All Hail the Texas Navy

Bet you didn’t know that the Free State of Texas, as it should be called, has its own navy. It has a fleet of gunboats. Gunboats armed to the teeth with fully automatic machine guns.

Six of them to a boat.

These boats patrol the border waters, three in the Rio Grande River to interdict drug smuggling operations, and three of them in the intracoastal waterway. A channel that allows ship traffic to safely traverse the Gulf coast barrier island system.

Lots of people see this as typical Texas grandstanding, stepping up, so to say, where the federal government has gone all lax and lackadaisical.

But who knows what these gunboats can be used for. Given the Republican rhetoric in this election year, why not turn these machine guns on those who cross the Rio Grande in hopes of getting a minimum wage job washing dishes in any given restaurant in Texas? Why not?

These people are taking jobs away from our youth after all. You know, the ones who spend all their time texting each other on their $300.00 phones. Know why they do that? Because they cannot get those highly desirable jobs washing dishes, harvesting produce and hosing down slaughter houses.

Best to just turn these 50 cals on all these people when they are most helpless. Mid-river.

But you know, Texas isn’t the first state to launch a fleet of border patrol boats. When I was growing up in California I got to experience first hand the launching of the country’s first state navy. The world famous Baywatch lifeguard boats.

Boats that made Pamela Anderson possible.

Arpaio Stumping for Perry

Politics make strange bedfellows and there are no stranger bedfellows in the GOP presidential race than Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Arpaio is in Iowa as I write this, along for the ride on Perry’s final bus tour of the state before its Tuesday evening caucuses.

Now one thing that is obvious is that Perry hopes to use Arpaio’s anti-immigrant mojo to cover up the fact that he has gone on record, both in debate and in the press, as being soft on illegal immigration. His support of the DREAM act and his scoffing at the need for a border fence are strikes one and two against Perry in the cold, cold hearts of anti-immigrant Iowans.

But here’s the thing. This is having an opposite effect, at least in the press. The story in the press isn’t about how Arpaio and Perry agree on illegal immigration, it is about how much they disagree.

Arpaio hasn’t weighed in on letting the sons and daughters of illegal immigrants attend college without having to pay put-of-state tuition – a major part of the DREAM Act but my guess is that he would take a dim view of such a thing, especially now, since he has been charged by the feds of using discriminatory tactics in stopping and questioning Hispanics.

But what is clear is that Arpaio and Perry do not see eye-to-eye on a border fence, something Arpaio has made very clear that he wants, but something Rick Perry doesn’t think is necessary.

So while the intent in having Arpaio along for the ride is transparent and clear, the SNAFU in all of this is that the emphasis has become the contrast between Perry and Arpaio’s divergent opinions on illegal immigration.

That is, Perry is making it obvious to anti-immigrant Iowans that he is not their man.

Why Perry Won’t Get the Nomination

In a nutshell in just two minutes during the most recent Republican Presidential Candidates debate in Florida, Rick Perry eliminated himself from further consideration by the vast majority of Republican primary voters.

Here is how he did it:

I have heard it said that when a conservative makes a conservative argument, he or she is only formulating an argument to justify their own greed. Arguing in favor of the higher education for the children of illegal immigrants is not a conservative argument.

But that’s not what really killed Rick Perry’s chances at the nomination although that in and of itself would have been enough. What really killed any chance that Rick Perry would become the nominee occurred at exactly 1 minute and 45 seconds into the clip.

“But if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than that they have been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart.”

Now here is what I know about Republicans and conservatives. They hate being told that they have no heart. They don’t have hearts, but they don’t like being told that they don’t, and I know this to be true because as a liberal progressive I have told them that many times. They don’t like being told that by liberals, but I am willing to bet that they would absolutely hate being told that by one of their own.

Being told by a conservative that they don’t have hearts might just be a little bit more than they can bear because now it’s coming from one of their own, and the truth that they deny might just be true after all.

Nope, Perry is toast and it only took 2 minutes for it to happen.

Perry’s Going to Run and Leal Sealed the Deal

If anyone is still doubting that Rick Perry is going to sit the next Presidential election out, the death of Humberto Leal Garcia at the end of this past week, should lay all doubts to rest.

Leal is pretty much a poster child for all that Rick Perry stands for. First, Rick Perry hates illegal immigrants. Hates them. No, not because they are in his state, not because they vote (they don’t and there is no evidence that they do), and not because they take jobs away from citizens and  food from the mouths of decent white children. He hates them because he has to in order to remain in office. Perry’s base hates Mexicans so he must also.

Second, Perry hates the feds. Hates them. Not because they won’t give him any money. They have, hand over fist and Perry has accepted all of it except when it benefits people like the unemployed in his state.

(By the way, Perry hates the unemployed because it gives lie to his myth of “the Texas miracle”).

But now combining the two, illegal aliens and hatred of “federal overreach” we have the former living human being Humberto Leal Garcia.

Leal, a Mexican national, was tried and convicted of capital murder. Itself not very newsworthy except for the fact that as a signatory of the Vienna Convention guaranteeing that citizens arrested in foreign countries would have the benefit of a helping hand from consular officials from their home countries, the United States, and in this case, the state of Texas, was obligated to let the Mexican government come to Leal’s aid in his trial.

But Leal was never made aware of his rights, and the Mexican government was never notified that he was being tried for capital murder.

So Leal was tried, convicted, and on Friday, executed by lethal injection.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case to stay the execution by 5 to 4. Rick Perry refused to grant a stay and even went to the extent of refusing to take the call of the Ambassador from Mexico.

Most people would be horrified at this. Americans, now, as it currently stands, are at risk of being similarly treated when the venture abroad.

Perry’s base is thrilled. Oh yeah man, you bet they are.

Sanctuary Cities Bill is DOA

Well imagine that. The Republicans get a super-majority in the Texas State House and nearly that in the State Senate, and they still can’t pass a so-called “Sanctuary Cities Bill.” This is a bill that would require city police to inquire on a detainee’s immigration status. Cities that have a Sanctuary City policy would be financially penalized.

Democrats won’t vote for it, and now as it turns out Republicans won’t either, but I suspect that their respective motives are wildly different.

First, it probably didn’t help for Governor Perry to appear at the NALEO conference in San Antonio (NALEO stands for National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials) cracking lame jokes and reminding Hispanics – a growing demographic in Texas – why they should never, ever vote for a Republican. Republican lawmakers got clued in to the fact that getting this bill passed would not endear them to the Hispanic community.

But another big reason they are simply walking away from this bill has little to do with politics, and more to do with economics, and this story coming out of Georgia last week served to underline how dependent we are on immigrant labor.

From The Gainesville Times:

“But when Georgia House Bill 87, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011, goes into effect Friday, farmers might be hard-pressed to find workers.‘What we began hearing in mid- to late May was many of our migrant workers, they were not coming to Georgia,’ said Charles Hall, executive director of the Georgia Fruit & Vegetable Grower's Association. ‘Farmers are short on harvest labor 30 to 50 percent. You don't have a whole lot of window — that crop has to come out or it'll spoil.’”

It has become completely obvious to me that the status quo, which is what business lobbyists seem to be pushing for, is just as wrong as a ban on “Sanctuary Cities.”

Republicans look back fondly on the Reagan presidency wishing for something like it to return them to power some day. They conveniently forget that it was Ronald Reagan who signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which among other things, granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the US before January 1, 1982 and continually lived here since.

That’s right. Hispanics have Republicans to thank for granting them legal residency, something that would be toxic for them today. Maybe it’s time for Democrats to do them the same favor.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that State Senator Debbie Riddle, she of ‘Anchor Baby’ fame on AC360, had filed yet another anti-immigrant bill. But this one, I said at the time, Republicans have no intent on its successful passage.

This is because it hits hard right at the center of the illegal immigration problem: employers actively seek out illegal aliens so they can pay them miserably and keep them under their thumbs. Big money donors to the Republican Party make heavy use of illegal labor. This is common knowledge and it sweetens the sheer hypocrisy that pervades the anti-immigrant rhetoric spewing forth out of Republican mouths.

Making it a felony that includes a $10,000 fine and jail time if an employer knowingly hires an immigrant in the country without a work permit punishes the true criminals in this issue: American citizens, not illegal immigrants who are only here because there is so much money to be made here as opposed to their own countries it far outweighs the risks involved.

I still think Republicans have no intention of passing this bill, but while there seems to be  even more reason to think so because it reeks of the hypocrisy that the bill was meant to correct, there may yet be another agenda playing out here. An agenda based on greed.

The hypocrisy is that is because, come to find out, there is one exception to not being able to hire illegal aliens, and that is that private citizens who hire domestic help can still hire illegal aliens without penalty.

This is such a glaring loophole, termed the “laundry loophole” by Back to Basics, that it clearly indicates complete insincerity. And it seems to be unconstitutional to boot. Individuals who own companies are liable for prosecution and punishment if they hire an illegal, but a private citizen would get off scott free.

So Maria would be a problem for the owner of a meat packing company, but not a problem for Debbie Riddle if she works as Riddle’s housekeeper.

That’s how you solve a problem like Maria.

But who knows. The other agenda that may be behind all of this is that when illegal aliens can no longer find jobs chopping up chickens at Tyson, they will have no problem finding a job as a gardener or a nanny. An artificial domestic labor market is created where there are no alternative jobs available to drive up the competition -  and wages. Cheap domestic labor becomes even cheaper domestic labor.

Either way. This bill reflects on the one hand Republican hypocrisy and on the other hand, Republican greed.

Take your pick.

Riddle Me Ree: Why Texas Republicans Are Getting So Looney

So this morning, on a Saturday no less, I set my alarm so I could attend a special meeting sponsored by the Sugar Land Democratic Club and the Tejano Democrats. A meeting on immigration issues, specifically bills that the state legislature will be addressing in the current session, and things that we should really be concerned with, as opposed to things that Republicans are concerned with.

I recently wrote about new immigration legislation in a blog posting that seriously questioned the sincerity with which an anti-immigrant bill was filed recently, a very anti-business bill that Republican donors would hate to see passed.

So being up on the subject, I thought I would see what State Rep Ron Reynolds and a leading Houston immigration lawyer, Gordon Quan, would have to say on this. I was not disappointed, and I learned a lot.

Ron Reynolds was on point today. He came armed to the teeth with all of the bills that have been filed, and at one point mentioned the state rep whose anti-immigrant bills I outlined in the aforementioned post, not mentioning her by name, but everyone knew that he was talking about Debbie Riddle (R – Tomball).

A real piece of work as you can see in the video I posted on You Tube.

I had forgotten all about “Anchor Babies,” and forgotten about the famous exchange on AC 360 last year. So here. Here is Ron Reynolds introducing the subject, and then a couple of excerpts from that infamous interview.

Other countries don't allow illegal aliens inside their borders? This is someone who writes laws and votes on them. Seriously.  

Riddle Lives Up to Her Name

State Rep. Debbie Riddle (R-Tomball) has filed another anti-immigrant bill.

Now normally this would be non-news on a no news day because Debbie Riddle always likes herself some anti-immigrant legislation. And it would appear that she didn’t get the memo that was going around that Hispanic voters were going to be a force to be reckoned with in the very near future.

Voters who you don’t want to hack off by being . . . well . . . anti-them.

But when I looked in this a little deeper, I realized that Debbie Riddle was herself posing a riddle:

Q: What do you call a Republican-sponsored bill to assess fines and imprisonment on American citizens for hiring illegal aliens and in so-doing, paying them significantly lower than legal residents?

A: A bill destined to die in committee, even with a Republican super-majority.

Cutting to the chase, so as not to bury the lead as I usually do, there is no way Republicans are going to allow this bill to pass. Texas’ economy, particularly in the areas of agriculture and construction, depend on illegal immigrant labor to keep profits up and prices down. And nothing has changed except for the fact that the economy is hurting more than not, so actually passing this bill will make things worse, not better.

Everyone knows this, including Rick Perry, who until just recently was on the side of looking the other way when an illegal alien got a job in Bob Perry’s (no relation) home building firm.

So when we saw Debbie Riddle file HB 17 which allows state law enforcement to arrest those who are in the country in violation of federal criminal immigration laws, I said, yes, that makes sense – except it is going to cost state law enforcement agencies an extra bunch of money to carry out that mandate, funds that aren’t forthcoming from the state.

And when we saw Debbie Riddle file HB 18 which would deny state funding to so-called “sanctuary cities,” I said yes, this is where we get the money to fund HB 17.

And when we saw Debbie Riddle file HB 21 which requires state agencies to report the cost of services the agency provides to illegal aliens, I said yes, this would be the best way for state agencies to refuse service to illegal aliens, or to people who may look or act like them – and that saves money for HB 17 as well.

And finally, when we saw Debbie Riddle file HB 22 which requires schools to report the citizenship and immigration status of students to the Texas Education Agency, I said yes, that makes sense just like HB 21 does. We’re going to have a student:teacher ratio crisis here in Texas very soon. What better way to cut down on the student numbers than to refuse to admit illegal aliens, or anyone who may look or act like them?

So all of that made perfect sense to me, in a vile Voldemortesque vision, that is.

But this bill, HB 1202, makes no sense at all. True, Rick Perry asked for such a bill in his “State of the State Address,” but I’m pretty sure that he had his fingers crossed behind him as he made that request, just as Debbie Riddle had hers crossed when she filed that bill.

Republicans have not been, are not, nor ever will be serious about true immigration reform because illegal alien labor is what makes Texas’ economy tick just as surely as black slave labor made the economy of the Antebellum South possible for a couple of centuries.

Submission of this bill is nothing less than a callous bone thrown to Teabaggers. No serious Republican will vote for it, and really I doubt it will ever see the light of day on the House floor.

But I really do look forward to hearing a debate on this bill. And a vote. I’d love to see Republicans put their money (literally) where their mouth is.

I just don’t think it will ever, ever, happen.

Immigration: The New Tea Party Wedge Issue

I’ve been watching the progression of the rightwing hard line stance on immigration for a couple of years now. I am continually amazed at how it is evolving.

Case in point. A couple of years ago we had the right, including some moderates, all advocating immigration reform and border security. Amnesty was off the table. Send all eleven million of them (or is it twelve million) back to Mexico – because in illegal immigration issues, the issue isn’t whether an Australian national has overstayed his visa, it’s whether some brown-skinned alien is working within the US and sending money home to Mexico.

Not that they really wanted to send anyone home back to Mexico. Not that they really wanted to build the equivalent of a Berlin Wall from Brownsville to Chula Vista. It just made good theater and it made such a good wedge issue to differentiate themselves from their bleeding heart liberal colleagues in the halls of congress and the legislatures of Border States.

But now the issue seems to have evolved, and evolved in a perfectly predictable way. Because even back then there were business-oriented conservatives who were moving around backstage warning these yahoos about keeping the rhetoric down because illegal aliens are very good for the economy. An economy that pays them miserably, but compared to what they can earn back home, what they do get paid is truly like manna from heaven.

And now the backstage whisperings have come to the forefront. Arizona and its rightwing reactionary Teabagger governor saw to that.

Since passage of Arizona’s infamous SB 1070, and the federal injunctions that have ensued the reactionary rightwing of Texas, personified by State Rep Debbie Riddle (R - Tomball) has brought this whole issue to center stage. Arizona-like bills are being filed left and right.

This is alarming to moderate conservative business-oriented Republicans, according to this article in the Austin American-Statesman, because businessmen see these bills as detrimental to business and economic recovery.

Bill Hammond, executive director of the Texas Association of Business, usually an advocate of Republican-friendly causes, possibly taking a lesson from what happened to Arizona in the fallout that occurred after SB 1070’s passage, is afraid that among other things, passage some of these bills would result in a downturn in convention business as well as investments in Texas businesses.

It is so strange, though, to see that the Texas Association of Business, a Republican haven, is now marching arm-in-arm with the ACLU of Texas. Not for the same reasons, but in the end it isn’t motivation that unites them, it is results. Neither want to see these oppressive anti-Hispanic bills passed into law.

Funny how politics sometimes make strange bedfellows.

What will be fun for me, and I consider myself very much on the sidelines here, is watching as the Republican right wing reactionaries start jousting with the business-oriented “can’t-we-all-just-get-along” moderates. Because immigration and illegal aliens is still a wedge issue, but not one that separates the left from the right. It now separates the reactionary rightwing from the center-right moderates.

In the past, this issue has been used as a  bloody shirt to wave in order to deflect public interest away from the issues of true import, as in the fact that the number one issue that faces the Texas legislature is not immigration, not by a long shot – it’s the $25 billion budget shortfall. But now, I’m pretty sure that this isn’t the case because if it were I’d be angry over this. Instead I am absolutely delighted that the right has brought this up and will eagerly anticipate the public barbecuing in the Republican Party, a festivity that is going to develop in the very near future and hopefully manifest itself in several forms.

John Boehner: Ally or Enemy?

Today Ohio Republican Congressman and Speaker of the House Wannabe John Boehner is taking umbrage at some remarks that President Obama made on the Spanish language network Univision. President Obama said this:

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’ …. then I think it’s going to be harder.”

Enemies.

The Face of the Enemy

Now, while the President didn’t exactly say who he meant were the enemies of Latino voters, John Boehner figured it out. He knows who Barack Obama thinks are the enemies of Latino voters, and the enemy is him.

He and other Republicans.

And Boehner doesn’t like being referred to as an enemy.

This is what he crafted to say in response this evening:

“Ladies and gentlemen, we have a president in the White House who referred to Americans who disagree with him as ‘our enemies.’ Think about that. He actually used that word. When Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush used the word ‘enemy,’ they reserved it for global terrorists and foreign dictators — enemies of the United States. Enemies of freedom. Enemies of our country.”

I guess John Boehner doesn’t like that word.

But here is the truth. John Boehner has it out for Latinos, as does any given Republican. You don’t even have to guess if that’s true because actions speak much, much louder than words. Here are the words of Rep. Luis Gutierrez D-Ill published at The Hill last week:

“On immigration, the question is not whether you are a Pelosi-Obama Democrat, but whether you are a Lamar Smith-John Boehner-Steve King Republican. When it comes down to it, putting people like Smith-Boehner-King at the helm of national immigration policy is a guarantee of more gridlock and chaos. Rep. Steve King of Iowa -- who makes Jim Sensenbrenner look like Dolores Huerta by comparison -- has called for electrified fencing on the border because he has found it effective for controlling "livestock." And if the recent past is any indication, we can expect any number of anti-Latino voter intimidation dirty tricks in the coming weeks in addition to the ads telling Latinos not to vote. We need to make it crystal clear to voters who favor a fair and humane immigration system that a vote for any GOP House or Senate candidate is a vote for the status quo on immigration or worse.”

One definition of the word enemy goes along these lines;

“Enemy (noun). A person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.”

Or if you really want a good definition, look at the meaning of the antonym for enemy, ally.

“Ally (Noun). A person who associates or cooperates with another; supporter.”

John Boehner, is, by definition, the enemy of Latino voters. So are his allies.

If John Boehner objects so much to being called an enemy of Latino voters by the President, then maybe he should stop acting like one.

Brain Fart for Arizona Governor Brewer

The way Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona shoots off her racist neoconservative mouth whenever she is placed in front of a microphone, it is a singular event to see the governor placed in front of a television camera at a formal debate and watch her go through the equivalent of flatulence of the brain. Here is the brain fart at 00:35 that extended to 00:51 but a precursor to the whole thing can be seen at 00:11.

The governor claimed later in an interview that she was “only human,” neglecting to acknowledge that one needs to set one’s humanity on the shelf whilst engaged in a formal televised debate. It absolutely made Gerald Ford’s slowly growing nasal drip pale in comparison.

Remember that? Engaged in formal debate with Jimmy Carter, Ford’s head was in a tight shot as clear fluid appeared below his right nostril and slowly rolled down his upper lip. No one knows what he said just then because everyone was watching the nasal drip wondering what kinds of things were going through his mind as he studiously ignored what everyone in the country was watching with rapt attention.

Likewise Brewer. One wonders what Arizona voters came away with. Surely they spent lots of time mulling over what brought on that 16 second lapse in which she started to sound like Miss Teen South Carolina in her ramble about “the Iraq” and “such as.” Incipient Alzheimer’s? Something she saw on the paper she was reading? Mental shutdown equivalent to when she decided that it was a grand idea to usurp federal authority?

Arizonans will probably send Brewer back to the governor’s office, but now they have to wonder whether the woman possesses all of her mental faculties.

Anti-Immigrant Fever: WWJD

WWJD: What would Jesus do?

Yesterday we saw at Juanita Jean’s a bible quote that pretty much spells out what Jesus must be thinking about all of the anti-immigrant fever currently raking our country into shreds. I remarked at the time that the only reason this is an issue now is that Republicans need to turn public commentary away from their gross misdeeds in congress recently: voting against 911 first responders, voting against the unemployed, voting against Wall Street reform (and for the very people who delivered the 2008-09 recession to us).

But I kept going back to her citation of Leviticus 19:33-34:

“And if a stranger dwells temporarily with you in your land, you shall not suppress and mistreat him. But the stranger who dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you; and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”

Appropriate, no? That, by the way was God Himself talking to Moses.

Christians have told me that Old Testament quotations don’t count because they all came before Jesus. That’s what they say, anyway and as a noncombatant, I’ll just take their word for it.

So, OK here is the updated version, from the New Testament:

“Do not forget or neglect or refuse to extend hospitality to strangers – being friendly, cordial and gracious, sharing the comforts of your home and doing your part generously – for through it some have entertained angels without knowing it.”

- Hebrews 13:2

But the one quotation I really like is one that is not often used in finding biblical guidance on what to do when you have immigrants in your country. Remarkably, the passage comes right after the most quoted passage in Matthew 25:31-36 which speaks to what Jesus will do on Judgment Day with the righteous people who treat immigrants and strangers with compassion. This part deals with what Jesus will do with those who lack any compassion towards immigrants and strangers, Matthew 25:41-46:

“Then He will say to those at His left hand, Be gone from Me, you cursed, into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels! For I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger and you did not welcome Me and entertain Me; I was naked and you did not clothe Me; I was sick and in prison and you did not visit Me with help and ministering care. Then they also will answer, Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to You? And He will reply to them, Solemnly I declare to you, in so far as you failed to do it for the least of these you failed to do it for Me. Then they will go away into eternal punishment, but those who are just and upright in standing with God into eternal life.”

What would Jesus do? I’ll leave that to you to decide. As I said before, I am a noncombatant. But from what I read, if and when Jesus makes good on His promise to come back someday, my guess is that He is going to be One Pissed Off Deity.

Leo Berman: Evangelicals “Don’t Understand” the Politics of Immigration

A very real schism is forming among conservatives. It is a schism that is most certainly a deal breaker in Republican politics, as evidenced by an observation of immigration hardliner State Rep. Leo Berman (R - Intolerance). One that I am very taken with.

Let me set this up. If you are conservative you look at the issue of immigration in one of three ways: 1) the visions of Evangelicals, 2) the views of conservative businessmen, and 3) the vomit of hardliners.

Evangelicals are family oriented and see the need for having “a solid balance between justice and compassion.” Compassion, say, for the compassion they have to the millions of illegal aliens who would be separated from their American citizen relatives, splitting fathers and sons, mothers and daughters. Evangelicals don’t want to discuss immigration unless it has in it provisions for a “path to citizenship.”

Conservative businessmen are looking at immigration in terms of a need to cheaply fill the jobs in agriculture, hospitality, and construction that no American will do – at least not for the kind of pay that illegal aliens accept.

Hardliners want all illegal aliens to leave, no questions, ifs, ands or buts. They are by definition criminals when they broke the immigration laws.

It creates an alliance between Evangelicals and conservative businessmen against the third, more odious branch of conservatism – the hardliners.

And why are hardliners so . . . well . . . hard line about illegal aliens? Enter Leo Berman.

“Berman said he believes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is a path to creating Democratic voters.” 

“‘There's 25 million in the United States - you can't listen to the 8 million to 12 million numbers that come out of Washington every day - you're going to create an instant 25 million Democrats,’ Berman said.”

“‘I don't think these evangelical leaders understand that.’”

Twenty-five million Democratic votes. That’s what’s behind the hardliner objection to illegal aliens getting legal residency. Becoming naturalized Americans.

Because as Richard Land, an evangelical who is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission very correctly observes:

“If the conservative coalition is going to be a governing coalition, it's going to have to include an awful lot of Hispanics, and you're not going to bring an awful lot of Hispanics into your coalition with anti-Hispanic immigration rhetoric.”

So are the hardliners who oppose a path to citizenship the racists we have all been led to believe they are? Maybe, maybe not. The only thing that is certain is that the hardliner position may be racially inspired, but it is most definitely a position that speaks directly to their hopes to retain or regain political power in America.

It’s nice though, to have your prejudices complement your desire for political power from time to time.

Ask Pol Pot whose Khmer Rouge once famously wrote this: “To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss.”

Feds File Suit On "Papers Please" Law

It has been long-awaited but not unexpected. Today the Justice Department filed suit in federal court seeking to halt implementation of Arizona’s “Papers Please” law enacted when Arizona Senate Bill 1070 was signed into law by Governor Brewer last April 23rd.

The law gives Arizona state and local authorities broad powers to detain people within Arizona’s borders whom they believe to be there illegally. People thus detained would be expected to produce proof of American citizenship – something a majority of Americans are generally not prepared to do at the drop of a hat.

The lawsuit, filed by Assistant Attorney General Tony West along with other United States Attorneys, citing the State of Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer as defendants, has two major points:

1. That Arizona, in enacting that law, violates the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, which declares federal law as supreme to state and local laws, and
2. That the federal government has preeminent authority to enforce immigration laws and that “a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with federal immigration laws.”

Arizona’s sole mechanism in the immigration policy set forth in SB 1070 is the mechanism of “attrition,” says the lawsuit, where suspects who may or may not be citizens, are rounded up, detained, and exported. That mechanism, the suit claims, interferes with the federal government’s policies under the Department of Homeland Security. Quoting from the lawsuit, found here:

“…it will impose significant and counterproductive burdens on the federal agencies charged with enforcing the national immigration scheme, diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority. It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute or who otherwise would be swept into the ambit of SB 1070’s ‘attrition through enforcement’ approach. It will conflict with long-standing federal law governing the registration, smuggling, and employment of aliens. It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections under federal law for an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution or who has been the victim of a natural disaster. And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries.”

Really, the only greater fear than being stopped by the Arizona State Police for “having a deeper tan” than most people, is the fear that this heinous law will be upheld in federal court, or worse, by the US Supreme Court.

The possibility is there, and it is more than just a little unnerving what our country could devolve to if the individual states are allowed to nullify federal programs, policies, and laws.

The Balkans come to mind.

Bring Back Reconstruction in Texas

Well that’s it. It’s now clear that the Texas GOP, curiously the Party of Lincoln, remains “unreconstructed.” That is, the same issues that caused Texas to join in the War of Northern Aggression on the side of The South continue to haunt the majority party in Texas.

Evidence? What about the recently passed 2010 Republican Party of Texas platform and its anti-immigrant frenzy? A frenzy that even goes so far as to challenge the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution as well as the 14th Amendment.

Not only does the language of the anti-immigrant platform take the same form as the recently passed Arizona “Papers, Please” Senate Bill 1070, it goes further.

Much further.

Not only do they demand that it be a Class A misdemeanor for an alien to be “intentionally or knowingly” in Texas without proper immigration documentation, they demand that the state “also seek an end to birthright citizenship – the policy that someone born in the U.S. is a citizen even if his parents are not – and asked the federal government to clarify laws on the issue.”

That is, if your parents are not citizens of the US when you are born within US borders, you are not automatically a US citizen. They want the federal government to “clarify” that point of settled law. A law, actually a part of the US Constitution, that was passed to prevent former slave states from not granting former slaves citizenship.

The pertinent words from the 14th Amendment:

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Seems pretty clear to me.

The Supremacy Clause pretty much nails it. States cannot pass laws that contravene the US Constitution.

Bringing me back around full circle. Texas Republicans, as evidenced by the platform that they just passed, are unrepentant members of the Confederacy. Obviously then, there is a question here over whether some people in Texas are actually citizens of the United States of America.

The thing is, I think there is a cloud over which group we are talking about here: the sons and daughters of illegal aliens born in Texas or Confederate Rebels.

El Uno De Mayo

Yesterday was May Day in America, but it got celebrated a little differently than the usual dance around the May pole and celebratory speeches of the left.

This time it was all about the racial profiling law that was passed in Arizona and signed into law. This is a law that is being decried from the left and, yes, even from the right, as anti-American. Thousands came out to protest this abomination.

Houston had its own mass rally that attracted a crowd of about eight thousand according to the Houston PD.

But Houston is what Houston is, a haven for nutjobs of the first order, and so the illegal search and seizure protest was met by a crowd of dozens who apparently favor illegal search and seizure. Here is a photo of their numbers and their hatred-filled signs.

The same crowd you see at tea party rallies. Same hand-lettered goofy signs.

And about in the same numbers, these days, as well.

An estimated 20,000 protesters turned out to the Dallas event.

But this, I think, is the quote of the day from a protester in the Houston rally, and it speaks to reports that Leo Berman and Debbie Riddle are going to file similar laws during the next legislative session:

“‘We're not surprised that there are now certain people who want to make sure that this law becomes a law here in the state of Texas,’ said march organizer Maria Jimenez. ‘This is the first step for us to continue to be visible within our constitutional rights.’”

That’s a conversation I want to see happen. When Hispanic and Latino Texans argue for the US Constitution, and aging white Texas lawmakers argue against it.

I remember it well the day John McCain announced his choice for his Vice Presidential running mate, Sarah Palin. I remember asking anyone who was around why he did that and did he not realize that he had just handed the presidency to Obama in that single decision.

I am reminded of that today as we see the rightwing in the Republican Party align themselves with some of the most despotic tyrannies in all of history.

Who ever thought the right wing would make it so easy?

Zeigen Sie mir Ihre Papiere

At the end of August, in Arizona, the words “show me your papers” coming from a law enforcement officer will give one pause.

Pause, because that is not the first time that the words have been uttered by officers who are part of a despotic repressive regime.

Something that Arizona became yesterday when its governor Jan Brewer signed into law their SB 1070, the law that gives Arizona police broad powers to ask anyone to prove their US citizenship right then and there. Something I couldn’t do right now if my life depended on it.

Here is the operative text from the bill:

“FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.”

Legalizing racial profiling.

Despotic. Tyranical. Fascist.

I find it absolutely disgusting that for over a year now we have been treated to images of President Barack Obama doctored with a “Hitler Moustache” suggesting he is a Nazi tyrant and at the same time calling him a socialist and a communist.

Presenting one with doubt that Teabaggers are actually aware of how the arrangement of the political spectrum would preclude that combination.

But now, I think we have a new standard of tyranny to put on display, and a new face to put to that tyranny. And guess what, it’s not a Democratic office holder.

Behold the new face of despotic tyranny in America:

Governor Jan Brewer.

Did the Salvation Army Drop Its "Humbug Policy?"

OK, a couple of posts back I castigated the Salvation Army for requiring that a family member who wants their needy children to receive a free new unwrapped gift from their Angel Tree program show a social security card beforehand. Today I see in The Chron that the Houston chapter of the Salvation Army has reversed itself in requiring this form of identification.

Apparently enough people protested this ridiculous politicization of a religious holiday, including immigrant advocacy groups, that they announced today their decision to rescind the requirement.

From the Chron:

“‘It was never our intention to offend anyone with our registration requirement to provide a Social Security number, or to give the impression that we were discriminating against those individuals and families who do not have a Social Security number,’ Major Chris Flanagan, Area Commander for The Salvation Army Greater Houston Area Command said in a statement.”

That notwithstanding, a bad policy it was. A very disrespectful policy.

Disrespectful that on top of admitting their indigent status to them, these people are held as suspect. Potential frauds.

Something akin to slapping an outstretched hand.

And as mentioned here, suspiciously similar to neoconservative attempts to deny people the right to vote by requiring a photo ID.

Defending themselves, the charity’s spokesman went on to say that “when people had no Social Security numbers, they still received help. Other valid forms of identification include school registration, Medicaid cards, Consular cards, food stamps cards and birth certificates.”

Begging the question then, is whether the group has altogether dropped their “anti-fraud” measures altogether or whether they are still requiring some sort of government ID as listed above.

It begs the question because nowhere in the article is it clear that they have dropped their screening process altogether, or the requirement of just that form of ID.

See, I don’t think they have altered the plan. And this is because I tend to believe that once a bigot, always a bigot.

But I would love to be proven wrong here. The problem is, I probably won’t, so I guess I have to continue with my resolution to withhold all pocket change from red kettles in the Greater Houston area.

Charity Strikes a Blow Against Illegal Immigrants

You have to love charities in Texas.

They are so . . . Texan.

Texans, you see, make a great show of being against illegal immigration. They elect state and federal legislators who make it their business to wave the bloody shirt of illegal immigration whenever possible, especially to redirect one’s attention from things that they really care about.

Really bad things that they really care about.

This doesn’t keep Texans from hiring illegal immigrants at rates far below minimum wage for unskilled labor (or what would be considered fair in skilled construction jobs) everywhere you look. Texans love illegal labor. They hate illegal immigrants.

So it comes as little surprise that a well known holiday charity whose famous logo consists of a Santa ringing a tiny bell next to a red kettle, the Salvation Army, requires a Social Security number or a birth certificate from each and every needy child who steps forward with a small hand (maybe a small brown hand) outstretched.

They claim that they are merely trying to deter fraud. Fraud in getting more than one gift from more than one outlet.

This speaks so much to the voter fraud argument of the rightwing in attempting to deny, year after year, people of the right to vote, that attempting the argument here merely insults the intelligence of most people who have a grain of compassion in them.

Really. Christmas Gift Fraud?

Where will this insanity end?

Pete Olson: Getting Things Done In DC

Just when you think the voters in your district have sent another Do-Nothing Zero to congress, out comes the startling announcement that Pete Olson, my congressman, has actually done something this week in Washington DC.

To be specific, as mentioned in FortBendNow (because you can’t find a single mention of it at Olson’s congressional website), Pete Olson had an amendment included during a markup session meeting of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with regard to H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, authorizing $10 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2010, including $1.2 billion for acquisition of new vessels, aircraft and support systems under the Deepwater program.

What did Olson’s amendment do, you might ask? According to Olson, it increases the authority that the US Coast Guard has in dealing with boats that attempt to smuggle illegal aliens into the United States.

Said Olson:

“Each year, alien smugglers bring thousands of undocumented aliens to the U.S. flaunting our laws and jeopardizing our safety. The Coast Guard works tirelessly with border and customs officials to protect us. However, jurisdictional loopholes often leave smugglers free to violate our laws again. This amendment plugs that loophole and targets those with a reckless disregard for our laws and basic safety requirements.”

You could say that Olson’s amendment not only keeps our illegal aliens safe, but also out.

And it’s important to keep them safe because when they do get into the United States, and they will because employers snap them up quicker than ducks snarfle june bugs, they will be healthy and able to do a days’ work for sub-minimum wages.

This is quite an accomplishment, and local home builders like Bob Perry and his wife and children must be very happy these days with the money that they contributed to Olson’s campaign.

Note that this is an accomplishment that has far surpassed what was Pete Olson’s centerpiece legislation up to this time. His H.R. 1981, the Taxpayer Conscience Protection Act.

That’s our Pete Olson. Not only is he protecting the lives and health of our illegal aliens, he is protecting the American taxpayers’ collective conscience with regard to Medicaid payments to abortionists. Filed last April, Olson’s bill would require that states that make a Medicaid payment from federal funds “for any items or services furnished by an abortion provider” must provide a list of payments and their amounts, and post them on the internet.

In other words Olson’s bill is a modern form of putting abortion providers in public pillories.

Look at the language. “Any items or services” is just that. A healthcare provider who has in the past performed an abortion will have the Medicaid payment made to him posted on the Internet for, say, lancing a boil.

Oh yeah, this bill, Pete Olson’s centerpiece legislation, is due to go far and put Olson on the path to greatness.

So how is Olson’s centerpiece legislation faring at this point?

Well it was filed on April 20th, 2009 and was instantly referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on the same day.

Where it has been languishing ever since.