January 17, 2008
Here's an interesting twist on the immigration debate that I hadn't seen before:
Landowners and political leaders intensified their opposition to a controversial border fence Wednesday after the Justice Department forced the border city of Eagle Pass, Texas, to relinquish 233 acres of land in a prelude to constructing the barrier.
Eagle Pass Mayor Chad Foster assailed the Bush administration's actions as "sneaky underhanded measures" as he responded to a district court order forcing the city to temporarily turn over the land. The Justice Department sought the property to allow government surveyors to begin assessing sites for construction of the fence.
"We haven't figured out what we did to make the big guy mad," Foster said.
A U.S. district judge in Del Rio, Texas, ruled in favor of the Bush administration as the Department of Homeland Security began pressing ahead with more than 100 lawsuits to begin seizing property from holdout landowners in Texas, Arizona and California in its efforts to construct hundreds of miles of fencing by the end of the year.
DHS spokeswoman Laura Keehner stressed that the lawsuits are designed to give the government temporary access to the land for surveying and site assessment in preparation for construction. At least some of the property, she said, may not wind up as a site for the fence.
Limiting the power of the federal government to take land has always been a key element of conservative rhetoric. In this case, however, that concern is bumping up against demands to build a wall along the southern border. Unfortunately for Democrats, however, this isn't one they are going to be able to sit out and watch from the sidelines.
The leader of CASA, a coalition of border area residents and property owners, said the lawsuit likely would prompt the group to step up its opposition to the fence.
"It's outrageous," said Elizabeth Garcia of Brownsville, Texas. "They're taking away from the people their basic rights."
The umbrella group, which represents 12 organizations and includes at least three holdout landowners, will consult its attorneys to map out possible recourse. Members of the coalition, who have held several demonstrations, also plan "door-to-door" visits in cities along the border to enlist more opponents to the fence.
Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from the border city of Laredo, Texas, said he understands the anger and frustration along the border but said the DHS is responding to legislation that Congress passed requiring fencing along the border.
"I support the border communities," he said, "but the law's the law."
June 16, 2007
In a totally unrelated post on immigration, Publius nevertheless makes a very similar point about human nature to the one I made here to elite reaction to Scooter Libby:
To me, the real explanation is that the base sees immigration as a fundamental threat to their idea of "America." In this sense, it's another variation of the "fall from the golden age" strand of thought that animates opposition to secular universities, school prayer, the Pledge, "Happy Holidays," and all the other examples of attacks on "America."
To be more precise, there is a sincere belief that the influx of Latinos is going to fundamentally alter American culture and, by extension, America. Some people even believe that parts of the Southwest may become part of Mexico...
That's why the push for things like fences and English requirements are actually more than nativist racism. In their heads, these people are defending an America -- their America -- that they perceive as being under siege. It's an interesting perception - and one that pops up in a number of different contexts, but it's ultimately wrong. Basically, the logical error is that people are equating their own preferences and social norms with "America." For instance, all-white communities in, say, Alabama have a set of discrete social norms. As Latinos and Will & Grace move into these communities, these social norms are challenged and people resist by challenging them as attacks on America. Understanding this last move is critical. Essentially, these communities are elevating their contingent social norms and branding them as "America." In this sense, they are equating "the way things are" with "the way things should be." And thus, by introducing new social norms, you aren't merely threatening this community's social norms, you are threatening America itself.
This perceived threat of assault (on God, on the family, on the unborn, from terrorists, etc.) is a key pillar of the modern conservative movement.
His conclusions about what this means for our politics are really quite good, so please take a moment, click, and read!
May 19, 2007
Obama, today:
[W]e live in a culture that discourages empathy. A culture that too often tells us our principle goal in life is to be rich, thin, young, famous, safe, and entertained. A culture where those in power too often encourage these selfish impulses.
They will tell you that the Americans who sleep in the streets and beg for food got there because they're all lazy or weak of spirit. That the inner-city children who are trapped in dilapidated schools can't learn and won't learn and so we should just give up on them entirely. That the innocent people being slaughtered and expelled from their homes half a world away are somebody else's problem to take care of.
I hope you don't listen to this. I hope you choose to broaden, and not contract, your ambit of concern. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, although you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all of those who helped you get to where you are, although you do have that debt.
It's because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.
Andy McCarthy, today at NRO speaking on immigration reform:
The crisis in immigration is only an enforcement crisis. It is not a crisis that millions of people who have chosen to live and work here illegally must live "in the shadows." That is their problem, not ours.
Remember when people used to say that there was no difference between the two major parties?
May 17, 2007
As I mentioned previously, NRO's Corner is going through a full scale meltdown over the news of a bipartisan deal on immigration reform. After several commenters posted suggestions of a potential linksbetween illegal immigrants and terrorism, KLo approvingly posted this Newsweek headline:
Three of the Fort Dix suspects entered the United States illegally more than two decades ago. How tighter immigration enforcement might have prevented the possible plot before it was ever dreamt up.
I'm guessing from the way it was posted that we're supposed to extrapolate from this to a wider illegal immigrant terrorist threat. Why we're supposed to do that I have no idea.
Think about it. By this logic we should also be able to derive some sort of public policy problem and solution from the following:
Timothy McVeigh, the man behind the Oklahoma City bombing, was both a native-born US citizen, a decorated veteran of the US Army, and a cathollic.
Eric Rudolph, the man behind a series of domestic terrorist attacks (including attacks on abortion clinics and the Atlanta Olympic Games), was a native-born US citizen and an active member of several fundamentalist christian groups.
James Kopp, the man who assassinated Dr. Barnett Slepian, an OBGYN who performed abortions, was also a home-grown member of a fundamentalist Christian conservative group
That's three spectacularly successful domestic terrorists, all of whom are native-born US citizens. Where the illegal immigrants failed, these three succeeded. Two of them have connections to hard-core conservative Christian groups. I'd love to hear what sort of policies these three suggest.
UPDATE: Amazing. After I wrote and published this post, I continued to scroll down through the Corner. And wouldn't you know it, the very next post (i.e. the one posted just before KLo's anecdote), was about how the violent tactics used by Muslim extremists might or might not spread to other groups. Apparently some of the readers over there don't believe such tactics could spread to Christian groups. Or rather, apparently some of them don't realize they already have.
Rudolph and Kopp both explicitly claimed that their Biblically-inspired opposition to abortion motivated their acts of terrorism. They killed because that's what God's word demanded of them. Sound familiar?
Senate negotiators reach a deal on immigration reform, and the Republican base - at least as it is represented by NRO's Corner - is seething. Look for some excellent examples here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Wow.
For the record, I'm absolutely in favor of granting legal status to the millions of people who are already living and working here in the United States. Lou Dobbs may believe that we can round up and deport 12 million people, but even if we could, I cannot for the life of me understand why we would want to.
And all this nonsense about "guest workers" is just that - nonsense. Anyone who has spent even five minutes looking at the failures of guest worker programs in Europe should know just how absurd the whole idea is. Which reminds me - why is it that our politicians belittle so many of the genuinely good ideas that have come out of European social welfare policy, but this one they decide to accept?
April 17, 2007
Wired's Threat Level reports:
Montana forcefully rejected on Tuesday the requirements of pending federal identity document rules that would create a de facto national identity card, as Governor Brian Schweitzer signed into law a bill forbidding the state from implementing the rules and requiring reports to the government if the feds try to enforce them.
Maine was the first state to reject the requirements, which would require that states standardize their drivers' licenses starting in 2008 or face having their citizens' identification papers made useless for entering airport security or getting federal benefits.
"In January, the state of Maine held a 'Boston Tea Party' when they became the first to declare their opposition to Real ID by passing a resolution," said Tim Sparapani, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Today Montana has taken that rebellion to an entirely new level by issuing what amounts to a 'Declaration of Independence' from the act."
Remember that the move to create a "Real ID" is spurred by some weird combination of fears of immigration, terrorism, and voter fraud. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and several southern states are in line to follow Montana's lead in rejecting the change. California, sadly, is considered by the Dept of Homeland Security to be one of the standouts in compliance.
Gov. Schweitzer will be on Real Time with Bill Maher this weekend; hopefully he'll be asked about this.
March 30, 2007
This really is too funny.
The head of a California company hired by the U.S. government to help build a fence along the Southwest border to curb the flow of illegal aliens into the United States has been sentenced on charges of hiring illegals for the job.
Mel Kay Jr., 64, founder, chairman and president of the Golden State Fence Co., pleaded guilty in December in federal court in San Diego to felony charges of hiring the illegals and was sentenced Wednesday to six months home confinement, three months probation and 1,040 hours of community service.
Keep reading and you'll see that the judge gave the men involved light sentences. Why? They paid "top dollar" and treated their immigrant workers fairly.
I can't wait to see the reaction from the right on this one.
Want more? View Category Archives by month:
January 2008 (1)
June 2007 (1)
May 2007 (3)
April 2007 (1)
March 2007 (1)
December 2006 (1)
October 2006 (1)
|
Subscribe to this blog's feed
