Watching the unfolding "crisis*" in Del Rio, Texas, I kept wondering what might happen if we had a wall and sufficient Border Patrol resources to completely control the border. It wouldn't have to mean a shutdown of immigration, would it? I mean, if we chose to do so, we could allow 1,000,000 Haitians, 2,000,000 Hondurans and 10,000,000 Mexicans to come into the country every year. We could specify any mix we chose and any numbers we chose.
Securing the border is independent of immigration limits.
If the border is out of control, then we can't specify any limits at all. We can vote every three months** to elect new representatives. They could go meet in session in Congress and enact any immigration bills they wished. The president could sign them into law. Nothing would change because the border is a sieve.
Why is the border a sieve?
It's a sieve so we don't have the ability to set any limits. The elimination of border control is not about the border, it's about us. Just like the Supreme Court's rulings on abortion and gay marriage, we are seen by the Elites as too stupid, too ignorant and too bigoted to be allowed to make choices about these things. I mean, just imagine what we might do if we were given political power. Why, we could limit immigration, enshrine one man - one woman marriage and even make our own decisions about when life begins! Horrible!
We are unworthy of the right to vote. Since they can't take that away, they simply remove the linkages between voting and real results.
 |
| Our elections are the equivalent of this toddler's driving toy. We can pretend to drive just like mommy does, but in reality, we aren't doing a thing. |
* - In my book, it's not a crisis if it's intentional.
** - I've ingested the message that voting is the most important thing you can do to the point that I now think our political season should never end and we should have elections as often as possible.
Anon, please send that money to the Treasury Department to pay down the debt.
ReplyDeleteThe Minnesota Supreme court removed a stop order by a lower court judge on a ballot question.
ReplyDeleteThe question was blocked by the lower court because it was vague and misleading. The supporters of the question were unhappy because there was an explanation added to it.
City Question 2
Department of Public Safety
Shall the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to remove the Police Department and replace it with a Department of Public Safety that employs a comprehensive public health approach to the delivery of functions by the Department of Public Safety, with those specific functions to be determined by the Mayor and City Council by ordinance; which will not be subject to exclusive mayoral power over its establishment, maintenance, and command; and which could include licensed peace officers (police officers), if necessary, to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety, with the general nature of the amendments being briefly indicated in the explanatory note below, which is made a part of this ballot?
YES ______
NO ______
Explanatory Note:
This amendment would create a Department of Public Safety combining public safety functions through a comprehensive public health approach to be determined by the Mayor and Council. The department would be led by a Commissioner nominated by the Mayor and appointed by the Council. The Police Department, and its chief, would be removed from the City Charter. The Public Safety Department could include police officers, but the minimum funding requirement would be eliminated.
At least you get to vote.
ReplyDeleteIf it goes the wrong way, may I recommend Tennessee as a possible home?
KT: You make a good point about the fact that the border is "a sieve" even though we could, if we really wanted to, drastically reduce the number of people making it across the border illegally. From which it follows that there must be some substantial group of influential people who don't want it stopped. I mean, as you also point out, it's already illegal for them to come in, it's not like passing laws to make it "more illegal" is going to do anything if those laws don't get enforced either.
ReplyDeleteNow, as you (and Ohioan) have both pointed out, I am about as far from on-the-spot as it is possible to get without leaving the country, so this next thing isn't an argument. It's a question, that I hope that you (as someone who is on-the-spot) can answer:
Who exactly is benefitting from having a lot of illegal immigration? And what is that benefit? And why is this benefit large enough that they will go out of their way to hobble border security to get it?
There are many "whos" who see the invasion as a benefit to themselves or to their agendas:
ReplyDelete- some see the illegals as cheap labor ... which cannot object to mistreatment;
- some see the illegals as election fodder -- which doesn't even require that a single one of them illegally vote, but merely that they be counted in the Census (whether or not such "counting" involves *actual* counting);
- some see a flood of "our small brown brothers" as an excellent way to overwhelm and supplant our inherited Anglo-American cultural and legal traditions, including the cultural tradition of Christianity;
- some see a flood of "our small brown brothers" as an excellent way to "brown" America; that is, they *hate* whypepo, and thus hate that most Americans are, and always have been, white;
- some see the lawlessness which follows from openly refusing to enforce the law as a tool to further their agendas;