Nice to hear Republicans echoing the argument that every budget cut is a deliberate decision to starve people. That should prove extremely helpful in the general election.
Originally posted here:
And They Want to Take Granny’s Wheelchair, Too
Ah, San Francisco : A bill being drafted by a state legislator would limit local law enforcement from holding arrestees on behalf of immigration authorities seeking to deport them. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) said he is finalizing amendments to a bill that would be the first statewide measure to counter the Secure Communities enforcement program, which requires law enforcement agencies to forward to immigration authorities the fingerprints of all arrestees booked into local jails. If those authorities identify a candidate for deportation, they can issue a detainer, which asks the agency to hold them beyond the time when they would normally be released so immigration agents can take custody. The program has come under fire because many of those ensnared have never been convicted of crimes or are low-level offenders. When states like California or Arizona have tried to pass legislation that helps the federal government enforce federal immigration law, the immigrants’ rights advocates always tell us those law are illegal — because federal law is supreme in the area of immigration. So, local laws can’t touch on immigration (so the argument goes) because that steps on federal toes. (I have never understood this argument, because helping the feds enforce the law can’t be seen as stepping on their toes . . . can it??) Where is the “federal preemption” crowd here? This law explicitly seeks to interfere with federal programs designed to catch people in custody who have violated our immigration laws. Wouldn’t that . . . step on federal toes? What needs to be remembered is that people who are subject to deportation have already violated the law . What’s more, if they have been arrested, they are on average more likely to be among the least desirable among those who have violated our immigration laws. A “Deport the Criminals First” policy uses our limited resources in the manner that best protects public safety, by concentrating on people who have (by and large) committed crimes other than violating immigration laws. Because criminals are more dangerous than non-criminals, this policy saves lives. And even if it turns out that they didn’t commit other crimes, they still violated immigration laws anyway, and we have them in custody . Ammiano’s plan is an open borders plan: EVERYONE is welcome, including the diseased, the immoral, and the criminal. Our country is a country of immigrants, but we have the right to control which immigrants are allowed to enter, to keep the country healthy and safe. Orderly immigration laws seek to import immigrants who are not criminals or afflicted with communicable diseases. A policy of simply throwing open the borders removes these checks, which has the effect of welcoming people with TB and serious criminal histories. I don’t see why our country needs to be burdened with a crop of undesirables (criminals) when we have insufficient resources to take care of the people we already have. The U.S. is fishing for illegals. We can’t catch every fish in the sea, but we can catch some. Ammiano wants to take the fish that are already in the net and throw them back out to sea. That only makes sense if you think fishing is morally wrong. Me, I don’t think it is. And I don’t think deporting criminal illegals is wrong either. But then, I don’t live in San Francisco.
Read the original here:
San Francisco Based State Legislator Fights “Deport the Criminals First” Policy
News that was broken yesterday — the same day that we learned it likely doesn’t matter. A federal judge yesterday ordered a halt to the printing of Virginia ballots. You can view the order here . Essentially, the judge says it is likely he is going to strike down the residency requirement for petition circulators, as an unconstitutional limitation on free speech. This argument makes sense to me. However, yesterday’s results in New Hampshire reinforce that it doesn’t really matter. Virginia’s rule, in practice, meant that a candidate cannot get on the ballot in Virginia unless the candidate is well funded and well organized. Perhaps Virginia can’t constitutionally mandate the rule, but candidates still need to be well funded and well organized to win. So maybe the likely losers are going to be an option in Virginia. But as a practical matter, they are still the likely losers. P.S. It is appalling that we can’t do better than a guy who gave birth to Romneycare. Appalling. He’s better than the guy who gave birth to ObamaCare. At least he would appoint better judges. But still. The fact that the Tea Party is stuck with Romney is a good indication that nobody, from either side, is going to fix the structural debt problems facing the country. There. Now that I have said something to upset everyone, I guess I can hit “publish.”
Link:
Virginia Ballot Likely to Include Gingrich, Perry, Huntsman, and Santorum
Haley Barbour sounds kind of like Waylon Jennings narrating a Dukes of Hazzard episode in this ad warning of “permanent malaise” if there is a second Obama term. Barbour seems particularly wary of regulations on salt, but the rest seems to be the basic blueprint of the argument we can expect to see unfurled over the next year.
You should be able to listen in via here : the program is Cam & Co., which starts at 9 PM EST and goes on until midnight. I should be on some time after 10 PM. Meanwhile: Attorney General Eric Holder is very upset : In his most forceful criticism of Republicans during his time as attorney general, Holder said that he had said little so far about the gun-smuggling probe because the Justice Department inspector general is investigating it but that he could not sit idly by while a Republican congressman suggested that law enforcement and government employees be considered accessories to murder. Actually, ‘sitting idly by’ would be a bit of an improvement there, Mister Attorney General. For that matter, ‘sitting idly by’ is more or less the basic defense that Holder is trying to make in the first place: to wit, that the Attorney General had not lied when he falsely claimed that he was unaware of Operation Fast & Furious* before April of 2011 or so. Apparently, Holder had somehow missed the import of multiple memos from July 2010 that spelled out that the operation involved straw purchasers who were “ responsible for the purchase of 1500 firearms that were then supplied to Mexican drug trafficking cartels ;” it’s an interesting thing to see a Cabinet official attempt to make the argument that he’s too intellectually incurious to be guilty of perjury, but I guess that you have to play the hand that you’re dealt. Moe Lane ( crosspost ) *Short version: we allowed guns to be sold to Mexican narco-terrorist groups. We lost track of the guns. The guns ended up being used to shoot a lot of Mexican nationals – much to the fury of the Mexican government, who was as much out of the loop as anybody else.
See the original post:
I’ll be on NRA News tonight regarding Operation Fast & Furious.
