Illegal Immigration is THE Issue

Why has immigration become THE issue?  I am not certain, but one reason might be that the native born, and especially white people feel under assault.  There is certainly some evidence here:

The U.S. death rate has been falling for decades, but researchers have detected one group in which the rates have been steadily ticking up - middle-aged white people. Suicides and deaths from drug overdose and alcohol abuse are being blamed.

The scientists in the article tried to blame the increase on increased use of painkillers, which even if proved, is more like pointing to a symptom, not the disease.  In my view, the economy has not been getting worse for those people in this group (middle-aged white people without college degrees.)  People under strain have always intuitively turned against more immigration in times of stress.  It makes sense to think that if our economy doesn't have work for the native-born, then how can there be work for new arrivals from other lands.  And basic economics tells us that an increased supply of labor will lead to lower wages.  You can argue whether, in a global economy that increased supply couldn't be tapped anywhere.  But to the person struggling, seeing immigrants, and especially illegal ones, doing below minimum-wage work that benefits business, but not them, it has got to be depressing.

For my part, immigration issue has become a test of whether the nation is willing to preserve the rule of law and the our constitutional heritage.  The failure to deal with the problem is subverting our institutions.  Obama, in typical Caudillo-fashion is looking to bypass the courts and Congress on immigration.

Further, there is good evidence that the intent of the left is to flood our electoral system with immigrants, beyond our ability to assimilate them, who lack our common language and cultural traditions of respect for liberty, freedom and markets to thereby fundamentally transform America.

I am only voting for those who will stand up to this nonsense.  Right now that looks to be Messrs. Trump and Cruz.

Rule of Law and Medical Marijuana

The U-T reported this morning on San Diego city government's failure to shut down illegal medical marijuana shops.  To be clear, there are currently no legal medical marijuana shops in the city.  

 The case is instructive on the results of the failure of the rule of law, including the failure to pass implementing laws that unwelcome, but legal activity to proceed.  Councilmember Ed Harris wants a process that shines the light of transparency on the efforts to close the illegal shops.

The proposal comes as the abundance of illegal dispensaries has begun adding turbulence to the already complex approval process facing applicants trying to open the city’s first legal pot shops. 

Part of that process, which began in April, is getting the blessing of neighborhood leaders who serve on community planning groups. But multiple planning groups have said frustration about illegal dispensaries in their area makes them less likely to embrace the legal dispensaries being proposed 

In both Pacific Beach, whereas many as 25 illegal dispensaries operate, and Mira Mesa, where there are roughly half a dozen, community leaders say the illegal pot shops are tainting the process of approving legal ones.

It has been almost 18 years since California passed Prop 215 which legalized medical marijuana sales and somehow we can't figure this out.  The interference of the federal government in shutting down pot dispensaries hasn't helped, after the unfortunate Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v Raich, which expanded the interstate commerce clause unnecessarily.  However, San Diego never really came to grips with how it was going to allow this unwelcome but lawful (under California law) activity.  But then, Mayor Filner made it worse, of course, by announcing that he would not enforce the zoning laws regarding the dispensaries, and wouldn't wait for the legislative process to work this out.  The result has been predictable; with the growth of illegal dispensaries to 100.  (This seems to be playing out on the southern border as the President's repeated insistence that he would grant various forms of amnesty unilaterally has provoked a humanitarian crisis.)

I can only hope that we can speed the process of allowing the legal permitting of dispensaries, so that neighborhoods feel that they are protected by law and have a voice in where the dispensaries are located.  My concern is that the slow wheels of bureaucracy will have the same effect as the illegal tactics of Filner, only illegal dispensaries operating.  Lack of clarity in the law, failure to allow a path ahead for what should be legal activity and a failure to enforce the law have led to this mess.

Making matters worse, the California state legislature has again failed to pass a bill that would impose statewide uniformity on medical marijuana and further normalize the business.

Photo credit: "Medical-marijuana-sign" uncropped image from Laurie Avocado. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

What You Should Be Reading

• Lots of military members angry at Ferguson law enforcement over tactics and paraphernalia heavier than what they used in Afghanistan.  See all the tweets. 
• Professor Perry has a host of great links on the Ferguson MO issue.  My favorite is from Nick Gillespie: Let’s Make Cops Wear Cameras – “Everyone behaves better when they’re on video.”  The situation Ferguson also has to do with the rule of law.
• KTCat continues to skewer the administration over its failure to deal with ISIS.

High Speed Choo-Choo to be De-Railed?

The U-T is reporting that the California High Speed rail project could come crashing down in court tomorrow.

A Sacramento County Superior Court judge is scheduled to hear arguments in a lawsuit that claims the project doesn’t comply with a statewide ballot measure approving $9.9 billion in bonds for the systems.

. . . Former Sen. Quentin Kopp, involved in planning high-speed rail since 1992, states in an expert declaration in the case that the so-called “blended” system forcing the bullet train and standard rail to share tracks from San Francisco to San Jose is not genuine high-speed rail.

Even if the lawsuit fails, it is clear that the voters were sold a pack of lies.  Dean has been covering the history.

There is no doubt that even if the state loses the lawsuit, that won't prevent them from moving forward.  It is a hallmark of this era that mere judicial rulings do not deter the government from proceeding with its intended aims.

Researching the text of the law, I came across this little gem:

"the planned passenger train service to be provided by the authority, or pursuant to its authority, will not require operating subsidy." This must be certified prior to expending funds.  I don't know if it is part of the lawsuit, but I wouldn't want to be the state official who had to sign that document.

We will see what happens tomorrow.

What You Should Be Reading

Dawn Wildman exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of the so-called Common Core curriculum.

Naked D.C has a hilarious take on the Scandalabra engulfing the administration and a picture of Eric Holder in a sparkly speedo. Truly must read to put it all together.

Looming Sequestration and Defense - Obama Pressure to Violate the Law

Without taking a position on the wisdom of sequestration, I have it on good authority that it is the official policy of the Department of Defense not to plan for the eventuality; despite widespread belief that it will.  In my opinion, this is because the word has come down from the administration to ignore what is happening so that defense contractors who might vote Democrat won't change their minds.  Of course, its junior enlisted who might be hurt worst, but here is how the administration is protecting them; answer, not much.

Though military paychecks would be protected, enlisted sailors Armstrong has encountered worry about how their housing and health care benefits might be slashed. Accounts for both would likely undergo harsh cost-cutting measures under sequestration.
“Those also are important parts of the troops’ benefit and compensation packages,” she said. “So when you say that personnel accounts are going to be untouched, what we are hearing is: They may be impacted.”
Also heightening anxiety is the dearth of details from the White House and the Pentagon on how the Defense Department would make nearly $54 billion in cuts to defense spending required in 2013 alone, if sequestration is triggered.

Meanwhile, administration pressure on defense contractor not to obey the WARN act is mounting.  Red State tipped us that Lockheed-Martin will not send out layoff warnings, under pressure from the "most corrupt administration, evah."

More of that famed Obama leadership.  These cuts are the law.  The Congress hasn't passed a budget in so long that I can't recall when it last happened.  Passing a budget would be the only way to avoid the cuts; so the President's policy is to pretend they aren't happening.

Affront to the Rule of Law - Obama Hating on Illegals

The President's announcement today that he would grant work permits to young immigrants who were not in the country legally is an affront to the rule of law. The President himself had said that he couldn't take unilateral action a year ago. Here are excerpts from the relevant statute, 8 CFR 274a.12.

(a) Aliens authorized employment incident to status. Pursuant to the statutory or regulatory reference cited, the following classes of aliens are authorized to be employed in the United States without restrictions as to location or type of employment as a condition of their admission or subsequent change to one of the indicated classes. Any alien who is within a class of aliens described in paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6)–(a)(8), (a)(10)–(a)(15), or (a)(20) of this section, and who seeks to be employed in the United States, must apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for a document evidencing such employment authorization. USCIS may, in its discretion, determine the validity period assigned to any document issued evidencing an alien's authorization to work in the United States.

. . .

(3) An alien admitted to the United States as a refugee pursuant to section 207 of the Act for the period of time in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(4) An alien paroled into the United States as a refugee for the period of time in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

. . .

(6) An alien admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant fiancé or fiancée pursuant to section 101(a)(15)(K)(i) of the Act, or an alien admitted as a child of such alien, for the period of admission in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(7) An alien admitted as a parent (N–8) or dependent child (N–9) of an alien granted permanent residence under section 101(a)(27)(I) of the Act, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(8) An alien admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant pursuant to the Compact of Free Association between the United States and of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the Republic of Palau;

. . .

(10) An alien granted withholding of deportation or removal for the period of time in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(11) An alien whose enforced departure from the United States has been deferred in accordance with a directive from the President of the United States to the Secretary. Employment is authorized for the period of time and under the conditions established by the Secretary pursuant to the Presidential directive;

(12) An alien granted Temporary Protected Status under section 244 of the Act for the period of time in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(13) An alien granted voluntary departure by the Attorney General under the Family Unity Program established by section 301 of the Immigration Act of 1990, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(14) An alien granted Family Unity benefits under section 1504 of the Legal Immigrant Family Equity (LIFE) Act Amendments, Public Law 106–554, and the provisions of 8 CFR part 245a, Subpart C of this chapter, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by the Service;

(15) Any alien in V nonimmigrant status as defined in section 101(a)(15)(V) of the Act and 8 CFR 214.15.

. . .

(20) Any alien in U–2, U–3, U–4, or U–5 nonimmigrant status, pursuant to 8 CFR 214.14, for the period of time in that status, as evidenced by an employment authorization document issued by USCIS to the alien.

I believe the key issue will be paragraph (11) above. May the Presidential directive cover a class of individuals, or was the statute written to allow the President to grant clemency to individuals. The law specifies an alien specified by the President. This would seem to prevent the President to granting clemency to a class of individuals. This will probably become a court case. Regardless of its outcome, Obama is clearly using administrative fiat to thwart the plain intent of the law.

Further, how does this really help the illegal aliens in this category. Even if found to be legal, the directive will only be temporary. Put yourself in the shoes of the young illegal. Why would I sign up for this when next January, the USCIS and DHS now have evidence of my illegal entry, by my own admission, and can proceed with deportation. Obama must really hate illegal immigrants to set them up like this.

A Bit of Good News on Honduras

The administration appears to be backing off its reflective backing of leftists, such as the one pictured at left, and has stated that it will not impose sanctions on Honduras' interim government. The State Department, while not condoning the so-called coup, harshly criticized Manuel Zelaya's actions that led to his removal from office. This was made known in an awkward fashion by the release of a State Department reply to Senator Dick Lugar, ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee.

I am glad to see the administration start to think this issue through with more clarity. Zelaya brought this on himself by illegally attempting to change the Honduran constitution to allow himself more years in office. He did so by attempting to use mob rule to force an election that the Honduran Supreme Court had ruled illegal. The action of the military prevented a constitutional crisis and potential civil war. While it may be true that they jumped the gun, it was also clear that the Honduran Congress would have impeached Zelaya for his disregard of the constitution.

This matters deeply, because the rule of law is fundamental to the preservation of liberty; the goal to which this blog hopes to make a small contribution. By backing off, the administration has probably effectively precluded Zelaya's return to power before the next Presidential elections in Honduras in November. Then Honduras can emerge from this crisis with a democratically elected leader. While the actions of the Honduran military in removing Zelaya may not have been perfect, it was Zelaya, not the military who was undertaking a wholesale assault on the democratic principles of the Honduran constitution.

I think the administration should be praised for their change of heart, but I think they are too embarassed by their earlier mistake to want to trumpet this change. I also note that Team Obama was much more disciplined during the campaign. This quote from a State Department staffer who literally didn't get the memo:

A State Department spokesman, who was unaware of the letter to Mr. Lugar's office, said "there has been no decision to soften the policy on Honduras." He added that the administration still supports a return of Mr. Zelaya to power, as called for in the mediation plan by Costa Rica's President Oscar Arias.

Rule of Law

There have been plenty of "teachable moments" with respect to the rule of law lately, just not the one's the President would choose. By now everyone who gets their news from the internet or TV has heard about Professor Gates run in Officer Crowley of the Cambridge police. While I admit that the Professor behaved like a jackass, and had no basis to assume that the Officer's conduct towards him was based on race, I am still not happy about the "disturbing the peace" arrest. First, since when is behaving like a jackass a crime in America? Second, whose peace was being disturbed? Gates was not arrested until he had been asked to step outside, because, in my opinion his conduct, when fully confined to his own home, did not constitute disturbing the peace. That is because it requires the element of other witnesses. I think the police like to use this crime as a catch all when their authority is challenged. I understand the tough job they have to do, but I still think the arrest unwarranted by the facts as presented. But did they act stupidly? Au contraire, the police actions showed remarkable restraint and understanding of the law. What bothers me is that the law is written so broadly as to given almost unlimited discretion to law enforcement to make an arrest.

But remember also that the President is the chief law enforcement officer in the land, by virtue of heading the executive branch. For him to state that the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" without possession of the facts is a gross dereliction of his duties. His statements certainly prejudice the playing field. Further, what if the police were in the wrong, legally? The President's rash statements make it harder to find an unbiased jury pool. Another sad commentary on our legal system.

On this same subject, the WSJ has a nice breakdown on the race vs class aspects of the confrontation.

On to other legal matters, Obama's place of birth and ipso facto, his eligibility to be President. The birthers are wingnuts, there I said it. The fact of the situation that convinced me are the newspaper blurbs announcing the Chosen One's birth in Honolulu. Hard to believe a conspiracy theory so devious, so penetrating, so all powerful, as to be able to reach into the past over forty years. I am not even going to argue the rest of it, because it is so absurd. Sometimes you only need one fact to make a judgement. For example, in a famous local murder here in America's finest city, the victim, a married male in his twenties was found with rose petals scattered around him. Sorry, that one fact allowed me to correctly conclude that the little wifie did it, no guy is going to commit suicide in that fashion.

Finally 'Dawg sent me an email with a link to this video below. While it appears outrageous at first. I think it is a clever piece of propaganda.



I am generally unsympathetic to Muslim causes because they often act like intolerant dictator wanna-be's. While I agree that the security guards behaved badly, I still have a question. Let's say this were a Christian gathering like Promise Keepers at a public stadium like Qualcomm. If some Muslims showed up with literature, wouldn't the Promise Keepers security team have the right to have them removed? That's because the Promise Keepers have the permit to hold their rally and it interferes with their freedom of speech to have that rally disrupted. Doesn't excuse the assaults security goons, but maybe puts a different perspective on the whole deal. I think the permit holders have the right to eject who they want, even if the individual was acting reasonably. But we also don't know what the guy said or did before the whole video shoot started, so I am not exactly sympathetic.

Call for Impeachment - UPDATE

I am calling for the impeachment of Illinois state officials today. Yes, the guy on the right, Rod Blagojevich is a sleazy, corrupt pol, who should have the good sense to resign. Short of that, the Illinois legislature should move swiftly to impeach him. Also, they should impeach the Attorney General, Lisa Madigan (at left). But that's not going to happen either, and there in lies a tale that could only come from Chicagoland.

But first, why am I calling for Lisa Madigan's impeachment? Because she has petitiioned the Illinois Supreme Court to remove Blagojevich from office using an old law intended to remove an "incapacitated" governor. What the heck? State rep Jack Franks (D-McHenry County) has it exactly right:

“I don’t think the judiciary should be telling the executive branch what to do. We’ve got to make sure we do it right. And no matter how loathsome this governor is, we cannot trample on our constitution.”

Thank you and amen.

So why is the Illinois legislature moving so slowly? Turns out that the speaker of the Illinois House is Michael Madigan, father of the aforementioned Attorney General. His daughter has admitted a desire to run for governor in the future, so speculation is that going slow gives the spotlight to his daughter, enhancing her future electability. If true, this is a sad state of affairs in our era, that blatantly trampling the principles of the state constitution, which is modeled on the federal, would help any politician.

But wait, there's more. Turns out that an impeachment hearing might get nasty, with Blago naming names and all. Seems like the legislative leadership isn't down with that. See the video below of Bill O'Reilly interviewing Chicago Sun-Times correspondent John Kass. (H/T Bill Baar's West Side)




UPDATE:

On, Wednesday, Dec 17, the Illinois Supreme Court rejected, without comment, the AG's request to remove Blagojevich from office. Thank God someone still believes in constitutional government.