Patterico's Pontifications

7/22/2015

Ted Cruz Masterfully Schools Head Of ICE As She Attempts To Justify The Administration’s Flagrant Disregard For The Law

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:51 am



[guest post by Dana]

Ted Cruz neatly dismantled claims made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director Sarah Saldana at yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about the number of “criminal illegal aliens” released by the federal government. Saldana attempted to justify the numbers using incorrect statistics. Because Cruz is so impressive in his confrontation of Saldana and her claims, I’ve posted the entire video. The portion cited below comes at 3:21:

–Dana

NOTE: Due to discrepancies in the transcript linked from Real Clear Politics, I have taken down the text and left the video up for readers to watch Cruz in action.

106 Responses to “Ted Cruz Masterfully Schools Head Of ICE As She Attempts To Justify The Administration’s Flagrant Disregard For The Law”

  1. Cruz/Fiorina!

    Dana (86e864)

  2. There has certainly been one constant with the Obama administration – cooking the books.

    He claims to have deported more people than any other president, but he simply changed the definition of deportation to include people turned back at the border.

    He re-defined militant to mean anyone killed that is male and of fighting age – presto, drone strikes kill hardly any civilians.

    He re-defined the commonly accepted definition of rape to expand the number of sexual assaults.

    He redefined CO2 as “carbon pollution” so it could be regulated.

    On and on it goes – cooking the books, changing definitions, all in an effort to make himself look better, or force policies that no one ever agreed to or voted for.

    Eramus (291f30)

  3. He re-defined militant to mean anyone killed that is male and of fighting age – presto, drone strikes kill hardly any civilians.

    To be fair, that is not an unreasonable defintion, it should just be applied consistently.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  4. It seems that Sarah Saldana’s initial interpretation of the law was accurate, even enthusiastically so, but immediately – the very next day – reversed her position and aligned herself with Obama’s illegal programs to flood the nation with repeat offending criminal aliens. The implication of arm-twisting is unmistakable, and the evidence of Saldana’s malleable core was today exposed by Ted Cruz.

    The nation and the family of Kate Steinle especially are now experiencing the poignant consequences of Obama’s illegal circumvention of existing immigration law inflicts on the American people.

    ropelight (a333f7)

  5. see this is why we need him to stay in the senate

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  6. Attaboy Ted.
    Cruz\West/2016

    mg (31009b)

  7. She should have said you lost the election for president and you will lose again in 2016. You will be lucky if Mrs. Clinton makes you an illegal alien and send you back to canada!

    latina voter (e381a8)

  8. Dear loony voter,

    Cruz did not run for President as he lost the primary, idiot. You also need to understand that Hillary! has no power to send anyone anywhere or make anyone an illegal alien. I know you love commie dictators but you’re in the wrong country. Please move to North Korea.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  9. see this is why we need him to stay in the senate

    I agree. He should stay in the senate for approximately two terms, and then get appointed to the supreme court. Forget the White House.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  10. Milhouse, you’re on to something there.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  11. She should have said you lost the election for president

    Cruz did not run for President as he lost the primary, idiot.

    Um, what primary? This is his first try at the presidency.

    You will be lucky if Mrs. Clinton makes you an illegal alien and send you back to canada!

    Hillary! will be lucky if President Walker doesn’t make her an illegal alien. And you, perry.

    What’s that you say? He couldn’t do that? He could do it the exact same way Hillary! could do it to Cruz.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  12. Duh. I Thought he ran in the primaries last time. Sorry. Who’s your idiot now? I know, the Hoagster.

    Idiot Hoagster (f4eb27)

  13. The RealClearPolitics’ transcript doesn’t match this video I think this is a correct transcript of the video that begins at 3:16, with my correction and additions in bold:

    CRUZ: In the year 2013, how many criminal illegal aliens did the Obama administration release?

    SALDANA: In ’14 it was a little over 30,000.

    CRUZ: How many murderers?

    SALDANA: Uh, in that year, Sir, I can’t remember the number right now, but I know [that] we had the statistic that was said earlier — the four year period from 2010-2014, that there were 121 persons that committed crimes afterwards — but I can’t provide you the exact number.”

    CRUZ: How many rapists?

    SALDANA: Umm. I am not sure right now. I have to pull that number. I’d have to pull that number.

    CRUZ: How many drunk drivers?

    SALDANA: Same answer. I can certainly break that down for you and, in fact, I think we’re working on that right now. It’s been requested before.

    Yesterday, how many murderers with the Obama administration release?

    SALDANA: Now, Senator, I don’t know the I can’t answer [to] that question. I want the American people to know and understand our job and our mission, if I may. We don’t release people willy nilly. We release people pursuant to [holding up documents] these statutes and regulations. There are only a limited number of crimes that were are required to detain people, it is mandatory, they’re spelled out here very clearly, many of them related to laid out with drug distribution and conspiracies. With the rest of the people, as you know very well, [unclear – Zabadas?] requires us to release some — I think that’s a small percentage of the total.

    Also the immigration courts have a half a million case backlog. They have [the] proceedings they go through. They will order release, because many of these folks people challenge their bond or their detention. But in the rest, I think it is like 49% this last year. In the rest where ICE has discretion, where this statute has given us discretion, we have very well trained very well experienced law enforcement officers who look at the entire case just like a magistrate judge or a federal judge does …

    SEN. TED CRUZ: Ms. Saldana, I want to note know that your testimony here, on how many criminals ICE released in 2013, you were off by a factor of three. You said 30,000. The correct answer is 104,000. There were 68,000 criminal illegal aliens that ICE declined to begin deportation proceedings against. Despite the fact, that as Sen. Sessions observed the federal law that you are holding up there says they “shall” be deported.

    The Obama admin refused to deport them. That is 68,000. In addition to that there were are 30,000 in deportation proceedings with criminal proceedings that the Obama administration released. I would note that among those were 193 murderers with homicide convictions. 426 people with sexual assault convictions. Over 16,000 criminal illegal aliens with drunk driving convictions, released by this administration because this Administration they refuses to follow the law.

    SALDANA: Sir, those numbers, I am looking straight at them. You asked me I thought about 2014. That is 30,558. And the good news is, at least it went down from 2013, when it was 36,007.

    CRUZ: But you are omitting the 68,000 criminal illegal aliens that ICE did not begin deportation proceedings against at all. You’ve got to add both of those together, it is over 100,000.

    SALDANA: Yes, sir, that is absolutely right, all done pursuant to this statute that the Congress has outlined …

    CRUZ: Now, Ms. Saldana, you heard the testimony from the victims’ families. I’ve introduced Kate’s Law in the Senate, a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison for anyone apprehended with an illegal re-entry. Does ICE support Kate’s Law?

    SALDANA: I sure would like to look at that. I haven’t had a chance to. I’m not sure when it introduced, if it has been.

    CRUZ: It was introduced last week.

    SALDANA: Okay. I have not had a chance to. I’m sorry, Senator, but I’m certainly willing to look at any proposal along those lines and consider it and work with you if I find some objection to it.

    CRUZ: Ms. Saldana, I will note your opening statement here, you said after listening to the victims’ families that you were so sorry for their losses, and yet the Obama Administration keeps doing it. When I asked you how many murderers were released yesterday, you don’t know. There is a reason the American people are upset. If President Obama had the courage of his convictions, he would come and look in the eyes of these men and women who’ve lost their sons, their daughters, their mothers, their sisters, their brothers, and the Administration would stop releasing murderers and rapists. It is within your power to follow federal law, and this Administration refuses to do so and that is altogether unacceptable. Thank you.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  14. The government does not have the ability or desire to pick and choose who should be deported per these complex rules, so we have anarchy. These feds are the same people who approved Mohammed Atta and his cohorts’ visas six months after they killed 3000 Americans!

    We need a moratorium. I am really at the point where we need to shut down immigration, legal and illegal, almost totally. I look around at every workplace, and it’s like 25-30% immigrants. Is that fair to Americans, who are suffering under the economic stagnation enforced by our ruling class?

    Yes, it keeps demand up for homes and cars and such, but the wages lost outweighs that benefit. I just don’t believe we owe middle class Russians or Ugandans a comfy life in the US right now.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  15. DRJ, thank you for correcting the text. I read the home page text first and was totally confused. Cruz seemed to be a very mixed up guy. But once I heard him say “in 2013″, everything feel into place. And the source of the confusion was obviously the administration lacky.

    I hope your version is placed on the home page. What’s there now is a mess.

    bobathome (d0d4f6)

  16. Make that “fell into place” …

    bobathome (d0d4f6)

  17. Patricia, it’s called free trade, and it’s the original and most fundamental principle of political liberalism (which in the USA is now called conservatism). It’s not about boosting demand, it’s about championing the general interest of the public as consumers over the special interests of the producers of any specific good or service. Protectionism is both morally wrong and economically stupid, and the only reason politicians are drawn to it is that those who benefit from it have a stronger voice than those who lose, because the former are concentrated and the latter diffuse. And there’s no difference in this regard between workers and steel producers. If it’s wrong to protect steel plants with tarriffs then it’s wrong to protect wages with restrictions on hiring foreigners.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  18. This administration’s treason and perfidy know no bounds.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/21/obamas-ice-director-no-immigration-enforcement-until-amnesty-is-passed/

    Vitter: “This has been going on for years and you still are not prepared to say that there is ever going to be any negative consequence to those [sanctuary] jurisdictions. When is that going to change?”

    Saldaña: “I presume when you all address comprehensive immigration reform; perhaps it can be addressed there.”

    Vitter described Saldaña’s answer as “ridiculous” and kept pressing: “And absent Congress passing that [Senate immigration] bill, that you and the Obama Administration prefer, you don’t think right now we can stop sanctuary cities from flaunting federal law? You don’t think right now there can be any negative consequences when they do not properly cooperate under existing federal law with immigration enforcement?”

    Saldaña gave a muddled reply: “That’s what I understand that all of you are working on.”

    During the shutdown Obama deployed armed goons to close public spaces that are never staffed, or to shut down facilities that are run entirely by private parties, when the government isn’t shutdown just to inflict punishment on Americans until the GOP gave him what he wanted.

    Now Obama is vowing to unleash murderers and sexual predators on the public until the GOP gives him what he wants on immigration.

    Steve57 (7aa1f2)

  19. I’d be very supportive of either a Walker/Fiorina or Cruz/Fiorina ticket.

    But I’ll need to learn more about Walker’s unusual hunger for hot ham and rolls and would like an explanation of Cruz’s unbecoming embrace of the idiot Trump.

    Colonel Haiku (73c0b6)

  20. DRJ,

    Do you have a link to the full transcript. I looked at CSpan from the actual hearing and it’s chopped up.

    Dana (86e864)

  21. Was Sen Cruz always like this?

    seeRpea (181740)

  22. OMG, he is so mean.
    It was all that poor little lady could do to keep from breaking out into tears.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  23. Hey Dana,

    My comment is based on listening and preparing my own transcription, but I did it quickly and there are mistakes in my version, too. Not as many, though, and not as material.

    Rush Limbaugh has Cruz’s and Saldana’s transcript included with Limbaugh’s commentary, and The Blaze focuses on the 2013-2014 discrepancy that makes the RealclearPolitics’ transcript so confusing.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  24. Free Trade in goods and services can advance a nation’s interest, and prosperity.
    Free Trade in People (the Open Borders/Libertarian argument) cannot, and could be considered a form of “trafficking”.
    Whatever it is, it is detrimental to the sovereignty, and continued existence, of a nation.
    If you don’t have borders, you don’t have a nation.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  25. Both The Blaze and Rush have broken up transcripts. I think for the sake of accuracy, I will take down the Real Clear Politics (incorrect) transcript and simply leave the clear video. I will make a note of this in the post.

    Dana (86e864)

  26. If you don’t have borders, you don’t have a nation.

    Nobody said anything about not having borders. But for thousands of years, until the 20th century, every nation in the world managed to be a nation without controlling who came over its borders. But in any case I’m not even talking about not controlling the border; we clearly need to do that, because there are very dangerous people who want to come here to do us harm, and the door is lying wide open for them. All I’m saying is that border control is not an excuse to prop up wages by limiting legitimate immigration. That is every bit a violation of free trade as propping up steel prices by limiting imports.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  27. and would like an explanation of Cruz’s unbecoming embrace of the idiot Trump.

    Why do you think he has not disavowed him yet? And, do you think it’s hurting Cruz in the short-run, but could help him in the long-run as far as gaining Trump supporters?

    Dana (86e864)

  28. until the 20th century, every nation in the world managed to be a nation without controlling who came over its borders

    Milhouse has attained Peak Idiocy!

    askeptic (efcf22)

  29. until the 20th century, every nation in the world managed to be a nation without controlling who came over its borders

    Milhouse has attained Peak Idiocy!

    You’re the only idiot here. What I wrote is the simple truth, as any fule kno. Oh, and in case anyone accuses me of taking it personal, here’s the evidence of who did that.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  30. Cruz has said repeatedly he won’t attack Republicans, only their positions. This isn’t anything new. He refused to attack McCain when McCain called Cruz, Paul and Amash wacko birds. McCain ultimately apologized.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  31. Which country had immigration restrictions, or even anybody to enforce such restrictions, until about the turn of the last century? The USA certainly didn’t. All borders were wide open and anyone was free to cross them. Ships from Europe pulled up directly to city piers and passengers walked off and into the city. Anyone who felt like coming in from Canada or Mexico was welcome to do so. Was the USA not a nation then?!

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  32. McCain ultimately apologized.

    Funny, I don’t see an apology to Amash there. Is it because he’s not a senator?

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  33. well it does seem a pattern on declining empires, the emigration from commonwealth countries into the UK, which Enoch Powell was very prescient about in ’67, also the emigration from former French colonies, and most recently Italy,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  34. Europe is the operative word. About 11 million compared to ~250,000 from Asia. Canada around 850,000 versus around 100,000 from Mexico and south of there. There were no immigration quotas (for Europeans and Canadians) but there were still border controls. Smallpox would keep the whole ship in New York harbor or sent back home, for example. And the passengers were documented in the ships’ manifest which the captains turned over to the port authorities — there were strict laws against human trafficking even then.

    nk (dbc370)

  35. This was in the last third of the 19th century.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. Re: 26… Nobody said anything about not having borders

    Bullogna… askeptic did in #24.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  37. Hahahahahahahah

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  38. Re: 26…

    Nobody said anything about not having borders.

    Bullogna… askeptic did in #24.

    Are you having your little joke, or what? #26 was a reply to #24, which is where askeptic raised the red herring of abolishing borders.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  39. Cruz is quite correct that the word “shall” removes prosecutorial discretion in those cases, so the Administration is clearly violating the law, and willfully so. I don’t support “mandatory minimum sentences” in any case, the problem isn’t judicial discretion but bad judges. It’s a difficult problem, but simply eliminating discretion does nothing to address it, and is often likely to work against the interest of justice.

    A better law might be to eliminate any refugee claims or any hearings for those attempting re-entry illegally after being deported. There is no reason to give them even a jail supper once identified, back they go. Prison terms for further offenses, again without any ICE hearings.

    Estragon (ada867)

  40. Cruz has said repeatedly he won’t attack Republicans, only their positions. This isn’t anything new. He refused to attack McCain when McCain called Cruz, Paul and Amash wacko birds. McCain ultimately apologized.

    While this is true, and some of us see it as Cruz sticking to his word and remaining above the fray and focusing instead on the more critical issues, I asked the question of Col. Haiku at #27 because I recognize a lot of people see Cruz as well, embracing an idiot like Trump. I want to know what those voters think Cruz should do and how they believe it will benefit him (and if it will). Does not disavowing Trump hurt Cruz? (I hate that Trump is even part of the discussion, but it’s not like he’s not polling low and not going to make the top-tier in the debates. This in spite of his cheap shot at John McCain.)

    Dana (86e864)

  41. 26. But for thousands of years, until the 20th century, every nation in the world managed to be a nation without controlling who came over its borders…

    Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/22/2015 @ 4:14 pm

    Yes, that’s why there’s no Hadrian’s Wall in what became the UK.

    Steve57 (7aa1f2)

  42. So… somebody did mention not having borders. You tend to give New Yorkers a black eye, Milhouse. I urge you to follow your personal health practitioner’s recommendation and have the surgical procedure to remove the stick that’s been lodged in your lower digestive tract for the last several years.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  43. #40 should be: it’s not like he’s polling low and won’t be in the top-tier of the debates…

    Dana (86e864)

  44. Yes, of course. Controlling who can cross borders is a twentieth century phenom. Every nation in the world did without them until then.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakoku

    Sakoku (鎖国?, “locked country”) was the foreign relations policy of Japan under which no foreigner could enter nor could any Japanese leave the country on penalty of death. The policy was enacted by the Tokugawa shogunate under Tokugawa Iemitsu through a number of edicts and policies from 1633–39 and remained in effect until 1853 with the arrival of the Black Ships of Commodore Matthew Perry and the forcible opening of Japan to Western trade. It was still illegal to leave Japan until the Meiji Restoration (1868)…

    Yup. Controlling who could cross your borders. Completely unprecedented until the last century.

    Steve57 (7aa1f2)

  45. #40… sorry, Dana, I hadn’t seen that question… I think there may be a perception among some that Trump hasn’t worn out his welcome (could obviously be due to his polling numbers). I think Trump is a Trojan Horse of sorts and I ask if he really was trying to harm viable candidates, what would he be doing differently? I’ve read his “candidacy” is like a comments section running for POTUS.

    Rick Perry has it right… Trump is a “barking carnival act… a toxic mix…”.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  46. And I still think Cruz is very impressive… The Trump thing did trouble me though.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  47. And the media is complicit, they allow it to suck all the oxygen out of the room and deflecting exposure of Clinton’s pathetic empty pantsuit and Sanders’s loony leftwing nonsense.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  48. Controlling people crossing borders. Nobody ever thought of it until the 20th century.

    http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Aliens_Act_1793

    The Aliens Act 1793 (33 Geo. III c. 4) was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain regulating immigration into the country. The Act, inspired by a sharp increase in refugees from the French Revolution seeking asylum in Great Britain, required that aliens be recorded upon arrival and to register with the local justice of the peace.[1] It further held that violators of the act could be held without bail or mainprise, either to be deported or as punishment, a provision that caused critics to decry it as a suspension of habeas corpus; indeed, its sponsor in Parliament had earlier called it “a bill for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, as far as it should relate to the persons of foreigners.”[2]

    Steve57 (7aa1f2)

  49. yes, there has been some slippage,

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

    Perry isn’t really going anywhere,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  50. Col.,

    Does all the attention given Trump by fellow candidates denouncing him, hurt Trump or hurt the candidates in that it’s drawing attention away from them and substantive issues? Further, does it give the left just what they want?

    Dana (86e864)

  51. 31. Which country had immigration restrictions, or even anybody to enforce such restrictions, until about the turn of the last century? The USA certainly didn’t…

    Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/22/2015 @ 5:18 pm

    Of course the USA didn’t have anything of the sort until about the turn of the 20th century. Perish the thought!

    http://www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp

    The Alien and Sedition Acts

    No protesting the government? No immigrants allowed in? No freedom of the press. Lawmakers jailed? Is this the story of the Soviet Union during the Cold War?

    No. It describes the United States in 1798 after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

    …Clearly, the Federalists saw foreigners as a deep threat to American security. As one Federalist in Congress declared, there was no need to “invite hordes of Wild Irishmen, nor the turbulent and disorderly of all the world, to come here with a basic view to distract our tranquillity.” Not coincidentally, non-English ethnic groups had been among the core supporters of the Democratic-Republicans in 1796.

    Steve57 (7aa1f2)

  52. I don’t know, Dana… make it stop! Just half-kidding. I think there may be frustration that so much attention is given to Trump. He’s given kudos for “speaking his mind”, but you can see that on almost any street corner in urban centers… in the guise of the derelict holding his wine in a paper bag sharing his opinions on any topic that runs thru his wet brain.

    Trump is reckless, unserious and, as some have said, we’re already suffering thru the second term of a COTUS, why elect another clown.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  53. re #31: sorry Milhouse but you are wrong,wrong,wrong. Just in the USA, there were States that had their own immigration laws. On the federal level, there were immigration laws based on color and on job occupation. And you never heard of the ‘Yellow Peril’? On the flip side, China and Japan had immigration laws. So did Russia. Are you claiming that were no immigration laws banning Jews in any country in Europe?

    seeRpea (65ab7f)

  54. Bram Stoker’s Dracula was an allegory about foreigners invading England and ravishing its frail womanhood. By its writing, London had a considerable slum population, around 100,000, composed of the Dark Races such as Greeks, Italians, Poles and other “wogs” and “dagos”.

    nk (dbc370)

  55. Which country had immigration restrictions, or even anybody to enforce such restrictions, until about the turn of the last century? The USA certainly didn’t.

    Which calls to mind the dynamics — and importance — of demographics trumping politics and politicians. The dynamics — and importance — of people voting not at the ballot box, but with their feet and the moving van.

    Entire places, from neighborhoods to cities, from nations to continents, have been made or unmade by that phenomenon.

    What disgusts me are idiots like Obama who pretend that demographics don’t count but who ultimately, yes, vote with their feet and the moving van.

    When the big phony in the White House retires (hopefully sooner — much sooner — rather than later), I’d love to see him retire to, say, the city of Detroit instead of a placid location in Hawaii. Or, better yet, I’d prefer he retire to a border town in Mexico instead of, say, the type of cushy digs in Manhattan where the party faithful like Bill and Hillary tend to end up in.

    Mark (69948d)

  56. Sweet Jesus, nk… a Greek vampire? who in their right mind would want a Dracula sneaking up from behind?!?!?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  57. Further, does it give the left just what they want?

    That’s a good question. I think there’s a lot of squish-squish among various Republicans (hello, Lindsay Graham!), besotted by years of political correctness, that is making some of them cringe and become resentful towards Trump, certainly if their ire is based on his being very vocal about illegal immigration.

    I imagine liberals/Democrats right now are enjoying (and delighting in) all the in-fighting amongst Republicans, since I would admit to feeling that exact same way if the shoe were on the other foot.

    However, sometimes certain issues or controversies make for odd bedfellows, as I also admit to having been sympathetic with the go-to-hell attitude of the socialists or ultra-liberals of Greece when they were dealing with the banksters and the power-hungry EU.

    Mark (69948d)

  58. well the fact that even a Romanian count, would become so prominent in Victoria society, seems a little unusual, but there were sorts of blood sucking ghouls from many cultures, the Russia voordalak for instance,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  59. There had been “The Vampyre” by Caroline Lamb (falsely attributed to Byron), starring Lord Ruthven a Scottish(?) vampire, 80 years earlier.

    nk (dbc370)

  60. Probably fear of a new Jacobite insurgence taking advantage of the instability of the Hanovers at the time. (I’m guessing wildly.) 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  61. Stoker wrote Dracula at a castle near Cruden Bay. You can see the castle on the bay while you play Cruden Bay Golf Club. A must play while in Scotland. Back to back blind par threes that are priceless and the 5th is an original Tom Morris design.

    mg (31009b)

  62. that was during the regency period, and weren’t they mostly anticatholic like peterloo,

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-admin-plans-more-executive-action-on-immigration/

    narciso (ee1f88)

  63. Poor Milhouse. He has no family, no knowledge of the hardships most of our grand parents (or great grandparents, etc.) had to face to be allowed to enter the U. S.

    On my mother’s side, my Grandfather had to find a sponsor before the U. S. would allow him to enter. He worked his way out of that debt, and eventually got to California. My Grandmother and Mother managed to forge some papers and escaped from the Ukraine just before the Soviet genocide, and they were able to join my Grandfather. Ellis Island has all their records. They couldn’t have entered the U. S. if their sponsors and paperwork weren’t in order.

    On my Father’s side, my Great Grandfather sailed from Glascow in 1842 as an infant, and managed to fight with the Michigan Volunteers in the Civil War to free the slaves. He mustered out as a Sargent in 1865. Ellis Island didn’t exist at that time because it didn’t have to. Just getting to the U. S. was sufficiently life-threatening that immigrants were self-selected and almost certainly the type of individual any country would want. They paid serious money to get here, and they weren’t looking for handouts.

    Today, as Milhouse no doubt knows, travel across the Atlantic is a matter of hours, and the prospect of survival is higher than driving a similar distance in a car. Walking across the Rio Grande, or scaling a fence, is even less of a bother and probably safer, except for the drug- and jihadi smugglers. Welfare beckons those who find work unpleasant in their native lands. And lacking any ability to function using English as the spoken language is no longer an impediment, as vast resources are devoted by our “compassionate” urban centers to accomodate those who don’t wish to assimilate, preferring to suck on the teat satsified that they can navigate the paperwork using only their native language.

    This invasion by foreignors is not about free trade or selective advantage or anything else in Econ 101. It is an invasion, plain and simple.

    With all this bandwidth spent on Milhouse, I’m starting to miss Sammy.

    bobathome (d0d4f6)

  64. hey, that is right. Where is Sammy?

    seeRpea (65ab7f)

  65. Patterico banned him a few months back.

    nk (dbc370)

  66. he’s been on some Althouse threads, recently,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  67. And lacking any ability to function using English as the spoken language is no longer an impediment, as vast resources are devoted by our “compassionate” urban centers to accomodate those who don’t wish to assimilate

    The following in tandem with the persistent urban-liberal politics/ideology of far too many immigrants from south of the border is a recipe for, if not disaster, than certainly for interminable mediocrity, a sense that the US’s future is one that will reflect a perennial socio-economic mess like a Mexico with a bit of Yankee flavor.

    And where will the various do-gooder “progressives,” similar to Barack and Michelle — and the type of decisions they’ve make for their 2 children, such as the schools they’ve enrolled them in, first in Chicago and more recently in DC — be in the future?

    Associated Press, December 2013: As Hispanics surpass white Californians in population next year, the state becomes a potential model for the rest of the country, which is going through a slower but similar demographic shift. But when it comes to how California is educating students of color, many say the state serves as a model of what not to do.

    In California, 52 percent of the state’s 6 million school children are Hispanic, just 26 percent are white… The consequence is obvious: lower achievement.

    Just 33 percent of Hispanic students are proficient in reading in third grade, compared with 64 percent of white students. By high school, one in four Hispanic 10th graders in California cannot pass the high school math exit exam, compared with 1 out of 10 white students.

    And while overall test scores across the state have gone up in the past decade, the achievement gap hasn’t changed… Nationally, an achievement gap is also showing up as Latino enrollment has soared from one out of 20 U.S. students in 1970 to nearly one out of four, and white students account for just 52 percent of U.S. first graders.

    “We’re falling behind,” said Antioch University Los Angeles provost Luis Pedraja. “Ultimately we will face a crisis where a majority of the U.S. population will be economically disadvantaged, which will reduce their spending power and contribution to taxes and Social Security, impacting all segments of society and our country’s economic health.”

    Mark (69948d)

  68. Sammy got banned?! must have been in some of the threads i never followed.

    seeRpea (65ab7f)

  69. I can’t remember exactly over what, either. Something to do with whether Janet Yellen wears pink chiffon or blue satin when she prints more money for Goldman Sachs, I think.

    nk (dbc370)

  70. re #69: Sammy got banned for thinking that dress was blue?

    seeRpea (65ab7f)

  71. Heh! Figuratively. But more like as though he insisted that it was a pair of pants.

    nk (dbc370)

  72. LOL. I was wondering what happened to Sammy but assumed he grew tired of posting here. I don’t know why he would get banned since I don’t ever recall him violating TOS rules, certainly compared with flat-out trolls or flamebaiters like the person who recently changed both his gender and ethnicity.

    Mark (69948d)

  73. I believe Sammy was moderated, not banned, but it may have felt the same to him because his comments wouldn’t appear immediately.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  74. I think you’re right, DRJ.

    Did you know that Skype spies on you? And then gossips? It tells people when you’re online and where you are (at least your time zone).

    nk (dbc370)

  75. 73. DRJ (1dff03) — 7/23/2015 @ 6:58 am

    I believe Sammy was moderated, not banned, but it may have felt the same to him because his comments wouldn’t appear immediately.

    I was actually sort of banned, for agreeing (or seeming to agree, because I agreed only in part) with someone Patterico was having a dispute with. The issue was whether or not, when the Federal Reserve Board engaged in “quantitative easing,” it amounted to buying Federal bonds itself with the banks being just used as a “pass through”

    Patterico thought it was only the equivalent of printing money but it was not purchasing federal debt.

    I agreed it was basically the same thing and said the two of them were arguing over nothing.

    Patterico – to whom economic theory is more important than may appear at first – linked me with this other fellow and banned us both until and unless we either retracted or brought proof from some site that the Federal Reserve Board’s buying of bonds from banks was cited by someone as being a “pass through.

    I wrote something, both clarifying what I meant (which could be considered a retraction) and citing a source where indeed this was described as a pass through – but I wasn’t satusfied with it. Inparticular I didn’t like the source – it was merely a comment somewhere – and abandoned the project for a few days and more. And then it didn’t look like there was a proper place to post it. And I also had a little computer problem in the middle.

    Finally, after many weeks I posted what I had already written, but Patterico didn’t notice, so I sent him an e-mail, and then I went from being banned to merely being moderated.

    But the moderation isn’t timely or generous. If it was possible for moderated copmments to appear at the end, it would be better, but they appear in their proper chronological place, only much later.

    I think I was already being moderated when this started (but it was implemented imperfectly) – and I am not sure why that started around January 30. Then the moderation became 100% disapproval.

    I don’t think anybody is usually even looking at what I write to approve it.

    Sammy Finkelman (88f52d)

  76. I thought of that, after DRJ said you were in moderation, Sammy. You’ve seen how busy Patterico has been in the last few months. He doesn’t have time to post so it figures that doesn’t have time to approve comments either. How are you, anyway?

    nk (dbc370)

  77. so it would Sammy is “in the clear” now.
    Hi Sammy.

    seeRpea (65ab7f)

  78. Patterico doesn’t ban people because of their opinions, Sammy. He moderated you, as you ultimately acknowledge in your comment. Moderation means you can see your comment but others can’t until it’s released from moderation.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  79. I know this because I’m the one who asked him to moderate you.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  80. @nk How are you, anyway?

    I am all right. There is various kinds of bad news and good news and minor problems.

    The most important bad news is that the president of my synagogue passed away after about half a year or so from cancer. This happened Friday a week ago.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  81. Say. Have you noticed Sammy Finkelman hasn’t been commenting lately.
    Sure miss his wandering chasing butterflies style of indirection and off point analysis.

    /someone had to say it

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  82. Does anyone find it apalling that Ted Cruz (and the right) use this terrible tragedy to push an agenda? Where is all the huffing and puffing that we usually express when the left pushes gun control when school shootings happen etc?

    Gil (4e1585)

  83. Gil Gun control is illegal. Or maybe I should put it as Government gun confiscation is illegal.

    The other one , border security, is one of the prime enumerated powers of government. They’re supposed to do that, without the nudging and arm twisting.

    You see the difference?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  84. 80.Does anyone find it apalling that Ted Cruz (and the right) use this terrible tragedy to push an agenda?

    Exactly what “agenda” are we pushing? Sovereign borders? Obeying our laws? Protecting our citizens from being murdered by illegals? Is that what a new leftist now calls an “agenda”? And for years I thought that was just the normal job of government and law enforcement. Who knew all along protecting our country and its citizens was an agenda?

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  85. That was a lesson in weenie-speak from Gil, Hoagie. I am constantly surprised that I am surprised at the level to which they take doubletalk.

    nk (dbc370)

  86. Gil… what’s this “we”, Sparky? You got a gerbil in your pocket?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  87. Gil, the trouble with leftists using tragedies to push gun control is that a) they lie about their intentions and b) they want to suppress a Constitutional right.

    Illegal immigrants have no Constitutional right to be here. They have rights, of course, you can’t make laws saying it’s ok to murder or enslave them, but they have no right to be present here at all.

    Gabriel Hanna (e354b0)

  88. Gil, to make it easier to see, replace “gun crime” with “9/11″ and “gun control” with “restrictions on the civil rights of American Muslims”. For example, putting “common-sense restrictions” on what sect of Islam they can join, the number of times they can to a mosque, maybe a mandatory waiting period on conversion to Islam. They can have a permit to proselytize but in some jurisdictions they might need to take some classes first, or have law enforcement approve the permit.

    That’s why it’s different from enforcing the immigration laws.

    Gabriel Hanna (e354b0)

  89. I don’t think anybody is usually even looking at what I write to approve it.

    Sammy, while I have administrative privileges, I don’t know how to release your comments. I feel badly about that, but when Patterico offered to show me how, I was busy trying to master embedding tweets.

    Dana (86e864)

  90. Gil, the trouble with leftists using tragedies to push gun control is that a) they lie about their intentions and b) they want to suppress a Constitutional right.

    Illegal immigrants have no Constitutional right to be here. They have rights, of course, you can’t make laws saying it’s ok to murder or enslave them, but they have no right to be present here at all.

    In reverse order, I agree they have no Constitutional right to be here and they are breaking the law.

    And I agree that some on the left will lie, and that they are subverting the constitution in the case of gun control but if thats the objection then it should be stated that way. Words mean things right? Were all originalists here when it comes to the consitution. Well “politicizing a tragedy” means exactly and only: using it to advance your political views. I would argue that most people (talk radio, bloggers, fox news hosts) mean it the way it is plainly understood.

    Remember all the outrage over “Dont let a good crisis go to waste”. Clearly we are seeing that in action right now.

    Gil (4e1585)

  91. Exactly what “agenda” are we pushing? Sovereign borders? Obeying our laws? Protecting our citizens from being murdered by illegals? Is that what a new leftist now calls an “agenda”

    I think any list of issues or items you are in favor of is an agenda.
    Im pretty sure thats the definition.
    I am in favor of all those things you mention, lets not stoop to the level of holding up someones corpse and saying “See!?!? Look what you did with your policy!”

    Is that too much to ask?

    Gil (4e1585)

  92. 89. …I am in favor of all those things you mention, lets not stoop to the level of holding up someones corpse and saying “See!?!? Look what you did with your policy!”

    Is that too much to ask?
    Gil (4e1585) — 7/23/2015 @ 10:12 pm

    Can you refer us to your comments criticizing President Obama doing exactly that after the Newtown, CT school and Charleston, S.C church shootings?

    To pick just two.

    Also there’s more than a tad bit of difference between Cruz’s agenda, which is that we should enforce current laws which exist to protect life, and Obama’s agenda, which is that he won’t enforce the laws on the books and protect life until Congress bends to his will and gives him new laws he likes better.

    Steve57 (7aa1f2)

  93. Here’s the difference,
    I will use the phrase “Push the agenda” when the point being raised is not pertinent. For example, arguing for more gun laws if the fact of the matter is that a perpetrator would not have had a gun if current laws were followed is not a valid argument. Or if there is data that shows stricter gun laws would actually result in an increase in crime overall.

    The issue of crime committed by people who should not be here if the laws were enforced is exactly pertinent.

    When reality slaps one in the face, such as a murder by an illegal immigrant, it is good to learn the obvious lesson.
    When reality slaps one in the face, it is not appropriate to use the occasion to make a point, i.e., “push an agenda”, that does not logically follow from the situation.

    But I agree with you that the phrase “push an agenda” is a little ambiguous and may have different connotations for different people.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  94. How dare you tell the first Kenyan-Indonesian President that a girl was killed because he refused to enforce a law intended to keep her from being killed! You agenda-pushers!

    nk (dbc370)

  95. To President Obama on the eve of his visit to Kenya, I’ll use the native tongue Swahili to say huenda tembo kukaa juu yake na flatten punda wake.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  96. Kama Michelle hakuweza kufanya hivyo …

    nk (dbc370)

  97. pamoja na punda kubwa kama shoka kushughulikia

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  98. Gil isn’t even a good troll. He has no ability to use logic at its basest form in his arguments, sticking with fallacies for all his scoreboard points.

    John Hitchcock (506226)

  99. Is that too much to ask?

    In the context of the way the contemptible, manipulative leftwing loon in the White House (and his minions) has exploited so many news events, including various tragedies and controversies, since 2009? Hell, yes, that’s way too much to ask.

    Mark (69948d)

  100. @Gil:Well “politicizing a tragedy” means exactly and only: using it to advance your political views.

    Like FDR advocating war with Japan after Pearl Harbor?

    There’s a difference between advocating an action in response to a tragedy, and advocating irrelevant actions using the tragedy as an excuse, and it is that which is usually meant by “politicizing a tragedy”.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  101. @Gil: Ted Cruz is saying, “if the laws we currently have in place were being enforced this tragedy would not have happened, so let us enforce these laws.”

    Gun-grabbers, after a gun crime, demand new laws that they have always wanted, which are largely unpopular otherwise, which they cannot show would have had any effect at all. And sometimes they go further and demand “civility” from or assign blame to completely innocent persons who had nothing whatever to do with it, like talk radio after Oklahoma or Sarah Palin after Gabby Giffords.

    As I think William Buckley once said, a man who pushes an old lady in front of a speeding bus, and a man who pushes an old lady out from in front of a speeding bus, are the same in that they have both pushed an old lady, but their actions are not morally equivalent.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  102. 99. …There’s a difference between advocating an action in response to a tragedy, and advocating irrelevant actions using the tragedy as an excuse, and it is that which is usually meant by “politicizing a tragedy”.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 7/24/2015 @ 2:00 pm

    Per Gil’s “reasoning” if someone shoots at the police during a #BlackLivesMatter protest, the police would be politicizing the event by shooting back.

    Hopefully the legal system wouldn’t politicize things further by prosecuting the perp, and heaven forbid the courts weigh in and politicize the matter by sending the perp to prison.

    Steve57 (7aa1f2)

  103. A quick illustration of politicizing a criminal act.

    A. After the Steinle murder a SF city councilwoman was videoed saying the issue was not illegal aliens but really the issue was gun control.

    The criminal illegal alien was released in defiance of a federal detainer and killed an innocent bystander using a gun stolen from a federal law enforcement officer’s car.

    Would any amount of gun control laws have prevented that? Impossible. Even in countries where private ownership of guns is entirely illegal criminals can still get their hands on military and police weapons through theft or bribery. The illegal alien already broke several laws pertaining to gun possession before the murder. Making life harder for people who didn’t break the law and didn’t commit the murder wouldn’t change a thing.

    B. After the Steinle murder a US Senator said the USG must enforce immigration law and secure the border, and penalize state and local jurisdictions that obstruct federal immigration law enforcement.

    The criminal illegal alien was released in defiance of a federal detainer and killed an innocent bystander using a gun stolen from a federal law enforcement officer’s car.

    Would enforcing immigration law, securing the border, and forcing cities like San Francisco to comply with immigration law, in this case keeping the illegal alien in custody until ICE picked him up for deportation have prevented the murder?

    Entirely possible. If the murderer had remained in jail, or had been sent back to Mexico, odds are the murder never would have happened.

    Scenario A is an example of politicizing a murder. Scenario B is an example of a common sense reaction to the murder.

    Steve57 (7aa1f2)

  104. In the context of the way the contemptible, manipulative leftwing loon in the White House (and his minions) has exploited so many news events, including various tragedies and controversies, since 2009? Hell, yes, that’s way too much to ask.

    @mark I thought we were supposed to be above using the left’s tactics.

    Gil isn’t even a good troll. He has no ability to use logic at its basest form in his arguments, sticking with fallacies for all his scoreboard points.

    @John I find it ironic that you have committed the adhominem logical fallacy by claiming I have no ability to use logic. Why dont you try to demonstrate that. I think I have been abundantly clear.

    Like FDR advocating war with Japan after Pearl Harbor?

    There’s a difference between advocating an action in response to a tragedy, and advocating irrelevant actions using the tragedy as an excuse, and it is that which is usually meant by “politicizing a tragedy”.

    @Gabriel you make a good point in that we often see events driving action and we dont always complain about it. Maybe we shouldnt ever complain about it. But I think expecting analysis of what someone is advocating in order to determine if the “politicizing a tragedy” label is appropriate is inserting too much.
    I think it is more correct to stick to the actual meaning of the words, not the intentions just like so many of us expect the Supreme Court to do. Some recent examples: deciding about the exchanges “established by the state”, whether Obamacare was a tax, and considering the issue of same sex marriage.

    Gil (4e1585)

  105. they succeeded after the Colin Ferguson murder spree, for a while, and they thought they could gin up in Sandy Hook, the same hysteria that Murdoch abetted in Dunblane and Port Arthur against gun prohibition,
    this last shooter was deep into the crazy, yet they will yell squirrel again,

    narciso (ee1f88)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3965 secs.