Friday, March 31, 2006

Exposing the myths in the illegal immigration discussion.

In the ongoing arguments over illegal immigration and what to do about it there are a number of myths or assumptions which need to be exposed. Each of these myths are seldom talked about and they are key points which should not be conceded.

1) Illegal workers fill jobs that otherwise will not get done or will be to expensive for the employer. If all employers played from a level field where it was prohibitively expensive, perhaps even put the employer and their business at risk, if they hired illegal workers then market forces will be re-introduced. Presently there is an artificial labor market where legal workers are having their wages held low by the pressure of an illegal labor force willing to work for less. This also stifles innovation in the market place. If only legal workers were employed, employers will either pay the rates necessary to get the job done or they will find ways to automate those task.
2) We have to create a legal way for people to get here. This already exist in the form of present immigration quotas which are designed to manage the rate of entry and diversify those wanting to come here.
3) Those here illegally just want a better life. The United States it the most generous country and people on earth and we have always reached out to help less fortunate countries and people improve their situation. That does not make it incumbent on us to take those people in. It also does a disservice to those countries from which these people leave. If it is that bad they need to stay there or go back there and fight to improve their country.
4) We can't send 11 million illegal immigrants back. We sent men to the moon. We fought global war against both Germany and Japan. We built the Panama Canal. We are the greatest democracy in the history of man. To suggest that something cannot be done is empty, all it takes is the will to act.
5) If your against illegal immigration you are a racist. The key to this discussion is the word illegal. I do not believe anyone is suggesting we should eliminate the existing immigration quotas. People are suggesting that we should enforce those quotas. To suggest that makes someone a racist is inflamatory and breaks down communication.
6) It is peoples right to come here. The United States of America is a sovereign nation whose citizens have rights and determine our laws. Non-citizens have none of the rights of citizenship, only basic human rights, and there is nothing to prevent us from enforcing our laws.

For additional reading on the subject I recommend The Hedgehog Blog, RealClearPolitics and The Center for Security Policy.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Hugh Hewitt coming to Denver.

Hugh Hewitt will be in Denver, at Borders across from Park Meadows Mall, signing Painting the Map Red and speaking Saturday, April 8th beginning at 12:30pm. This will be a great opportunity to show both Hugh and KNUS that Denver appreciates them.

KNUS AM 710 News and Talk has the information.

Citizenship under assault.

"Citizenship should be reserved for those who understand and are committed to American fundamental values, and who stand ready to follow in the footsteps of patriots. Anything less diminishes us and our precious gift of citizenship."

So finishes Thomas Lifson discussing the threat illegal immigration poses to citizenship. The assault on citizenship is much broader however. There is pressure to confer citizenship rights on enemy combatants, both legal and illegal ones, particularly disturbing during time of war. There is a dilution of citizenship rights by judges looking to foreign law for guidance. Non-citizens, legal and illegal, are being treated to the same laws, rights and privileges as citizens. There are even certain citizens, called journalist, who are now granted super-citizenship exempting them from much of the responsibility of citizenship while granting them full rights and privileges.

Citizenship is under assault and it is time for Americans to defend what Mr. Lifson calls "our precious gift of citizenship."

RealClearPolitics has the full story.

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Thank you Christopher Hitchens.

"HH: When you say pro-war but on the other side, what do you mean, Christopher Hitchens?"

"CH: Well, I object to people like Michael Moore for example, or Ramsey Clark being referred to the New York Times as anti-war activists, or anti-war campaigners. They're not anti-war at all. For one thing, they're not pacifists, particularly not Ramsey Clark. For another, they've declared that they believe the beheaders and jihadists and the blowers up of Mosques and mutilators of women and so forth are a liberation force or an insurgency. Michael Moore even said they were the modern equivalent to the American founding fathers. So in that case, fine. George Galloway's the same. Many of them are. They're not really against the war. They're not anti-war, but on the other side in the war for civilization, and they should be called out on it and given their right name."

What is the "right name" Mr. Hitchens? Because I like things simple I am supplying the following from what Mr. Hitchens was either too gentlemanly or perhaps over assumptive to name:

Traitor: 1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty 2 : one who commits treason

Betrayer: 1 : to lead astray; especially : SEDUCE 2 : to deliver to an enemy by treachery 3 : to fail or desert especially in time of need 4 a : to reveal unintentionally b : SHOW, INDICATE c : to disclose in violation of confidence
intransitive senses : to prove false

Apostate: abandonment of a previous loyalty

Recreant: unfaithful to duty or allegiance

Quisling: Norwegian politician who collaborated with the Nazis

Turncoat: one who switches to an opposing side or party; specifically : TRAITOR

Thank you Radio Blogger for providing the transcript and audio from the Hugh Hewitt radio program of March 22nd.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Three branches of government?

The Hedgehog Blog has an excellent post discussing Judicial Modesty. While enjoying his post I would suggest an additional conclusion, that legislative decisions may make better law than judicial decisions. When properly implemented our representative democracy has wonderful checks and balances that largely moderate the types of decisions The Hedgehog discusses here.

Perhaps if legislators made laws, judges determined the Constitutionality of those laws, and the executive enforced those laws we would have better, and fewer, laws on the books.

Thanks The Hedgehog Blog for the quality work you do.

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Journalist: Subject to the law?

Tim Rutten of the LA Times has, to quote OKIE on the LAM, his "panties in a wad" because he has just realized that journalist are subject to US law. In a near panic he has asked "Does it matter to anyone outside the news media that, in papers filed in connection with its prosecution of two pro-Israel activists last month, the Justice Department actually argued that journalists who obtain or publish classified information are liable for prosecution under the Espionage Act of 1917?"

To answer you Mr. Rutten, it does matter to some outside the media that National Secrets not be transmitted to potential future enemies of the United States. It matters that those secrets not be communicated to present enemies of the United States. It matters that anyone who transfers National Secrets during a time of war be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Yes Mr. Rutten, it matters a great deal.

Thank you OKIE on the LAM - In LA for a great post. Reading you illustrates "What's got ol' Tim's panties in a wad."

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

What happened to the Monroe Doctrine?

With "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was playing a "destabilizing" role in the region" it is dangerous to allow China to exploit that instability. We need to declare now our intention to enforce the Monroe Doctrine and not let the dragon get any further into our tent.

The Center for Security Policy had the story on China training Latin American military.

Friday, March 10, 2006

North Korea or Iran. Which will fall first?

It is time for North Korea's WMD to be removed.

It is time for Iran to surrender it's WMD programs and sever all ties with terrorist.

In each case they may do this voluntarily, and temporarily control their own destiny, or we can do it for them which will mean regime change. Each country can make their own choice, but only these two choices are available to them.

As I posted before, it is scary is how attention starved the leaders of each country is and how dangerous that makes them. has the story of North Korea launching missiles to draw attention.

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Ask someone who knows.

I find it interesting that when the media or others from the left want to know what is happening militarily in Iraq, they ask civilians, pacifist, malcontents, or each other. Intelligent people like Jed Babbin, guest hosting the Hugh Hewitt radio program, go to the professionals who know best such as Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, US Army.

Radio Blogger has the interview from which I particularly appreciate General Kimmitt's comment that "any adversary in the world that would somehow suggest or think in their own deliberations that we do not maintain a capability to do what our nation asks us to do is making a serious mistake."

Air Mobility

Two keys to the United States military's ability to project power around the world are tankers and transport aircraft. Both catagories have been doing an amazing job around the world acting as force multipliers to the US military. The following articles provide updates on both tankers and transport aircraft procurement and are recommended. Hopefully someone in congress is reading these as well.

The Center for Security Policy discusses the wisdome of cutting production of transport aircraft, with no replacement on the horizon, at a time of increasing demand. has an update on the other element of concern to air mobility which is our aging tanker fleet and the need for a replacement for the KC-135.

Contract Renewed!

"By enacting the 'Contract with America: Renewed,' we will balance the federal budget by cutting wasteful government spending and ending outdated government bureaucracies.

"By enacting the 'Contract with America: Renewed,' we will protect the tax cuts that have made our economy thrive.

"By enacting the 'Contract with America: Renewed,' we will strengthen social security and provide for our veterans and the national defense.

"By enacting the 'Contract with America: Renewed,' we will keep our promise to future generations by reforming the entitlements that threaten to bankrupt our national government.

The Corner on National Review Online has the full statement from U.S. Congressman Mike Pence.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

The "Illegal" in Illegal Imigration

Finally someone has gotten to the key element of the discussion over illegal imigration. Dennis Byrne writes in RealClearPolitics that:

"people who are illegally in this country possess only those civil rights that we grant to them."

"Yes, they have human rights, such as the familiar life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But civil rights, by most definitions, are protections and privileges of freedom given by nation's laws to its citizens."

"An illegal immigrant can claim the protections of human rights, which cannot be voided by any governmental action. But--and this will startle and anger some--an "undocumented" immigrant has no claim to equal treatment."

This will not be popular in the main stream press, but the "illegal" part of illegal imigrant is the most important part of this discussion.

Mr. Byrne closes with a solution saying "we can solve this problem, humanely and effectively. Strengthen our border. Enforce the laws on the books. Restore respect for the rule of law. Agree that the fight isn't over immigration, but illegal immigration. And, most important, agree that Americans have a right to define and defend what it means to be an American."

Well said Mr. Byrne. This speaks volumes to this "simple solutions are best" thinker.

Monday, March 06, 2006

Iraqi Tribes Strike Back

"Anyone who provides refuge to terrorists will be considered and dealt with like a criminal and terrorist."

This, according to John Ward Anderson in The Washington Post, from the leaders of Hawijah in Iraq . With Iraqis taking ever increasing control of their own security needs it is heartening to hear civilian Iraqis expressing their desire to be free of these terrorist. Even if their motivation is to be free of the terrorist so they can be rid of us, I take that as a very positive means to an end.

The Washington Post has Iraqi Tribes Strike Back at Insurgents which I found with help from Google News.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

There is a war against Christians.

This is not surprising. It is additional confirmation of my earlier post asserting that there is a war against Christians and Jews. Again, this is not surprising, just important for those of faith, and those against tyranny, to understand.

Italian Commission: Soviet Union Ordered Pope John Paul II's Shooting was found at The Homeschool-Encourager.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

What a great day!

Beautiful 50 degree weather in the Rockies.
An afternoon of driving.
The pleasure of listening to the first baseball game of the year on the radio.
Go Rockies.

Colorado Rockies News.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?