I know that he’s been charged, not convicted, but there’s something seriously wrong when an illegal alien gets $1,000,000 in taxpayer-funded medical care.
Hat tip: Daily Wire
I know that he’s been charged, not convicted, but there’s something seriously wrong when an illegal alien gets $1,000,000 in taxpayer-funded medical care.
Hat tip: Daily Wire
I am not ignoring you, dear friends. It’s just that I’m in the midst of a perfect storm: both kids home, work from clients, and planning for a trip. I’ve been going from dawn to dusk, making only small inroads in my to-do list — which means blogging (sadly) becomes a low priority.
I’ll be away for a couple of weeks, but will try blogging whenever I get the internet. I’ve also asked a few friends to guest blog, but they are busy people, so I make no promises on their behalf.
In the meantime, because immigration is a hot issue again, please consider this an open thread. I won’t be able to police the comments, but I do trust that, no matter how strenuous your disagreements, you’ll all debate in a polite and civilized fashion, without obscenities, threats, or insults. After all, I only get the highest caliber of people here, so high level behavior should be as easy as breathing.
My views on the children kerfuffle haven’t changed: This is (a) intended to divert attention from Trump’s success with economics and foreign policy; (b) to weaken his presidency; and (c) to create an open border policy. I’ve been saying for at least a decade that the Left likes to use children as the thin edge of the wedge. Of course, they ignore the children hurt by their policies: the ones killed by illegal immigrants; the ones whose parents are killed by illegal immigrants; and the ones whose families are less well off because illegal immigrants skew the economy, especially amongst poor people.
This hysteria also ignores the fact that, when people are arrested, they are always separated from their children. There are a few choices: incarcerate the children with the parents, which is incredibly dangerous for the children; throw the children on the street, which we stopped doing in Victorian times; put them in foster homes as we do for children whose parents are arrested for domestic crimes; or (and this is the Democrats’ dream) simply release into America all illegal aliens who have children attached to their side, something that destroys our border and that is an invitation to child trafficking.
Let’s also note the number of children of active duty military (and reserve military) who find themselves without their parents for long, long stretches of time.
Don’t worry, the Republicans, and your President, will fix it! pic.twitter.com/xsbuPzXbHj
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 20, 2018
Obama deliberately encouraged an influx of illegal alien children as a means of circumventing immigration law. Trump is merely reinstating the rule of law.
I should have known that the weekend would explode into talk about Trump’s policies towards illegal aliens when I had an . . . ahem . . . “interesting” conversation with a very Proggie neighbor on Thursday at an end-of-the-school-year get together. He opened by telling me that “Your president Trump is destroying my business.”
“Well, hello to you too, neighbor.”
Here’s the story: This guy has for years been running a network of odd job people who do everything from power-washing decks to detailing cars to gardening. He relies primarily on illegal aliens to do this work. I have nothing personal against his team. He’s been working with many of them for years, and I’m sure they’re hardworking, solid people who simply want to give their families a better chance. Nevertheless, they are here illegally — and, importantly, my neighbor’s entire business model is dependent on their illegality.
Because of labor shortages in Marin (housing is too expensive for blue-collar and day labor people), he still has to pay these guys almost twice minimum wage. Nevertheless, I’m guessing that he doesn’t bother with things like employment taxes, benefits, etc. I don’t know for sure, but let’s just say that I have my suspicions.
When the neighbor greeted me by saying that Trump is destroying his business, the first thing I wanted to say was, “If your business is built on illegality, you must have known from the beginning that there was a chance law enforcement would catch up with you or at least force a change in your business model.” Indeed, as I see it, he’s quite lucky because his business is so diffuse that he hasn’t been on the receiving end of an ICE raid. His problem is that it appears that some of his employees have decided to self-deport — which is what one can predict will happen if our existing laws are actually enforced.
However, because this was a party, I wasn’t going to match my neighbor’s rudeness with my own. Instead, I just told him, “Trump’s enforcing the laws as written. If you don’t like the laws, get them changed. Obama had two years during which he could have changed the laws to grant amnesty and increase the number of Latin American immigrants . . . but he didn’t, so please don’t come crying to me.”
After a few more pointless ad hominem attacks on Trump, which I ignored, my excitable neighbor drifted away. I was no fun.
That confrontation, though, primed me for what happened over the weekend, which was the complete explosion of the “Trump is a Nazi for putting children in cages” meme led by (of course) a former CIA head (because we’re learning that many are crazy, anti-American, Deep State sociopaths):
Other governments have separated mothers and children pic.twitter.com/tvlBkGjT0h
— Gen Michael Hayden (@GenMhayden) June 16, 2018
Hayden is an ignorant man. A really, really ignorant man, not to mention intellectually shallow and manifestly stupid. Here’s what happened with the Nazis:
Starting in the 1930s, the Nazis starting enacting laws based, not on conduct, but on race. They declared that German citizens, people whose families had often been in Germany for centuries, were illegal simply by virtue of being Jewish. Then, for having committed the crime of just being, the Nazis hunted down these German Jewish citizens, stripped them of their possessions, tossed them into sadistically run, slave-labor concentration camps (splitting parents from children), and then killed as many of them as possible, both parents and children.
Beginning in 1939, the Nazis exported this practice. They violently invaded other countries and, once in power, declared that anyone who was Jewish was an illegal being simply by virtue of being Jewish. Then, for having committed the crime of just being, the Nazis hunted down Jews, stripped them of their possessions, tossed them into sadistically run, slave-labor concentration camps (splitting parents from children), and then killed as many of them as possible, both parents and children.
That’s the Nazis. What’s happening here, in Trump’s United States?
We have borders. We also have laws saying that it is illegal to cross into the United States over those borders without prior permission. Two segments of America hate those laws: the Proggies, who want as many votes as possible, giving them an incentive to bring in people whose votes can be bought. They also need bodies for census purposes. In the Leftist states to which the illegal aliens flock, counting those bodies in the census allows for more Leftist representatives in the House. That’s why Leftists are hysterical that Trump wants to exclude illegal aliens from the 2020 census. California, for example, isn’t quite so populous when you don’t count the almost 3,000,000 illegal aliens living in the state. And of course, as part of all the intersectional, white-male-hating Leftist craziness, Proggies simply want to drown out whites.
The other group that hates our immigration laws is the Chamber of Commerce cohort, to the extent it is composed of people desperate for cheap labor. The cheapest labor, as my neighbor knows, is to pay illegal immigrants under the table, while avoiding all the other required payments for legal employees, such as social security matching, unemployment, disability, taxes, etc. The next cheapest labor is to pay immigrants legitimately, but paying only minimum wage, because illegals are not always in a position to demand more. Were the illegals not around, these businesses would have to pay more to American-born laborers, including the blacks and American-born Hispanics against him the illegals compete. [Read more…]
For almost a year now, LACMA (aka the Los Angeles County Museum of Art) has been pushing illegal immigration propaganda at taxpayer expense.
Los Angeles County taxpayers cough up $29 million a year to cover operating costs for the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, aka LACMA. I wonder if anyone asked them if they approve of the museum’s newest installation: Carne y Arena (literally: meat and sand). The installation is intended to give the average museum goer (who’s willing to sign a waiver) the illegal immigrant experience. Here’s how the museum describes the exhibition, which opened last July and ends at the beginning of this July:
Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s conceptual virtual reality installation CARNE y ARENA (Virtually present, Physically invisible) explores the human condition of immigrants and refugees. Based on true accounts, the superficial lines between subject and bystander are blurred and bound together, allowing individuals to walk in a vast space and thoroughly live a fragment of the refugees’ personal journeys. An immersive installation that reunites frequent collaborators Iñárritu and Emmanuel Lubezki alongside producer Mary Parent and ILMxLAB, CARNE y ARENA is centered around a 6 ½-minute virtual reality sequence for one person that employs state-of-the-art immersive technology to create a multi-narrative light space with human characters.
“During the past four years in which this project has been growing in my mind, I had the privilege of meeting and interviewing many Mexican and Central American refugees. Their life stories haunted me, so I invited some of them to collaborate with me in the project,” Iñárritu says. “My intention was to experiment with VR technology to explore the human condition in an attempt to break the dictatorship of the frame, within which things are just observed, and claim the space to allow the visitor to go through a direct experience walking in the immigrants’ feet, under their skin, and into their hearts.”
That’s a pretty bland, abstract description. A pro-illegal immigration Proggie friend of mine, though, went and was blown away by the wonder of it all. I’ve restated his glowing description in my own less glowing words, but the substance of what he said is still there.
The exhibition is meant to have you experience through virtual reality (it’s hot and sandy in the exhibition) what a Honduran, El Salvadoran, Merxican or Guatemalan experiences as he or she journeys north through the Sonoran desert to enter America illegally through Arizona. After you’ve signed a waiver, lest the good folks at LACMA make you uncomfortable, and taken off your shoes, your adventure begins.
Thrill to the experience of having border guards surround you with helicopters and vans to arrest you. Then, having gotten yourself (as promised) hot and covered with sand, you get to see videos of real illegal aliens reenacting their experiences for the camera. (I assume it’s some form of PTSD psychotherapy for illegal aliens.) [Read more…]
Progressive policies prove a proposition about lawless government: “You cannot have law-abiding citizens if you do not have law-abiding government.”
Three days ago I posted about trickle-down lawlessness in California, in the form of sanctuary city and state laws:
The fish rots from the head. At the very uppermost echelons in California, we see an unprecedented degree of lawlessness. And what’s unusual about this behavior is that those violating the law aren’t even trying to hide their conduct. They’re proud of it. They boast about it. They urge others to break the law, to “resist,” to fight on the streets, and all the other inflammatory rhetoric aimed at destroying respect for legal norms.
Yesterday, I distilled that long(ish) post into a Tweet:
Regarding California: How can one expect law abiding people when we have a lawless government?
— Bookwormroom (@Bookwormroom) March 9, 2018
And then I saw this Tucker Carlson tweet:
Chicago has announced that CityKey cards, designed for illegal aliens, can be used for voter registration. In other words, non-citizen illegals will be able to vote in Chicago, including in federal elections. That’s illegal. But the city is encouraging it. #Tucker @FoxNews
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 28, 2018
You cannot have law-abiding citizens if you do not have law-abiding government.
It’s no coincidence that crime is on the rise in California. A fish rots from the head and, when it comes to lawlessness, California is rotten from the top down.
I don’t know whether you are aware, but there is an epidemic of car thefts and break-ins taking place in San Francisco. Car break-ins are at record highs:
When my car was broken into last month, I became by my estimate the 26,000th person in San Francisco to meet that fate this year — and that’s just the people who bothered to report the crime. People at every level of the socioeconomic ladder, in every corner of the city, have been affected by this crime epidemic. But, as I’ve learned over the past few weeks, city government is long on excuses and short on plans to solve the problem.
The number of auto burglaries has tripled since 2010, with no signs of slowing. In fact, there were 5,333 more car break-ins by the end of October 2017 than in the same period of 2016, according to Police Department crime statistics.
So are outright thefts:
The Bay Area had the nation’s highest rate of car theft last year — and the problem is getting worse in San Francisco, statistics show.
The rate of auto thefts in the city rose 14 percent in 2014 and is up another 10 percent as of Sept. 1, police records show. If the trend continues, roughly 7,300 trucks, automobiles and motorcycles could be reported missing in 2015 — San Francisco’s highest count in nearly a decade and a more than 80 percent increase from the low point in 2010.
The increase bucks state and regional trends.
Per capita, Oakland ranked second in the nation for stolen vehicles in 2012. The numbers there have steadily dropped during the past few years and leveled off this month. Auto theft fell about 4 percent in California from 2013 to 2014, the most recent statewide figures available.
The police aren’t much help, even when the victim is able to deliver the crime to the police in a neatly wrapped package:
I tell the police we’re following a stolen van. This seems to get some attention at first, but after asking more questions and learning it’s a rental they start slow walking. We have a trainee on the phone and his supervisor is right there telling him what to do.
The supervisor gets a hold of the sergeant, and I can hear her asking for permission to disconnect. They want to end the call. And then I get a call on the other line. It’s the sergeant, I think. He never introduced himself.
I answer: “Hello?”
“THIS IS SFPD, WE ARE NOT GOING TO PURSUE YOUR VAN ALL OVER THE CITY”
It’s in caps because he was kinda yelling. I know there’s no point in arguing about this.
“OK I understand, thank you”
Click. He hangs up.
Here’s another story, which takes place frighteningly close to my home. A friend shared it with me and authorized me to share with you: [Read more…]
When the Left uses euphemisms, it does not do so to be kind; it does so to set the agenda for immigration, trans activism, and other Leftist policies.
I am not a fan of euphemisms. I’ve always struggled a bit reading people’s emotions (I was probably on the Asperger’s scale before they had a name for it), so I prefer straight speaking, whether I’m saying it or hearing it. Demanding precise word choices means that I actually understand what the conversation is about, without having to struggle to find and then translate subtexts.
Having inadvertently offended people over the years, however, I now know that I periodically need to use euphemisms, something I do as a conscious effort to avoid giving offense where I intend none. (I especially use euphemisms regarding death. To say that someone’s loved one is “dead” has a cruel finality that softens with the phrase “passed away.”) I use them but, subject to the aforementioned exception, I don’t like them.
I especially dislike euphemisms when the Lefties put them out there. One of the most brilliant things Trump did in his State of the Union Speech was to deny the Left the word Dreamers, a euphemism they dreamed up for illegal aliens. Now Americans are the dreamers, which renders the world powerless as a form of Leftist thought control.
And you’ll notice I referred to illegal aliens. I drive my Progressive Facebook friends crazy when I correct their phrase “undocumented immigrants.” These are not people who have stood in line and filled out forms, only to forget some teeny bureaucratic detail. These are people who sneaked into America, knowing that doing so was against this country’s laws. That they are not citizens means that they are “aliens,” and that they broke the law to get here means that the are “illegal aliens.” Pretty clear, right?
The same is true with the euphemistic phrase that “Islam is a Religion of Peace.” Yes, if you accept Tacitus’s way of defining Roman peace: “They make a desert and call it peace.” Or yes, if assume Leftists’ failed spelling and actually meant “Islam is a Religion of Pieces — the tiny little pieces of blown-up, incinerated, mutilated, sliced human bodies. Those kind of pieces.”
Oh, and God do I hate the whole “trans” thing. I especially hate the fact that so many conservative outlets refer to “transgenders,” and “transgender woman” or a “transgender man.” Take for example the pathetic Rose McGowan’s outburst at a bookstore the other day, when she was shilling her new book about a life filled with abuse. (I do mean it when I say she’s pathetic. Her life started with her parents abusing her with bizarre sex cults and abandonment. No wonder that predators such as Weinstein saw her as an easy mark. Predators have a knack for finding people already made vulnerable by past life experiences.)
But to my point, here are headlines from conservative outlets:
Each of those headlines implicitly accepts that the heckler in the audience actually is “transgender”; indeed, a “trans woman.” Talk about science denial. [Read more…]
Over the weekend, Watcher’s Council members thought about how best to handle DACA. Their answers are now at WOW! Magazine. You can read mine here, too.
Every week, there’s a forum at WOW! Magazine, the online site for the venerable Watcher’s Council. This week’s question was “How Would You Deal With The DACA Issue?” I don’t always participate in these forums, sometimes because I’m too stuporous to rouse myself and sometimes because I have nothing to say. This weekend, though, I had a burst of energy and an opinion. Here, therefore, is my take:
Well, you’d have to start by getting rid of every activist judge in America — such as the one who recently held that Obama had the right to issue an illegal executive order regarding immigration, but that Trump has no right to undo that order. He takes his place in a long and dishonorable line-up of judges who ignore the Constitution and duly passed law to achieve Progressive goals. Nothing will happen with DACA as long as we have judges like that.
I’m weird in that I believe in enforcing the law as written. If you don’t like the law, you change the law; you don’t have the Deep State, the Chamber of Commerce, and RINOs bypass the law entirely, while castigating the law abiding as racist, bigoted haters.
So, my solution: Start deporting everyone who is here illegally. Yes, there are a lot. Eventually, though, we won’t have to deport all of them. People will figure out that the government is actually serious about its laws. At that point, those who are here illegally, rather than being rushed out on someone else’s timetable, will move elsewhere in an orderly manner — or apply for political asylum if they need it.
Also, I’d strip all government monies from illegals. Every last dime.
Yes, this is cold and cruel, but at a certain point, you either decide to cut out the cancer or accept that it’s going to kill you. We cannot and should not be responsible for every disastrous country in the world. They and their citizens must take responsibility for themselves. Nowhere in the Constitution is America mandated to take in millions of illiterate, often medieval, people. In the 19th century, when a pre-technological world needed bodies, immigration policies were one way; in the 21st century, well, they need to be another way.
And no, I don’t want to hear “what about the children”? Children are always the pawns of adults’ poor decisions. If I’m going to care about the children, I’m going to care about children whose are legal Americans: Children who live in Democrat-run ghettos, children whose parents are in prison, children who are trapped in public schools because Progressives, buoyed at voting booths by illegals, refuse to issue vouchers. You know, those children.
In terms of real world solutions, I have none. These are just ardent fantasies from someone who believes that, without the rule of law, we’re in the fast lane to becoming a shithole country.
If I had to give the above a grade on a curve, compared to the other insights from Council members, I’d give myself a C+ or a B-. My answer is shoot from the hip emotion (so very Leftist of me intellectually, right?); my fellow Council members come at the issue using their brains and the facts. You really should check it out.
“Shithole countries” is accurate. The US deserves quality immigrants — and sick countries must stop using us as their sewer and address their own problems.
“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Did Trump really utter that sentence with reference to places such as El Salvador (parent country of MS-13) and various African nations? Who knows? The report comes from the Washington Post, which is about as reliable as the National Enquirer used to be before it was slammed with a $1.6 million judgment when Carol Burnett sued it for libel.
Still, even while doubting the Washington Post’s journalistic integrity, the White House’s official statement makes it plain that, even if the President didn’t phrase the issue so brutally, he believes that America does not need to copy Europe’s suicidal impulses in bringing in immigrants who will drain the economy, change the culture and, perhaps along the way, conduct the occasional mass slaughter against American citizens:
Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people. The President will only accept an immigration deal that adequately addresses the visa lottery system and chain migration – two programs that hurt our economy and allow terrorists into our country. Like other nations that have merit-based immigration, President Trump is fighting for permanent solutions that make our country stronger by welcoming those who can contribute to our society, grow our economy and assimilate into our great nation. He will always reject temporary, weak and dangerous stopgap measures that threaten the lives of hardworking Americans, and undercut immigrants who seek a better lie in the United States through a legal pathway.
A few points:
1. The president is correct that we currently have virtually unlimited immigration from truly appalling countries that suffer from high crime rates; significant contagious disease problems; mass illiteracy; a tendency towards pedophilia, and, in the case of those African nations, a healthy dollop of early medieval Islamism, complete with the accompanying pathologies of misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, anti-Christianity, anti-Hinduism, and anti-anything-Westernism (except, of course, very pro our welfare system). Why in the world would any sane modern country want to allow mass migration from those places via chain immigration and visa lotteries? Europe and England, which long since left sanity far behind, give us a graphic illustration of the end point for insane immigration policies.
Saying this does not mean that a humane nation that believes in infusing itself with immigrants should ban people from some of the world’s worst countries. But shouldn’t we get to pick whether we invite in a hard-working, pro-American family man or woman versus having thrust upon us the MS-13 gang member who’s related to a whole passel of other MS-13 gang members already living here or the Islamic fundamentalist who wins a random lottery and brings in his wake 30 equally fanatic family members?
The reality is that in shithole countries, there are (sadly) a lot of people who are not only of no benefit to America, they cause active harm when they come here. Let’s not forget how illegal immigrants commit crime vastly disproportionate to their numbers and how immigrants from rural and Islamist hellholes, whether legal or illegal, are completely over-represented when it comes to sex crimes against children. (And I’m too lazy too look up a link for either of those claims but, if you make the effort, you will see that I am correct.) And none of the above even touches upon the economic costs they inflict on America. (And again, you can find the links if you wish.) [Read more…]
Given that Zarate was a felon with a gun in his hands when he killed Steinle, I’m perplexed he wasn’t convicted for felony murder.
I am as appalled as anyone else that Kate Steinle’s killer, Jose Inez Garcia Zarate, a man who was on his fifth or sixth illegal entry into the United States, walked out of the San Francisco courtroom a free man. I’m also confused, because California has a felony murder law on the books.
As a general rule, you cannot be convicted of murder if you kill someone by accident or even through extreme carelessness. Murder is an intentional act.
The one exception is felony murder. This holds that a person committing a felonious act causes someone’s death, even if the act of killing was accidental, has committed murder. There are wrinkles to the law, with the relevant one in this case being the requirement that the underlying felony has to be inherently dangerous(e.g., grand theft auto or robbery). As this excellent legal analysis shows, a defendant can avoid a felony murder charge by proving that he was not committing an inherently dangerous felony.
In the case of Zarate, he was definitely in a permanently felonious state. That is so because repeatedly entering the U.S. after repeatedly getting deported is a felony. His mere presence was a felony.
Of course, if I were Zarate’s attorney, I would try to blog a felony murder charge by arguing that repeated illegal entry, while felonious, is not inherently dangerous. True, but… [Read more…]
With DACA going before Congress, Marin County public schools are abandoning any pretense of political neutrality and are siding with illegal immigration.
Public schools are supposed to be non-partisan. All residents pay taxes towards these schools and the theory is that in return for this money, the schools teach reading, writing, arithmetic, and other core subjects in a politically neutral manner.
Of course, we all know that this theoretical understanding is a lie. In Blue Counties, science is taught through a filter of anthropogenic climate change; history is taught through a Howard Zinn-esque filter of American hatred; and English, social studies, and other “soft” liberal arts classes aggressively advance a social justice world view.
All of this indoctrination, however, is covert. It’s advanced as pure knowledge that just coincidentally happens to align with Progressive paradigms. With that in mind, school districts — or, at least, school districts in Marin — have stopped short of pitching themselves headlong into a truly partisan political issue. For example, teachers and schools have been mindful to avoid explicitly endorsing a particular candidate.
This simulacrum of non-partisan education in Marin changed with President Trump’s announcement that he was undoing Obama’s unconstitutional DACA power grab and returning it to Congress, where it properly belongs. Reversing a manifestly unconstitutional executive order (“the way our system works, the president doesn’t have the authority to simply ignore Congress and say, we’re not going to enforce the laws that you’ve passed”), was too much for the hard Leftists who populate Marin’s district offices.
Following Donald’s DACA decision, disingenuous Progressives flood Facebook with the misleading claim that “No human being is illegal.”
With President Trump having announced that he is reversing Obama’s illegal DACA order and tossing the matter back to Congress where it properly belongs, my Facebook page is getting filled with variations on this theme:
Sometimes the phrase that “no human being is illegal” is attached to Jorge Ramos, Univision’s propaganda chief, and sometimes to Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor. No matter the source, the point the Progressives are making is clear: It’s immoral to dehumanize people who have invited themselves into this country without permission by calling them “illegal.” To the extent Trump supporters seek to return to their natal lands those who are in this country without permission, we are dehumanizing them and are therefore all Hitler.
This is a singularly dishonest point. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence — which excludes all Progressives and their poor, brainwashed children (the ones who usually haul these signs around at protests — understands that “illegal alien” is a shorthand way to refer to a person who, just by being in this country, is engaged in illegal activity. Thus, the phrase refers to a choice on someone’s part to engage in an illegal activity.
Our prisons are filled with people who make such choices: [Read more…]
Progressives claim Trump acted “unconstitutionally” with Arpaio’s pardon, while excoriating him for reversing Obama’s unconstitutional DACA program.
You can imagine then, how thrilled they were when Project Democracy (which seems more involved in law-fare than actual democracy, you know, where the people have a voice) argued that President Trump acted unconstitutionally:
While the Constitution’s pardon power is broad, it is not unlimited. Like all provisions of the original Constitution of 1787, it is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Similarly, issuance of a pardon that violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is also suspect. Under the Due Process Clause, no one in the United States (citizen or otherwise) may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But for due process and judicial review to function, courts must be able to restrain government officials. Due process requires that, when a government official is found by a court to be violating individuals’ constitutional rights, the court can issue effective relief (such as an injunction) ordering the official to cease this unconstitutional conduct. And for an injunction to be effective, there must be a penalty for violation of the injunction—principally, contempt of court.
Strip away the legalese, and they’re arguing that, because Arpaio himself violated people’s constitutional rights (which assumes that people in this country illegally are entitled to constitutional benefits), the President cannot pardon him. Doing so is unconstitutional as to all those other people Arpaio harmed in the past.
The Leftist lawyers on my Facebook page (which means all of my classmates, notwithstanding the fact that we attended a Red State law school) are very excited about this argument. Here are a couple of their comments, slightly edited to protect their privacy:
I think Project Democracy must be right, because if they’re wrong, there’s no check on the executive branch’s ability to violate the Constitution.
The President’s pardon power cannot exceed the judiciary’s contempt power. Otherwise, the President, by pardoning someone who violates a court order, interferes with the powers of a co-equal branch.
Please note the obsession with the Constitution and the fear lest the executive might be pressing his authority too far under that Constitution. Despite their efforts to appear as if they actually know and appreciate the law, they are ignoring completely the breadth of the presidential pardon. Per Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, “The President…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” As the Heritage Foundation (no slacker when it comes to constitutional law) explains,
The power to pardon is one of the least limited powers granted to the President in the Constitution. The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases), and that they cannot affect an impeachment process. A reprieve is the commutation or lessening of a sentence already imposed; it does not affect the legal guilt of a person. A pardon, however, completely wipes out the legal effects of a conviction. A pardon can be issued from the time an offense is committed, and can even be issued after the full sentence has been served. It cannot, however, be granted before an offense has been committed, which would give the President the power to waive the laws.
The only limit on the president’s pardoning power is impeachment. That’s why rotten egg presidents tend to do offensive pardons or reprieves — e.g., Marc Rich, Bradley Manning (scourge of Twitter emojis), or Oscar López Rivera — as they’re leaving office, when it’s not worth Congress’s efforts to impeach them. [Read more…]
A book about the heroin crisis in America shows Trump was right when he said that, with illegal aliens, Mexico was not “sending their best” people.
You might recognize the quotation that stands as the title to this post: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best.” It comes from a June 2016 speech Trump made about illegal aliens in the United States.
Shortly after saying that Mexico is not sending its “best” people to the U.S., Trump added that, while Mexico was hanging onto its best, it was sending the U.S. a raft of less savory characters, including drug dealers and rapists. Here’s the entire section of the speech in which Trump said that Mexico’s good citizens stay in Mexico, while the miscreants come to America as a new happy hunting ground:
The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.
Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.
While the maddened Progs latched onto the above speech to mean that Trump was a racist bigot who called all Mexicans rapists and drug dealers, I always understood Trump’s statement to mean one thing and one thing only: When a country — say, “County A” — is in charge of its own border, it gets to make choices about immigrants. And when it’s allowed to choose, it chooses immigrants who are upstanding citizens who can and will make solid contributions to their new country.
However, when another country — we’ll call it “Country B” — gets to call the shots about Country A’s immigration policy, the likelihood is that Country B will actively hang onto its productive citizens or actively encourage its less productive ones to head into Country A. Sometimes it will do both.
As I understand things, Trump’s statement was never about race nor was it even about things unique to Mexican culture. What he said, and said correctly in his oblique shorthand, is that America fares very poorly when it hands its immigration policy over to Mexico.
Ann Coulter has already discussed how that Mexican-controlled American immigration policy works when it comes to rapists. The short answer is “not well.” The longer answer is “Mexican illegal aliens commit a disproportionate number of pedophile rapes in America.”
The same can be said for the Mexican-controlled American immigration policy when it comes to illegal drugs. Things do not work out well for Americans.
Pardon my meandering style, but I think it’s helpful to give a little back story here, if only to prove the bona fides of the book I’m going to discuss in this post. My interest in this subject started a couple of weeks ago, after I watched an HBO documentary about opioid use in America. I wrote a post generally praising the documentary for showing what a scourge heroin and other opiate addiction is for those who have to live with or care for the addict, but adding that I found some of its unsupported statements suspect. [Read more…]