DesertExile: Why the United States is going to fail....

01 July 2007

Why the United States is going to fail....

Many people were somewhat relieved when the latest attempt to give citizenship to 12 to 20 MILLION Illegal Alliens failed.

The image you see looks like a handgun...but is not.

The vast Homeland Security is much the same.

The problem began in the 1960's with Doctor Spock and his "Child Psychology". His approach was to "Reason" and "Negotiate" with children.

You had to talk to chidren, and not use any physical force. That way, the child had no apprehension of a penalty or punishment.
As time went on, there were people who did not want to punish. EXAMPLE:
In California, possession of ANY marijuana was a Felony, punished by time in prison and loss of right to vote. But, the "Kinder, Gentler" (KG ) folks declared,"Everybody is doing it and we shouldn't make them criminals". A lot of these were in the legislature, and they passed a bill that declared that possession of less than an ounce of Marijuana was an INFRACTION, punishable only by :1. receiving a citation, and 2. a fine.
How about Immigration? IN 1986, Congress passed an amnesty for persons who could prove they had been in the US for some time.
EnforcementIRCA had bipartisan support, being passed by a Republican-dominated Senate and a Democratic majority House; major actors were Sen. Alan Simpson (Rep. Wyo.) and Congressman Peter Rodino (Dem. N.J.), chairs, respectively of the Senate immigration subcommittee and of the House Judiciary Committee. The legislative package was sold as a grand compromise, assuring legalization for the more senior (and more rural) of the undocumented aliens while creating a new system, employer sanctions, to prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens in the future. (The latter was very much desired by the AFL-CIO at the time, then under different leadership than today.)
Prior to 1986 it had been illegal for an undocumented worker to be in the country, and it was illegal for people to “harbor” such aliens, but it had not been against the law to employ them. Employers and the immigration bar disliked the idea, but with the agricultural interests satisfied by the SAW provisions and a stand-by Replacement Agricultural Worker8 program, the grand compromise of some legalization and some employer sanctions made it through the Congress. But passing laws and enforcing them are two different matters.
The Reagan Administration and Republicans, generally, never were very enthusiastic about the enforcement of labor laws, and relatively little money was made available for employer sanctions. The law remains on the books but has made only a very minor difference in the labor market. In a sense, however, it does play an episodic role at the very top of the U.S. labor market, that is where Cabinet officials are hired. Several likely potential future members of the Cabinet, both Democrats and Republicans, have come to grief for hiring illegal aliens as household servants.
August 02, 2004
Let's all move to Rep. Joe Baca's district
From the L.A. Times story "Immigration Sweeps Become an Election Issue for Rep. Baca":
Because of his activism [in support of illegal immigrant and in opposition to our laws --LW], [Rep. Joe Baca (D-San Bernardino)] has become a lightning rod of criticism from supporters of the [recent immigration sweeps 100 miles from the border] and from a Southern California Border Patrol union whose members felt the congressman vilified them for detaining the suspects, according to those from both parties watching the election closely...
[...Some think he may have bitten off more than he could chew...]
Baca's stance on the sweeps has brought greater media attention and support to his Republican challenger, Ed Laning, a construction company executive who adamantly supports the Border Patrol operations...
"There is this kernel of just incredible anger about immigration," [UC Riverside political science professor Max Neiman] said. "It does have a potential for exploding."
...[Baca] also declared the sweeps illegal and accused the Border Patrol agents of overstepping their authority.
Baca and several other legislators in Washington discussed the sweeps with Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security at the Department of Homeland Security. After the meeting, Hutchinson declared the sweeps a violation of agency policy and said future operations far from the border must be approved by the department.
...Baca has said that he favors enforcing the law but believes federal immigration authorities should instead hunt down employers who hire illegal immigrants...
[...Border Patrol agents post anti-Baca messages to bulletin boards...]
Joanne Peters, a Baca spokeswoman, said the union members who attacked the congressman are "loose cannons" who have been reprimanded by their superiors...
Short of moving to Baca's district, perhaps we should take him up on his offer. I'm sure he won't mind if we start conducting sweeps against the employers of his "constituents."
Baca might be able to pull strings to silence those "loose cannons," but I have a feeling his attempts to squelch their First Amendment rights will backfire.
So, what it amounts to is you follow the child psychology model. First, you take away penalties and punishment.
Next, you pass laws that says an act is illegal, but you do not enforce the law, and get your enforcers to ignore the law.
Lastly, to make sure that the transgressors do not feel offended, you seek out any variation by your enforcers, and vigorously prosecute and punish them for that variation.
EXAMPLES: Ramos, Campeon, Sipe, Gary Brugman, Noe Aleman, and Sheriff's Deputy Gilmer Hernandez inside the United States, and the Haditha and Hamdaniya Marines operating in Iraq.
In both cases, the Bush Administration sought out witnesses friendly to " The Victim", and "Bought" their testimony.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home