Top 10 dumbest things said about the Arizona immigration law

Byron York at The Washington Examiner made a top ten list of the dumbest things people have said about the new law to fight illegal immigration in Arizona. It must have been tough to pick only ten.

In the interest of bipartisanship, he might have included this bit of hysterical idiocy from Republican Congressman Connie Mack of Florida.

Silver lining: All the hysterics and demagoguery have failed to convince a majority of Americans. By 51% to 39%, people support the new law in Arizona.

Advertisement

President Obama vs. Strawman (Again)

At a commencement speech today at the University of Michigan, President Obama said, “…what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad…”

Some enterprising professional journalist, if there are ever any around the president some time, ought to ask President Obama for a specific example of someone who said that all government is inherently bad. We hear the tea partiers saying that the government ought to be limited to its proper constitutional role. If President Obama can back up his assertion with some facts, he should do so. Reporters should do their job for a change and press him to do so. This seems to be nothing more than another example of the president simply making things up for rhetorical effect.

The president also said, “Throwing around phrases like ‘socialists’ and ‘Soviet-style takeover,’ ‘fascists’ and ‘right-wing nut’ – that may grab headlines” But it also “closes the door to the possibility of compromise…”

We’ll see if the president’s fellow Democrats will listen to his advice and tone down their hysterical and extreme rhetoric that’s been directed at the fine citizens of Arizona for the last week. We’ll see what kind of rhetoric comes from the illegal alien marches scheduled for today in several cities.

AP spins Republican debate

You can always count on the AP to show some of their liberal bias when they report on a Republican event, and their report on the debate held last night in Miami by the Univision Spanish language network is no exception.

The debate was upbeat, reaching out to the audience without (too much) pandering, touching on all kinds of issues – education, immigration, health care, national defense. It was all very pro-immigrant and pro-Hispanic.

But the AP headline reads: “GOP Hopefuls Temper Anti-Immigrant Talk”

Once again, the issue is not immigrants, it is illegal immigrants.

Republicans to debate on Spanish Univision network

Tonight, the Republican candidates for president (except, thankfully, for Tancredo) will participate in a debate on the Spanish language Univision network:

Foro republicano por Univision

Luego del histórico foro presidencial demócrata realizado por Univision el pasado 9 de septiembre, el turno hoy es para los aspirantes presidenciales republicanos, quienes este domingo 9 de diciembre debatirán sobre temas de particular interés para la comunidad hispana en Estados Unidos.

El evento se realizará en la Universidad de Miami -coorganizadora del foro- y será televisado (a las 7 pm / 6 pm centro) por la cadena Univision. …

We were supportive of the Republican candidates’ decision to skip attending the convention of the National Council of La Raza in July, because that is a liberal and explicitly race-based organization. However, Univision is not. It is one of the largest television networks in the United States, watched by millions of Americans. So this provides an opportunity to avoid the perception of a blanket rejection of Hispanics.

Republicans must demonstrate that we are against illegal immigration, but not against immigrants. That we are for English, but not against Spanish or Spanish speakers. (We speak both English and Español, and favor strong enforcement of our immigration laws and making English the official language of the United States, for the record). Skipping any and all forums that involve Hispanics and/or Spanish speakers will send a very damaging message to that segment of the electorate, with damaging effects for the party and the country.

Republican candidates must not go and pander to the audience, watering down the messages of border enforcement and assimilation, but they must go. Tonight, they will rightly accept the opportunity.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt has posted an English transcript of the debate. OR there’s a pdf version here.

Nothing wrong with caring about culture and language

Ruben Navarette, a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune, writes in his latest column (via Real Clear Politics)

“Let me be clear. There is nothing inherently racist or nativist about opposing illegal immigration. There are plenty of good people who just want secure borders and who could care less about the culture or language of whoever is coming across the border.”

And there are plenty of good people who want secure borders and also care very much about their culture and language. Navarette implies there is something wrong with caring about the culture and language of the United States.

Why in the world anyone would believe there’s something wrong with Americans caring about the culture and language of their country, Navarette doesn’t say. He just hangs the innuendo out there – if you care, you’re probably a racist, or a “nativist.”

Daniel Henninger at the Wall Street Journal makes a similar point in an insult-strewn video of one of their editorial board meetings (quote at 2:18 in video):

“Their objection is fundamentally cultural. And they can’t say that, OK.”

Why can’t anyone say that? What’s wrong with saying that? There are many objections to massive illegal immigration of course, but the culture issue is and should certainly be one of them.

Again, there’s nothing wrong with Americans wanting to preserve American culture and American language. There is nothing wrong with pressing immigrants to assimilate into American culture and learn American language. There is nothing at all racist about wanting to preserve American culture and language. Culture and language have nothing to do with race.

Why these folks think they further their cause by slandering and insulting people who disagree with them is a mystery. Thankfully, it appears to be having the opposite of their intended effect so far. But make no mistake, the amnesty bill and the insults from it’s defenders haven’t gone away. Hasta luego.

Amnesty, minus five years

Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online finds a good quote from Reagan’s Attorney General Ed Meese, comparing the 1986 amnesty to the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill from last year:

In the mid-80’s, many members of Congress – pushed by the Democratic majority in the House and the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy – advocated amnesty for long-settled illegal immigrants.

….

…most illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship.

So the current proposal isn’t like the ’86 amnesty, it’s worse on two counts: it includes many millions more people, and it drops the requirement that the illegal alien be “long-settled” – instead of needing to have been living here for five years, now it’s only five months, since January of this year. What possible rationale is there to grant legal status to people who just snuck across the border a few short months ago, and have no roots in this country? Ridiculous.

But the real root of the problem with the current proposed bill is that there’s no confidence the enforcement provisions will be carried out any more effectively than they were after 1986. So it matters little what the specifics of those provisions are. That’s why “enforcement first” is the only thing that makes sense at this point – the federal government needs to demonstrate that they can control the border. The promises just don’t have any credibility at this point.

Sen. Graham: We’re not going to run people down (unless they disagree with us)

One of the problems with being elected to high office is that is seems to strip away any self-awareness or sense of irony. It has a tendency to turn people who appear to be otherwise decent, normal Americans into arrogant, out-of-touch gasbags. Illustrating the point, Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, speaking in March to the liberal racial-activist group the “National Council of La Raza” (while promising to push for a “comprehensive immigration reform”, i.e. amnesty, bill), said:

…we’re not going run people down, we’re not going to scapegoat people, we’re going to tell the bigots to shut up…

Can you spot the contradiction? If so, that probably means you aren’t an elitist senator or a member of some left-wing activist group. We just hope the disease hasn’t progressed too far, and perhaps Mr. Graham will find the decency to apologize and retract these foolish and offensive comments.

Will deporting illegal aliens separate families, or reunite them?

Opponents of enforcing U.S. immigration laws have lately been using the canard that deporting illegal aliens caught in workplace raids is inhumane because it separates families. This is obvious nonsense on its face, since no one suggests those deported should be forced to leave their families in the United States. If a citizen of Mexico, or France, Britain, wherever, is sent back to his own country, he is free to take his wife and kids with him. If he decides it’s best to leave them here, that is his choice, not a penalty imposed by the government. Although it’s true many of the children of illegals are citizens and have every right to live in the U.S., they also have every right to go live in the home country of their parents.

But it turns out that, according to an AP story about illegal aliens’ reactions to the proposed Senate amnesty bill, it may be just as likely that a deportation will reunite a family as separate one. Via Yahoo News:

David Guerra wants to be legal, but he says the path to citizenship offered by the Senate on Thursday would be too risky and too expensive, and could end up driving him deeper into the shadows.

Guerra’s wife and children in El Salvador depend on the $300 he sends home each month from his job as a day laborer. Key provisions of the legislation would require him to return home to apply for residency, pay a $5,000 fine and spend thousands more in application fees.

….

Amy Ndour, a 23-year-old illegal immigrant from Senegal who lives in New York, said she would be willing to pay the $5,000 fine, but not return home because her family there depends on what she earns as a hair braider.

….

Many illegal immigrants said they had little incentive to apply for residency because the process was long and did not offer much hope of bringing their families.

“If I’ll never be able to bring my family, why should I apply?” said Jose Monson, a 33-year-old illegal immigrant from Guatemala who has lived in Los Angeles for four years. “I prefer to just stay here illegally.”

….

In Houston, Marco Antonio Rodiguez, said he would be happy with a permit that would allow him to work legally and return to Mexico twice a year to see his wife and three children.

We’d be happy to see Mr. Rodiguez live in Mexico with his wife and three kids full time, so he can see them every day. After all, family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande. So we should all support strong border enforcement – for the rule of law, for national security, and most of all, for the children.

You say Tequila, we say Scalia!

From CNN’s website:

Justice Antonin Scalia opened the Supreme Court’s new term Tuesday by questioning whether a man deported to Mexico after a drug conviction would be “abstaining from tequila” for fear of violating his U.S. parole terms.

The remark came as justices heard an immigration case involving a Texas man, Reymundo Toledo-Flores, who was deported in April after being convicted of illegally entering the United States.

This may be a small quibble, but language matters. Isn’t a person who is deported after “being convicted of illegally entering the United States” a Mexican man, not “a Texas man”?

Washington Post campaigns against another Republican Senator

Having experienced some success in their work in favor of the Webb campaign in Virginia, the The Washington Post has a couple of new Republican targets in its sights:

A new video released this week by his Democratic challenger, Jon Tester, shows Burns, 71, joking to a crowd in June about how a “nice little Guatemalan man” fixing up his house might be an illegal immigrant. “Could I see your green card?” Burns tells the crowd he asked the man. “And Hugo, says, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Oh, gosh.’ ”

A Burns spokesman said the senator never really doubted the legal status of the handyman, Hugo Reyes. But it wasn’t the only time Burns — a critic of illegal immigration — has poked fun at the immigrants doing work around his house.

The Washington Post is in full campaign mode, going after any trivial issue they can find to help out any Democrat they can. Today’s non-issue issue – Republican Senator Conrad Burns of Montana referred to a Guatemalan contractor as a – get ready – a “Guatemalan”. Not only that, but the Senator actually joked about illegal immigration. We haven’t seen the memo, but apparently it is now prohibited in America to joke about illegal immigration in any way. This is nothing but a cheap, ridiculous hit piece by the Post. There is nothing derogatory or remotely racist about what Burns said.

Also accused by the Post of being “racially insensitive” is Republican Paul Nelson, a candidate for Congress from Wisconsin:

Also on tape are comments by Wisconsin GOP House candidate Paul R. Nelson, which critics have said are similarly racially insensitive. Nelson, who is running against Rep. Ron Kind (D), has called for racial profiling as a way to tighten airport security. When asked by a radio interviewer how to identify a Muslim male, Nelson said: “Well, you know, if he comes in wearing a turban and his name is Muhammad, that’s a good start.”

Whether one thinks Muslim males should be given additional scrutiny at the airport or not is a debate we need to have, but suggesting that Muslims be given additional scrutiny in no way constitutes “racial insensitivity.” “Muslim” is not a race. Somehow that simple fact was missed by the “journalist” at the Post.

The only effects of this nonsense are to make the Post look overtly partisan and to trivialize real racism.