2008 June 09 Monday
Local Police Embracing Immigration Law Enforcement
Our overlords on Wall Street, K Street, in Congress, and the White House want us to accept a massive damaging demographic transformation of society. But a sheriff in Florida and local police are finding that the enforcement of laws against identity theft provide them with tools to enforce immigration laws.
Sheriff Wendell Hall of Santa Rosa County, who led the effort, said the arrests were for violations of state identity theft laws. But he also seemed proud to have found a way around rules allowing only the federal government to enforce immigration laws. In his office, the sheriff displayed a framed editorial cartoon that showed Daniel Boone admiring his arrest of at least 27 illegal workers.
His approach is increasingly common. Last month, 260 illegal immigrants in Iowa were sentenced to five months in prison for violations of federal identity theft laws.
At the same time, in the last year, local police departments from coast to coast have rounded up hundreds of immigrants for nonviolent, often minor, crimes, like fishing without a license in Georgia, with the end result being deportation.
What does it say that the parts of government close to the people are going in one direction while our elites go in another?
The states are where the action is in policy changes to increase law enforcement against illegal immigrants.
State lawmakers, in response to Congressional inaction on immigration law, are giving local authorities a wider berth. In 2007, 1,562 bills related to illegal immigration were introduced nationwide and 240 were enacted in 46 states, triple the number that passed in 2006, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. A new law in Mississippi makes it a felony for an illegal immigrant to hold a job. In Oklahoma, sheltering or transporting illegal immigrants is also a felony.
Will President Barack Obama try to undermine local law enforcement? Or will grassroots lobbying efforts of Congress block attempts to pass amnesties and foreign worker programs?
Barack Obama will never be President. He makes way, way too many mistakes. He will become an embarrassment to the Democrats, and they may turn to Hillary to save themselves. If they don't, then McCain will win by default.
Presenting false ID to a police officer or any government official is a felony. To avoid any interaction of this kind would be very difficult unless an illegal were uncommonly well-behaved, but then he wouldn't be illegal, he would have found one of the ways to legalize, or left.
The government has to practice extraordinary tolerance and collusion with illegals, and at EVERY level of jurisdiction, including the furthest back country sheriff's department. If even one jurisdiction becomes much less tolerant, the illegals start getting arrested for felony presentation of false ID, and that panicks millions of them, leading to UN special rapporteurs on anti-racism being dispatched, as currently.
Now jurisdictions have discovered that they can be a bit less tolerant than their neighbor, and the costs associated with illegals can be pushed over the county line, to the 'sanctuary' jurisdiction. The incentives for this are powerful, the cost of being a sanctuary can be ruinous, leading to removal of elected officials. officials have discovered how they can become much more popular being tough on illegals, with nothing to fear but media complaints and smears which actually improve their image, and legal actions which have to be focussed on only a small fraction of jurisdictions involved.
When will Obama's mistakes start hurting his popularity? The press is going to go very easy on him.
I may have written that prediction too soon. If McCain was really on the ball, he'd be scoring a lot of points right now. So, if anyone wins by default, it might be none other than Obama. As for the press, Reagan went against a hostile press and beat his challengers like a drum. The press was not the deciding factor then, and it probably wouldn't be now. McCain is not highly regarded among conservatives, but that wouldn't matter either if the guy would just get more aggressive. Hillary darned near beat him. McCain could, but it appears that he's just may not be up to it.
McCain has only 2 chances:
1) A terrorist attack shifts America rightward.
2) Some video of Obama or his wife comes out showing them saying something a few years ago to a private audience that would turn the electorate against him.
McCain is too old and he lacks Reagan's clarity of purpose and belief.
There may not be another terrorist attack soon. However, there may be an event which alters the political landscape a bit. There is some talk that the second great depression is around the corner. I doubted that until very recently. I now think it is a very real possibility. Conventional wisdom would suggest that a depression would favor the left. But if the right played it right, I think they may be able to save themselves. We'll see.
We'll get something resembling a depression when world oil production starts declining at 4-5% per year and oil exports decline at a faster rate. President Obama will be stuck dealing with the consequences. Since the Democrats blame Bush for the high price of oil I figure 2 years into an Obama Administration it will be fair to blame him for the high price of oil.
Actually, the Democrats blamed Bush in 2001 for the economic downturn in his first year in office. I figure we can therefore blame Obama for stuff out of his control in his first year in office too.
We are better off having a Democrat in the White House WTSHTF.
Sorry to differ with you. Your line of reasoning seems to be that the right
can win by losing. When you lose, you lose. So why lose if you don't
have to? Obama is beatable. But the effort must be put in so that this event
can occur. Otherwise, he wins by default. The presumption is that with an Obama
victory, his demise must surely follow. This is an outcome that I would not
count upon as coming true. No one knows with absolute assurance what the
future will bring. The future is now. Now is the only thing you have that is
guaranteed. The future is speculative.
Clinton's victory in 1992 created the conditions for the Republicans to win control of the House in 1994. That is winning by losing.
And, again, the party in power always loses during an economic downturn. Plus, McCain is a very weak candidate with big negatives.
And, again, the Democrats are going to get stuck with the blame for declining oil production. They will have to abandon their opposition to all manner of oil drilling and they'll have to flip on some other issues. It is best to have the party in power that opposes some need when the need becomes extremely obvious.
I'm going out of town and I don't have a laptop computer to access the web while away. So, this will be my last post on this thread for awhile.
You mentioned Clinton's victory in 1992 as winning by losing. It is true that the Republicans regrouped and won both houses of Congress in 1994. You may have somewhat of a point there, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with you once again. My quibble is this: George H. W. Bush wasn't trying to win by losing. He was trying to win and he failed. Therefore, it wasn't a strategy that was being employed. It was something along the lines of how the old cookie crumbled.
I do not like McCain. And he may not win no matter what he does, like Bush in 1992. With respect to Obama, I think McCain would be better, warts and all. I don't think he is trying to lose, but I wonder if how much he and the rest of the right is really committed to winning. And I'll repeat that this is the best strategy regardless of what the final outcome might be.