FLASHBACK: 'The notion that somehow, by myself, I can do these things, it's just not true'...
Amnesty? Big Sis Dubs Move 'Deferred Action Process'...
PAPER: Secret Report Proposes Catch and Release At Border...
WHO NEEDS CONGRESS: OBAMA TO GRANT IMMUNITY TO YOUNG ILLEGALS
One of the more fascinating aspects of our Nation is that, allegedly, we are a Nation of laws.
I say "allegedly," because it seems clear that my perspective, my education, my experience, my oath as an Army officer... all of that seems to have become outmoded and, well, wrong.
Abortion advocates used, as one of their more simplistic justifications, a little bumper sticker jingoism: "Don't like the law? Then change it." Those of us who advocate for the Constitution say such cryptic things like, "Don't like the Second Amendment? Then change it," and so forth.
Obama, on the other hand, doesn't want to be bothered by mere trifles like the law, even though he took an oath to both obey... and enforce it. He's got an election to steal, and that's the business at hand for that simple idiot.
For King Obama, if he doesn't like a law, he just waives an Executive Order wand and he orders his Agencies to ignore it.
Which is precisely what he's doing here and now.
One wonders: what other laws is this clown ignoring,. modifying, riping off?
Since he's so desperate to get the criminal and illegal alien vote, it's no wonder that he's doing everything he can to round them up.
No, not to enforce the law, ie, to act in the name of the law to deport those who have no respect for us, who drain our revenue, who take our jobs. Au contraire!
He wants to "round them up" to get their vote.
For the record, the GOP has been helping him in this. Paying lip service to immigration law, they express carefully orchestrated outrage at King Obama's disdain for the law that he's sworn to uphold... but they do very little to nothing to implement programs to address the illegal alien problem.
In both the military and politics, there's an axiom that involves the confusing of motion... with action. For decades, that has been the GOP credo. The democrats don't even bother trying to justify their lack of action. We do.
In the end, this issue is much like every other issue in government domestic policy: If we really wanted to end this problem, we would.
It's that simple, really.
We would confiscate any business that employs illegal aliens.
We would imprison their owners and confiscate their assets, just like we do for drug kingpins.
We would confiscate any assets and imprison anyone one who houses illegal aliens.
And we would require proof of legal residency to school anyone. We would require proof of legal residency to provide any of the billions of dollars of free medical care we provide as a destination resort for illegals.
We would end the bizarre concept that if you're born here illegally, you're a citizen.
Implement these requirements, and the reverse migration of illegals would be come a flood.
Because at this point, one wonders:
How does King Obama's action of providing a way to ignore the law serve as any kind of deterrent to illegals?
To be precise: does King Obama's actions make it MORE likely... or LESS likely that illegals will be drawn here?
8 comments:
You will love this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWWOJGYZYpk
Now, it's about drugs and not illegal immigrants but it's the same problem in reverse: don't make things illegal that you would do yourself. (Don't tell me you wouldn't stay in the U.S. no-matter-what in their shoes.)
OK... I'm confused.
Drug use in the past justifies drug use in the future?
Regardless of one's position on open borders, Obama has the right to ignore the law he's sworn to uphold, and ignore Congress?
It's The Law. Don't like the law?
Then change it. But if you are president, then you had better by-God enforce it. And if you can't find your way clear to live up to your oath, then quit.
But don't confuse yourself with Stalin.
If a law makes 10s of millions of people into criminals - it is misguided and reproachable. I certainly believe in the law but, dude, fu*k the copyright industry - I'm not going to put you in jail or take your house for watching bootlegged movies.
Nor should you. But if we, you or I or anyone else believes that somehow they retain the right to determine which laws will apply to them as individuals and which laws won't, then the government will retain the right to prosecute because they should not care.
For me, this goes back to my basic point: Don't like the law?
Then change it. But don't violate it and not expect to avoid paying the price... when you know going in what's legal and what isn't.
Those who get busted for doing, selling, manufacturing drugs KNOW it to be illegal and they make the choice to do it ANYWAY.
As a result of their concious decision, I have no syumpathy for them or their self-assumed "plight." I don't do drugs... don't even drink, for that matter, because the former is illegal and a preference and the latter is legal and a preference. For me, however, if I WERE to either do drugs or drink, I would do so knowing going in that there are consequences for the decisions I make, and I am not going to whine about those consequences as a result.
Illegals are here, by definition, illegally. To provide rights to illegals that American citizens don't even have?
Really?
I don't think so.
All of which is neither here nor there:
Obama is deliberately violating the law he is sworn to uphold. And the, "Don't like it, change it" rule applies to him maybe even more so than it applies to you or I, since the actions of the president can come perilously close to dictatorship... and, in fact, this EO may cross that line.
Anyone may believe a law is "misguided and reproachable" although in the case of our immigration laws, the "misguided and reproachable" aspects are limited to a lack of enforcement and anchor-baby provisions, along with the idea that you can break the laws of this country and get tuition breaks for it.
But our personal feelings aside, we must be prepared to pay the price for violating those laws. Because, you see, there's a bunch of folks out there who feel the same way about speed limits, or taxes, or multiple marriage or any number of other issues where people believe the law to be "misguided and reproachable" because they don't happen to like it.
But I live with that, believing that at some point, those laws will be strengthened and we'll finally get the courage to act to end this scourge.
That said; if Obama doesn't like the law, he's had 3.5 years to change it, and the 20 minutes or so he was a US Senator... and he's done absolutely nothing in that regard because he knows damned well the American people will not support it.
So, let's just not bother with the people, and make what's illegal legal by edict. Of course, if he's successful here, then there's no end to presidents of all stripes doing the exact same thing using this idiocy as the legal precedent.
Change the law. And stop whining when the law gets enforced.
A judge is in a peculiar position. Everything you've said applies to them. Judges put people in jail who they KNOW are innocent-in-act-if-not-innocent-in-fact. Judges do that because that's their job, no questions asked.
You & I are not judges. We can make decisions for ourselves about what laws are just and what laws are political sledgehammers. There will always be a number of unenforcable laws that can't be changed so there will always be an underground. (Buying goods in Oregon to avoid sales tax anyone?) Drugs, immigration, copyright, Sales Tax, speeding, etc. require more than laws.
Martin, as an attorney, how can you claim the law makes 10's of Millions of people into criminals?
The law preceded their knowingly violating the law by crossing our borders illegally.
It isn't law that makes them illegal, it's their choosing to violate the law.
I get all that, M... but at the end of the day, when any of us, for example, speed, two things come to mind:
1. Because we know it's illegal, if we do it and we get busted, we've got no bitch coming. We can't claim racism because a speedometer and a radar gun don't give a damn, and
2. That a lot of people do it doesn't mean we throw up our hands, say "the hell with it," and do away with either speed limits OR enforcement.
A judge can throw out a verdict if they know the defendant to be innocent or if they're convinced the prosecution hasn't made their case, irrespective of the verdict.
And, that said, judges also have the choice if they want to BE judges. They have the option of walking away if enforcement of the law is so odorous.
That these laws may be difficult to enforce, although I don't see them as being particularly difficult if we ever get the will, by no means indicates they should not BE enforced.
When anyone starts their tenure in this country by breaking the law for the privilege, they do not deserve either our succor or our forbearance.
These laws ARE enforceable.
The only question is "do we have the will?"
I'll only take this a little bit further. Consider the concepts of "penalty fits the crime," and "random enforcement but not selective enforcement."
1 in 6 prisoners are in jail because of marijuana. Smoke some dope, go to jail - I don't think so. Obviously you can smoke dope and become President - unless you get caught?!
Speed limits are an example of the 2nd concept. As long as enforcement is consistently random, it’s acceptable, but selective enforcement based on cameras in specific areas, type of car, time of day, or color of skin is a no-no.
Laws only work when The People choose to obey them - otherwise it's just Prohibition all over again.
Post a Comment