him again, no explanation or apology.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  9. This is just so wrong on so many fronts….

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  10. 1. An employer, especially a small business, should not be responsible for verifying whatever papers an employee shows. Not even if the e-verify database were reliable, which it isn’t. America should be a place where one is never asked “papers, please”.

    2. Using border control to artificially reduce the supply of labor, in order to keep wages up, is protectionism, and it’s just as illegitimate as any other form of protectionism, such as tarrifs, import quotas, export subsidies, etc. Free trade is the foundation principle of the liberal movement, which we now call “conservative”. It all started with the Anti Corn Law League. There is no room for protectionists on the right of politics; any tent big enough for them is a
    tent not worth having.

    3. The only valid reason for securing the border is to keep out dangerous people — criminals, terrorists, and those with easily communicable diseases. People who only want to work, earn money, support their families, and keep their heads down, are precisely the people we should want, and who ought to be given visas and let through any border controls. So if someone infiltrates the border (having no other way of getting here, since the legal process is a joke), and rather than commit crimes or seek out welfare proceeds to find a job, earn money, raise good American kids, and send money home to his parents and family, then he has proved retroactively that excluding him from the country was a mistake. Therefore so long as he keeps his head down and under the radar (i.e. doesn’t do anything to get himself arrested) it is perverse and counter-productive to go after him at his place of employment. He is not a burden on anyone now; driving him out of a job will make him such a burden.

    So the whole e-verify program is wrong and should be abolished, not made mandatory. Border control should be beefed up, but it should be confined to the border area. Anyone caught crossing the border illegally should immediately be taken back across the border and left there, no hearing, no excuses. But once someone is already here and working, and not making trouble, the government should not be looking for him, and citizens should turn a blind eye.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  11. Anyone caught crossing the border illegally should immediately be taken back across the border and left there, no hearing, no excuses. But once someone is already here and working, and not making trouble, the government should not be looking for him, and citizens should turn a blind eye.

    This makes border protection a bit of a joke. Of course, what to do with those already here? We need border control to control the borders, but if you are successful in your attempts to cross the border illegally, then great, you’re in, no problems. How did those who are already here, get here in the first place? And because they are successful, does it render moot that they broke the law to get here?

    Dana (fe2228)

  12. I agree with Milhouse. The nation-state is a regressive bourgeois invention which has caused untold misery throughout all of history. It oppresses its proletariat and wars on its neighbors. One world, one people, one government, one Party.

    nk (dbc370)

  13. Tangentially, one question I have that has not yet been addressed as far as I can tell, is why all of a sudden is Mexico opening its southern borders to immigrants? They are notorious for enforcing their strict immigration laws, so why this sudden a porousness? How are they benefiting from this, because surely they must be. Is there collusion between the Obama administration and Mexico’s governments, and if so, to what end? I see how it benefits the Democrats in the long run, but how does Mexico benefit?

    Dana (fe2228)

  14. nk, you can take that tongue out of your cheek, it makes you look ridiculous.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  15. Dana, they probably have as much control of their Southern Border as we do.
    The Cartels probably control most of the ingress/egress points along the Mexican periphery now.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  16. Apparently, Mexico’s southern border is fairly porous, but the farther north, the more difficult it becomes.

    The border is porous and relative. There are only about 9 official crossing points along the 871 km Mexico/Guatemala border and a lot of uncontrolled mountainous or jungle territory. As with the northern border, the current political delineation has only been in its current location since 1882.

    While the vast majority of movement across the border at Tecun Uman/Ciudad Hidalgo is circular, this also marks the point at which Central Americans can no longer travel freely. Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua have an agreement that any citizen of these four countries can travel with their ID in any of the other three countries. Central Americans may enter into Mexico relatively freely on their journey north in hopes of employment, reunification with family or seeking asylum (increasingly more common for Hondurans), but a bit further into Mexico, they begin to encounter check points and the danger of coming into contact with migration officials, military, police, organized crime and inhospitable Mexican civilians.

    Dana (fe2228)

  17. “so tired… tired of waiting… tired of waiting for you-oo-oo”

    - Barack “Kinky” Obama to Los Illegals

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  18. This makes border protection a bit of a joke. Of course, what to do with those already here? We need border control to control the borders, but if you are successful in your attempts to cross the border illegally, then great, you’re in, no problems. How did those who are already here, get here in the first place? And because they are successful, does it render moot that they broke the law to get here?

    Why does it matter how they got here? If they demonstrate that they’re not the sort of people border control exists to exclude, and it would have been in hinsight, a mistake to have excluded them in the first place, then
    why should they be deported now?

    By definition, anyone who comes in peace is not an invader.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  19. how does Mexico benefit?

    the influx of urchins makes it a dead certainty the people already here will get yummy marco rubio-style amnesty

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  20. The nation-state is a regressive bourgeois invention which has caused untold misery throughout all of history. It oppresses its proletariat and wars on its neighbors. One world, one people, one government, one Party.

    Oh, nonsense. The declaration of independence tells us why states exist. They’re instituted among men in order to secure people’s natural rights from people who would forcibly take them away. To the extent that a state fulfils this function it is legitimate; to the extent that it does the opposite it is not. No state that exists today is perfect, but the USA, even under 0bama, is better than most.

    Since the only purpose of the state is to protect its citizens from aggression, not to allow producers to exploit consumers by excluding foreign competition, it follows that the state has the right and duty to keep the borders secure from criminals and anyone with hostile intent, but not from anyone who comes in peace, intending only to make a better life for himself and his family.

    There was a time when the USA’s official policy recognised an “inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance”. How time have changed.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  21. @ Millhouse,

    If they demonstrate that they’re not the sort of people border control exists to exclude, and it would have been in hinsight, a mistake to have excluded them in the first place, then
    why should they be deported now?

    Have they not demonstrated that they are lawbreakers by coming into the country illegally in the first place? Also, who gets to make the determination of what is justifiable in breaking the law? Whether you like it or not, there are laws in place that make their entry illegal. While we may think it’s preposterous to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, that does not mean that the laws are pointless.

    It’s impossible to know ahead of time what kind of person and level of productivity an illegal immigrant will demonstrate once here. So, does everyone get to come here on the benefit of the doubt that they will keep their heads down and work and be law abiding, or does no one get the benefit of the doubt and the laws are followed equally for all?

    Dana (fe2228)

  22. Three out of four of them are dependents. Like we see with these kids. And they’ll make more dependents. And the argument would have more merit if New Yorkers spoke Iroquois, and Bostonians called themselves Patuxets. We can accomplish the capitalistic goal with visas tied to employment — any employment not just the P-1, O-1, H-1 that we now have.

    Anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-capitalist …. Anarcho-anything is like rolling a rock down a mountain. You don’t know what kind of avalanche you’ve started, you can’t control it, and you can bet a lot of things are going to get crushed. Unrestricted migration is just bloodless invasion. Bloodless until the invader becomes strong enough to assert its political will. Like the Indians found out.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. Have they not demonstrated that they are lawbreakers by coming into the country illegally in the first place?

    What other choice did they have? You know very well that in their place you’d have done the same. Any decent person would. They broke a law, but they harmed no one. Isn’t that precisely what America is about? Our nation was founded on law-breaking, after all. The question isn’t whether they’re lawbreakers, it’s whether they’re dangerous people, the sort from whom the state exists to protect us, or decent people, whom the state has no business excluding in the first place. By working and not committing crimes against anybody, they will have demonstrated that they are the second sort of people.

    Also, who gets to make the determination of what is justifiable in breaking the law?

    Each person, of course. How else could it be? The idea that there is a moral obligation to obey the law just because it is the law is absurd and immoral. It’s Hitler’s and Stalin’s theory. It means that if you write the laws, then by definition you can do no wrong, and anyone who opposes you is automatically wrong. No, Congress has no power to make what is right wrong, or what is wrong right. All it can do is make laws and enforce them; it cannot make moral demands of obedience. To the extent that those laws correspond to natural justice they are good laws, and to the extent that they do not they are bad laws, but either way they don’t change any person’s moral duty. A person must do what he believes to be good, even if Congress bans it, and he must not do what he believes to be evil, even if Congress requires it. If he believes something to be morally neutral, and Congress has banned it, then it’s simply a matter of cost/benefit analysis, balancing the benefit to be derived from breaking the law against the risk of getting caught and punished.

    It’s impossible to know ahead of time what kind of person and level of productivity an illegal immigrant will demonstrate once here. So, does everyone get to come here on the benefit of the doubt that they will keep their heads down and work and be law abiding, or does no one get the benefit of the doubt and the laws are followed equally for all?

    Are you deliberately being dense? I have already answered this at least twice. I will now do so yet again: We can’t know ahead of time. But we can know in hindsight. If someone shows up at the border and says “let me in, pretty please, I swear I come in peace”, we have no reason to believe him. If someone has been here 10 years and has shown that he came in peace, then there is nothing to believe, we know that he is a valuable immigrant, the sort of person we have no right to exclude, and whom we shouldn’t want to exclude.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  24. Yeah, ‘what other choice did they have’.
    That argument really seals-the-deal when you’re arrested and charged for bank robbery – but Mr. FBI-man, my family hasn’t eaten in days, we’re going to get evicted, and I just didn’t have any other option but to rob that rich bank.
    If the border was an alligator filled moat, what choice would they be making?

    Milhouse, you are truly a Maroon!

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  25. Dana is not nk, Milhouse. Don’t be rude to her. Just don’t.

    nk (dbc370)

  26. 25- Shouting into a Gale.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  27. Are you deliberately being dense? I have already answered this at least twice. I will now do so yet again: We can’t know ahead of time. But we can know in hindsight.

    No Millhouse, I am not being deliberately dense. I am attempting to grasp your full meaning, this in spite of your rudeness. But in case I am naturally that dense, I will attempt to understand your point again. (I will also attempt to refrain from suggesting that perhaps your comments are so head-turning, that further clarity is aggressively being sought.)

    First, you believe that any of us would do what any illegal immigrant has done. You believe we all seek refuge and a better life in a neighboring country. I would agree.

    Second, you believe that the law is of little consequence because our country was founded on “law breaking”.

    Third, it does not matter in the long run whether laws have been broken to get here, what matters is that the people who came here illegally have proven themselves to be upstanding citizens.

    (I am skipping your middle portion as it will take more time than I have right now to address, but will look at your third portion).

    You believe that we of course cannot know ahead of time whether one who crosses the border illegally will be the sort of person our country needs, but we can in hindsight later know due to their demonstrated actions.

    You also believe that when an attempted crosser encounters the border patrol, they should not be given the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions and goals while in the United States.

    You further believe that because the person who has crossed the border illegally has proven themselves to be an upstanding contributor to society, that the country has no “right” to send them back. Also, not only do we not have a “right” to exclude him, we should not even want to.

    Is this an accurate reading?

    Dana (fe2228)

  28. You believe we all *would* seek refuge and a better life in a neighboring country. I would agree *if there were no other attainable options*.

    Dana (fe2228)

  29. I’m going to stop fixing comment at #28, because I realize it’s incomplete, but I don’t want to use this time for anything other than grasping Millhouse’s points, clearly and correctly.

    Dana (fe2228)

  30. But of course, securing the borders isn’t what this is about.

    No, this is about destroying the country.

    Just in ase anyone was still unclear what Pro Queen mean by “fundamentally transform.”

    Steve57 (334088)

  31. Milhouse read some anarcho-capitalistic cant some time and believed it. He equates free market with freedom and other such nonsense. Since you didn’t talk him into his philosophical cul de sac, you’re not going to talk him out of it. He’ll have to find his own way.

    nk (dbc370)

  32. I would understand it if he said, “These people are starving and will work for food. It’s a mercy to let them in”. I do not understand, “These people are starving and will work for food. We have a right, a right, to exploit their predicament”. That’s not a human being talking — that’s a wallet.

    nk (dbc370)

  33. ==Have they not demonstrated that they are lawbreakers by coming into the country illegally in the first place?==

    My problem with all this is that it’s the responsibility of the United States Government to enforce our immigration laws, secure our borders, protect our sovereignty, and prevent illegal immigrants from slipping in to our country in the first place. It is the responsibility of the United States Government to document and track immigrants who arrive on planes with legitimate work visas or student visas, and make sure those people leave when the visa date is up. They have not done their job.

    Yeah the Chinese tech guy on a visa who disappears into a Chinatown in New York or San Francisco knows he’s breaking the law. But the ignorant uneducated paisan from Mexico and Central America who neither speaks or reads English had no idea what our laws or processes are when he wants to come here to find work. And the desperate uneducated pregnant mom with two other kids in tow who is lied to and told by a coyote or slimy “agent” that America`is looking for workers and will help you get acclimated there and let your kids go to school, is more a victim herself than a lawbreaker.

    I blame the United States government over decades for letting this happen, and I especially blame the current administration for dialing it up to eleventy!!!. What to do with those who are already here? What to do about the reintroduction and spread of diseases that we had nearly eradicated from this country? What to do about the stresses on human services paid for by our tax dollars? This is a criminal act perpetrated against the American people by their own government. And nobody has any real answers.

    elissa (0b3bcd)

  34. What you reward you get more of;
    What you punish (tax) you get less of.
    It was true then (at the Founding) and is true today.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  35. Could be a few thousand south of the border eateries coming to a dirt road near you.

    mg (31009b)

  36. Go for the goat on a spit.

    mg (31009b)

  37. 23. …If someone has been here 10 years and has shown that he came in peace, then there is nothing to believe, we know that he is a valuable immigrant, the sort of person we have no right to exclude, and whom we shouldn’t want to exclude.

    Milhouse (b95258) — 6/27/2014 @ 12:46 pm

    Of course, Milhouse. People who routinely commit a least partial if not full identity theft so they can then go on to commit document fraud to get a job, which bye the bye also entails perjury when they put their signature to the statement that they can legally work in his country, then either don’t file a tax return (leaving the IRS, which only cares about the money, to go after the legitimate owner of the SSN that “the sort of person we have no right to exclude” stole) or fraudulently claims child tax credits are definitely the type of people “we shouldn’t want to exclude.”

    If you’re a liberal Democrat who hates the US, that is. Only then.

    The IRS and SSA are full of just such liberal Democrats who aid and abet illegal alien identity thieves. They will no disclose to the legitimate owner of the SSN who is fraudulently using it. Nor will they take action themselves. Nor will the IRS prosecute illegal alien perjurers for making false statements. I don’t feel like turning a blind eye to the crimes illegal aliens commit on daily basis to remain in this country following their law breaking to get in. The government is, and clearly you are, even though these rimes victimize American citizens, but I and a lot of others are not.

    You really should be ashamed of yourself.

    Steve57 (334088)

  38. elissa,

    Our country is founded on the rule of law and individual responsibility. It sounds nice to excuse people from having to do either or both, but that undermines our system just as much as Obama’s lawless actions. You either believe people, even immigrants, are responsible for knowing and abiding by the law or you don’t. You don’t.

    David (8c79bc)

  39. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ig-irs-made-policy-decision-legalize-illegal-aliens-ended-paying-illegals-42b

    …But, according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), seventeen years have already passed since the Internal Revenue Service made its own “policy decision” to “’legalize’ illegal aliens.”

    That policy, made those many years ago, not only determined that the IRS would treat illegal aliens the same as legal immigrants and U.S. citizens, but also that the IRS would not hand over to federal immigration authorities information about employers who appeared to be hiring large numbers of illegal aliens and about illegal aliens who filed false documents with the IRS

    Yes, Milhouse, just “the sort of person we have no right to exclude.”

    How many felonies are you willing to turn a blind eye to?

    Steve57 (334088)

  40. When does president sfb build a water pipe-line for Mexican water?

    mg (31009b)

  41. David, I hold the government responsible. If they were doing their job for the last thirty years (since the 1985 amnesty which was supposed to end the immigration lawbreaking by barring further illegals from entry) we would not be having this conversation. I’m not being nice, and I don’t excuse what many of these people do that is additionally illegal once they are here and settled in (working for cash/avoiding taxes, identity theft, social security fraud, food stamps, etc. But if they had not been allowed in in the first place or, once in, had they been sent back immediately before they gained a foothold and disappeared into the communities, we’d not be having this conversation either. This one is not a confusing case of which came first, the chicken or the egg”. The government let them in and did nothing to get them out.

    elissa (0b3bcd)

  42. http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-9.pdf

    All employees must attest in Section 1, under penalty of perjury, to their citizenship or immigration status…

    …By signing and dating this form, you attest that the citizenship or immigration status you selected is correct and that you are aware that you ay be imprisoned and/or fined for making false statements or using false documentation when completing this form.

    5 years in he slammer. each time, right there.

    The gang of 8′s amnesty proposal had no intention of prosecuting illegal aliens for committing the above felonies, or for the identity theft that went with it. Even though these illegals made the lives of the actual American citizens they victimized a living hell.

    The gang of 8′s amnesty proposal was not just one amnesty. I was multiple amnesties for multiple felonies.

    Steve57 (334088)

  43. Steve57 (334088) — 6/27/2014 @ 3:27 pm

    Even though these illegals made the lives of the actual American citizens they victimized a living hell. </i

    That didn't really happen. That happens only when peole steal.

    To the extent that it did, the cause was making it difficult for people to use a totally made-up identity. Let us hope that a system will not be created where medical records are confounded.

    The gang of 8′s amnesty proposal was not just one amnesty. I was multiple amnesties for multiple felonies.

    These were inevitable felonies. They do not reflect a general desire to live outside of civilization.

    Sammy Finkelman (1b5048)

  44. “You know very well that in their place you’d have done the same.”

    My parents came legally, and worked very hard to do so.
    I would come legally, or not at all.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  45. Maybe Obama can make recess appointments for all GOP congress-critters the next time they take a bathroom break.

    That would solve his problem.

    The scary part is Obama and his “constitutional experts” are probably already investigated this option…

    WarEagle82 (b18ccf)

  46. David (8c79bc) — 6/27/2014 @ 2:40 pm

    Our country is founded on the rule of law..

    No, it isn’t, or we would be Canada.

    Sammy Finkelman (1b5048)

  47. Sammy Finkelman (1b5048) — 6/27/2014 @ 3:55 pm

    These were inevitable felonies. They do not reflect a general desire to live outside of civilization.

    Tha’s one of your most ridiculous comments, which is saying a lot.

    A nation of “inevitable felonies” is already “outside of civilization.”

    Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 states that information concerning illegal alien status must be provided to the INS notwithstanding any other law. The IRS decided to flout the law and aid and abet illegal aliens. Despite the fact that Congress explicitly said agencies were to share information about illegal aliens with the INS, the IRS decided to provide protection to illegal immigrants by keeping their tax information secret under Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, which requires tax information to remain confidential. The IRS had no legal authority to do this.

    This is the dismantling of civilization. Otherwise “inevitable felonies” would be followed by “inevitable prosecutions.” And then, if we were living within a civilization, these felonies wouldn’t be so inevitable.

    Steve57 (334088)

  48. mg (31009b) — 6/27/2014 @ 2:31 pm

    I spit on your goat!

    (been working in fast-food way too long)

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  49. Sammy Finkelman (1b5048) — 6/27/2014 @ 4:22 pm

    Sammy, please read (or re-read) Mr. Jefferson’s words posted on 4 July 1776, and how he decries the Rule of Man personified in King George III.
    This is what we talk about when we say that we were founded upon the principal of the Rule of Law.
    The acts described by Mr. Jefferson, though some were the result of Parliament – a Parliament that refused representation to its colonies, many were just the whims of a despot done without legal basis or cover.
    A Rule of Man, not of Law.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  50. Yeah, ‘what other choice did they have’.
    That argument really seals-the-deal when you’re arrested and charged for bank robbery –

    Bank robbery is inherently wrong, it’s wrong everywhere and at all times, whether there’s a law against it or not. A robber is a bad person, and governments are instituted among men to protect us from robbers. Crossing an arbitrary line on a map is not wrong. There’s no moral difference between the US-Mexico border and the Texas-Arkansas border, or for that matter any street. And if you were a poor Guatemalan who had a chance to come to America and give your family a better future, you cannot tell me with a straight face that you would turn it down just because the American Congress decided to make it against the law. No decent person would do so. And governments do not exist to protect us from people like that.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  51. Is this an accurate reading?

    Yes. That is completely accurate. The reason the border patrol should turn people back is not because they are horrible terrible lawbreakers, but because they might be dangerous. When someone demonstrates that they are not dangerous, there is no longer any reason to keep him out.

    Got to go now, can’t comment any more till tomorrow night.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  52. And if you were a poor Guatemalan who had a chance to come to America and give your family a better future, you cannot tell me with a straight face that you would turn it down just because the American Congress decided to make it against the law. No decent person would do so.

    And yet people, including Guatemalans, turn down the opportunity to come here illegally and go through the process, and wait their turn to legally immigrate into our country. They are not indecent. They are law-abiding people that we want in this country.

    Dana (fe2228)

  53. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    And here I was thinking that slavery was our “original sin,”as he leftists so often insist.

    But,no, Milhouse straightens us out.

    Crossing an arbitrary line on a map is not wrong. There’s no moral difference between the US-Mexico border and the Texas-Arkansas border, or for that matter any street.

    It’s selfishly thinking we have the right to have a country at all.

    No decent person would do so.

    We are indecent for thinking!

    Steve57 (334088)

  54. *We are indecent for thinking that!

    Steve57 (334088)

  55. Milhouse (b95258) — 6/27/2014 @ 5:27 pm

    If they’re that dangerous, they should just shoot them where they stand.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  56. Milhouse (b95258) — 6/27/2014 @ 10:58 am

    Wow, Milhouse. I’ve long associated your name in this forum with fragments of squish-squish-squish, but I wasn’t sure if my reason for that was based on faulty recollections, or incorrect perceptions, or possibly confusing you with someone else, or misreading what makes you tick. But after seeing your giving way too much benefit of the doubt about a week or two ago to the nonsense of AGW or “climate change” and the government wasting even 2 seconds of its time on that ridiculous issue, and your now blubbering about the “undocumented,” I don’t think my take on you was off at all.

    However, I can accept your sentiments at face value if you at least don’t swear off living in or spending lots of time in in a community full of the “undocumented” — socially, politically, culturally and economically speaking — and if you recommend to your children (if they’re anywhere from the age of 6 to around 17 years old) and to the parents of the children in your socio-economic circle that they should gladly attend or send their own kids to schools typical of where all the “undocumented” hang out.

    That’s only fair and decent, after all, since there are very few good reasons to have a non-porous border between the US and a nation like Mexico. Better yet, you shouldn’t flinch whatsoever at the idea of your moving your entire household to a town in the safe, noble, wonderful, prosperous, corruption-free, always-beautiful-and-stable land of Mexico.

    Book your airline tickets and hire the moving van now!

    Mark (fdb0fc)

  57. Luc Besson is among the few filmakers on either end of the Atlantic to describe the world as it actually is, in the Taken series, even in some of his other work, a bureaucratic structure enables
    the criminal enterprises that destroy the lives of the immigrant communities,

    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/06/26/what-do-you-mean-we-kemo-sabe/#more-37711

    narciso (3fec35)

  58. Either fly the “kids” to DC and hand them over to their country’s ambassador or fly the ambassadors to the processing centers and hand them over to their country’s ambassador – they are after all citizens of these nations.

    crazy (d60cb0)

  59. Seize the assets of the respective Central American governments, use them to charter planes, and fly the kids back to their countries’ international airports. With a USAF fighter escort to assure landing clearance.

    To dream the impossible dream.
    To wish for a President who don’t suck.
    To close our eyes to reality,
    That America is ____ out of luck.

    nk (dbc370)

  60. TFG sees himself as the King of the Western Hemisphere (sans Canada) and in encouraging the mass exodus to the USA, overwhelming our immigration system and the border that the Dems swore was closed, ObamaCare, and pushing for raising the minimum wage (don’t think for a minute that boostering the “living wage” won’t follow), TFG is doing his best to fundamentally transform America, annihilate our civil society and leave his disoriented subjects wondering which train just hit them.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  61. nk, we didn’t just run out of luck, we vigorously threw it away.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  62. And if you were a poor Guatemalan who had a chance to come to America and give your family a better future, you cannot tell me with a straight face that you would turn it down just because the American Congress decided to make it against the law. No decent person would do so.

    And yet people, including Guatemalans, turn down the opportunity to come here illegally and go through the process, and wait their turn to legally immigrate into our country

    No, they don’t. Who does that? Who has ever done that? What makes you think that such people exist?

    There is no way for a Guatemalan with no skills, and no immediate family in the USA, to immigrate legally. There is no line to get at the back of. It doesn’t exist.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  63. “You know very well that in their place you’d have done the same.”

    My parents came legally, and worked very hard to do so.
    I would come legally, or not at all.

    I don’t believe you. If you were faced with the choice of staying in the village or coming to the USA, you would come, and you wouldn’t give a damn whether it was legal or not. There is no legal way for these people to immigrate. There is no line. And I’ve got news for you: I don’t know your paretns, but I’ll bet that if they were told the way they came was illegal they wouldn’t have cared, and they’d have done it anyway. Especially if they were coming from desperate circumstances.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  64. Of course, Milhouse. People who routinely commit a least partial if not full identity theft so they can then go on to commit document fraud to get a job, which bye the bye also entails perjury when they put their signature to the statement that they can legally work in his country,

    They do not steal IDs. They buy cards on the street; they have no idea whether these have some real person’s SSN, or that of a dead person, or just a made up one. They don’t know, and htey have no reason to care. And I don’t give a damn about the perjury; it’s a perjury trap. They are told they have to sign this or they can’t get a job, so they have no choice. The state invents the crime, forces them to commit it, and then says “look, they’ve committed a crime”. Let them get jobs without signing, and they won’t perjure themselves. (Besides, do you think they even know what they’re signing? Perjury requires intention. If you don’t know that you’re committing perjury, you’re not.)

    Milhouse (b95258)

  65. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    And here I was thinking that slavery was our “original sin,”as he leftists so often insist.

    But,no, Milhouse straightens us out.

    Huh? What part of that contradicts anything I wrote? Do you think they wanted to secure those blessings only to themselves and their own descendants?! Most of us are not their descendants. The USA is an immigrant country. And even those whose families have been here 250 years are mostly not descended from signers of the declaration. Do you think we’re not just as entitled to those blessings as the descendants of those signers?! What’s more, not only did they have no restrictions on free immigration, they couldn’t even comtemplate such restrictions. If you’d asked them about “illegal aliens” they’d have wondered what that term could possibly mean. And if you’d explained it to them they’d be horrified. They secured the blessings of liberty for all who would come and share them.

    Crossing an arbitrary line on a map is not wrong. There’s no moral difference between the US-Mexico border and the Texas-Arkansas border, or for that matter any street.

    It’s selfishly thinking we have the right to have a country at all.

    Again, huh? How does that follow at all? What does having a country got to do with drawing an artificial line and pretending it has some moral significance?

    Milhouse (b95258)

  66. If they’re that dangerous, they should just shoot them where they stand.

    If who is how dangerous? Border crossers are mostly decent people, but some of them are not. That’s why we need to control which ones get in. Sneaking across a border creates at least reasonable suspicion that a person is up to no good. That’s not nearly enough to justify harming him, but it’s more than enough to justify barring his entry.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  67. your now blubbering about the “undocumented,”

    Huh? When have I ever mentioned “undocumented”? The people we’re discussing are not undocumented. They have plenty of documents. Some of them are even genuine.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  68. That’s only fair and decent, after all, since there are very few good reasons to have a non-porous border between the US and a nation like Mexico. Better yet, you shouldn’t flinch whatsoever at the idea of your moving your entire household to a town in the safe, noble, wonderful, prosperous, corruption-free, always-beautiful-and-stable land of Mexico.

    You’re the one who’s “blubbering”, whatever that means. When did I suggest that Mexico was a wonderful place to live, or full of decent people? If it were, why would so many truly decent people be taking desperate measures to get out? It’s precisely because Mexico has become a hellhole, and anyone who can get out should. And that’s why we need a non-porous border, though it’s not the only reason; even if Mexicans were indeed all wonderful decent people, whom we should welcome to the USA, we would still need to control the border, because not everyone crossing it is Mexican.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  69. Either fly the “kids” to DC and hand them over to their country’s ambassador or fly the ambassadors to the processing centers and hand them over to their country’s ambassador – they are after all citizens of these nations.

    Just drive them back over the border and leave them there. Why do they need individual hearings? Is there any doubt that they all crossed the border illegally? If they are given individual hearings, what argument could they make for not being deported? So why give them the hearings in the first place? It’s just a ploy to delay their deportation, and in the meantime they’ll disappear.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  70. Seize the assets of the respective Central American governments, use them to charter planes, and fly the kids back to their countries’ international airports. With a USAF fighter escort to assure landing clearance.

    You can’t do that. They’re sovereign governments, and their assets are protected by treaty. If you do that, US government assets all over the world will be subject to seizure.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  71. TFG sees himself as the King of the Western Hemisphere (sans Canada)

    What, not the whole world?! (I assume from context that TFG refers to 0bama, but I have no idea why. What does it stand for?)

    TFG is doing his best to fundamentally transform America, annihilate our civil society and leave his disoriented subjects wondering which train just hit them.

    Well, that’s certainly true (again, assuming that TFG means 0bama).

    Milhouse (b95258)

  72. Are you deliberately being dense? I have already answered this at least twice. I will now do so yet again: We can’t know ahead of time. But we can know in hindsight.

    No Millhouse, I am not being deliberately dense. I am attempting to grasp your full meaning, this in spite of your rudeness. But in case I am naturally that dense, I will attempt to understand your point again. (I will also attempt to refrain from suggesting that perhaps your comments are so head-turning, that further clarity is aggressively being sought.)

    Well, evidently the third time did it, since you now seem to understand my position precisely, so it must have been my fault that the first two times weren’t clear enough. I apologise for wondering whether you were only pretending not to understand. I hope you understand why I thought this might be so, but it’s now clear that it wasn’t, so I’m sorry that I hurt your feelings.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  73. Just in case someone else still doesn’t understand the distinction I am making between someone caught crossing the border and someone who’s already proved his bona fides, let me give a few analogies. Suppose someone comes on to your property at 3 in the morning. It might be an innocent bypasser, lost and needing directions, or someone whose car has broken down and needs help, or even a drunk person who has mistaken your house for his. But it could also be a burglar. If you are woken by the noise, you are not required to assume the best of this person. You are entitled to come to the door with a loaded weapon, and treat the intruder with a rebuttable presumption that he’s up to no good. You may order him off your property without stopping to hear his story, let alone to judge its veracity. But you can’t just shoot him without actual proof of his bad intentions. And if he does manage to prove to your satisfaction that he doesn’t mean any harm to you, then you have a moral duty to help him, whether by calling AAA, calling his wife to come and get him, letting him use the toilet, etc. The fact that you once justly suspected him of being a burglar is irrelevant, now that you know he isn’t.

    Milhouse (b95258)

  74. Millhouse @ 74,

    Thank you.

    Dana (fe2228)

  75. Huh? When have I ever mentioned “undocumented”? The people we’re discussing are not undocumented. They have plenty of documents. Some of them are even genuine.

    [W]hy would so many truly decent people be taking desperate measures to get out? It’s precisely because Mexico has become a hellhole, and anyone who can get out should.

    Milhouse, I’m not sure if your first comment is merely a case of your being either disingenuous, sarcastic or glib.

    As for your second comment, at the very least you’re being painfully, ridiculously naive or suffering from a major bout of cognitive dissonance. Naive in terms of not understanding the socio-political trends — long-term ones — that are associated with an uncomfortably large percentage of the Latino immigrant community.

    I’d say otherwise if a good number of them, when moving to the US, ended up being politically/ideologically moderate to conservative (IOW, different from the way they were in places like Mexico) and if a high portion of their children had a good track record in public schools and colleges.

    Mark (fdb0fc)

  76. 64-75…Milhouse, you need to start your own blog, or pay rent here.

    askeptic (8ecc78)

  77. 64-75…Milhouse, you need to start your own blog, or pay rent here.

    That’s what happens when a lot of people address comments to me, that need responses.

    Milhouse (b95258)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5236 secs.