Random Things that Blow My Mind!

1.  Environmentalism as a pagan faith?!  Oh, sanctimonious Christians, you make me laugh.

2.  Speaking of pagan faiths, I saw a book today I mean to buy eventually about how the Virgin of Guadalupe is a border-jumping goddess who’s managed to thrive while the rest of her kind were relegated to the ash heap of history.  Looks very interesting.

3.  It turns out that Joe O’Donnell, the nice old man whose book-launching party I went to at the President of Vanderbilt’s house, who recently died, was a lying liar who lied.  I want to call about eight people back in Nashville and just be all “Holy Shit!  What do you make of that?!”

4.  It’s okay if your town wants to take extra-legal steps to fight illegal immigration, but not okay if your town wants to take extra-legal steps to keep illegal immigrants.  So, we’re for local authority except when we’re against it? I’m not sure.

5.  Oh Southern Democrats.  I’ve got nothing to add to what Mary and Sean have said except to say that the Democrats down here do some fucked up shit.

6.  Yes, I ate the strawberry glaze on the cheesecake.  Yes, I am deeply regretting it and waiting to see just how hard it’s going to get for me to breathe.  I don’t care.  It was worth it.

21 thoughts on “Random Things that Blow My Mind!

  1. So how do you pro-illegal immigrant folks justify bringing lawsuits against any town that passes laws against illegals, arguing that those towns are interfering with federal jurisdiction, THEN ALSO complain that feds are stepping in to take control over what, by your own argument, is their jurisdiction?

  2. Fuck if I know. Clearly both sides like to dance around the jurisdiction issue. My side just happens to be the good guys, so I assume we have god on our side. Jesus takes care of all apparent contradictions, you know. ;)

  3. Exador,

    I think I would disagree with Chertoff’s premise that Cities are going to “interfere” with Federal efforts to crack down on unauthorized aliens in the United States. From my understanding, a sanctuary city merely does not allow their local officials to involve themselves in Federal Immigration laws…I see nothing wrong with this. It is not the local authority’s job to enforce immigration laws, as most localities and states use a form of residency which does not necessarily require federal documentation stating authorization to be within the US Borders.

  4. Sean, kidnapping is a federal offense, as is bank robbing.

    So are we to understand that in these sanctuary communities, local law enforcement will not involve themselves in the enforcement of those federal laws either?

    Of course not, they are merely restraining from enforcing the federal law (which doesn’t just end once one enters a municipality) in one narrow topic, immigration.

  5. Pingback: Volunteer Voters » The Law And Immigration

  6. Thank you for that clever bit of sophistry, Lee; I think it illustrates the ‘sanctuary’ cities’ point quite well. I would go so far as to say that you inadvertently illustrate the usually unspoken issue at the core of the ‘immigration’ debate.

    Kidnapping and bank robbery are often violent crimes that require immediate response from local jurisdictions. It is usually unwise for local law enforcement to sit back and wait for the feds to handle things. Being in the U.S. without legally sanctioned documentation is not a violent crime, and the vast majority of those in this condition pose no violent threat to the communities in which they may be found.

    The push for local prosecution of undocumented migrants under the guise of ‘following the law’ is not a solution. It is a reaction, and it does nothing to address the underlying causes and issues of the immigration problem. Issues of culture and ethnicity aside, there is a real chain of economic issues at work here, and people have good reason to want to do something. Persecuting the weakest links in the chain won’t fix those issues.

  7. Actually, bank robbing and kidnapping are both state offenses that can also be federal offenses. Most drug crimes also fit this description.

  8. Also, pretty much all prosecutions are reactions that do nothing to address the underlying causes and issues of why the person did what they did. Either way, they still acted illegally.

  9. Actually Church Secretary, you remember that killing of three black college students up in Newark. You know, the one where three promising young people were lined up against a wall, made to kneel, and then shot in the back of the head for no apparent reason.

    You remember that?

    Do you also remember that the arrested suspects are illegal aliens, and that they had been arrested before, but their immigration wasn’t checked because Newark is a — guess what — sanctuary city.

    Local authorities were prohibited to enforce the law of the land, and people died because of it.

    Typical.

  10. Do you also remember that the arrested suspects are illegal aliens, and that they had been arrested before, but their immigration wasn’t checked because Newark is a — guess what — sanctuary city.

    Their immigration status didn’t make them violent. They probably would have been just as violent if they’d stayed where they came from, or if they had immigrated legally. One’s capacity for violence and one’s willingness to break certain laws nonviolently aren’t nearly that correlated, let alone causally linked.

    They should have been investigated if there was anything that could reasonably lead a person to suspect that they were going to do violent things. If that investigation was stopped because of sanctuary laws (which I don’t believe is the case, because again, immigration status has little, if any, causative weight with respect to violent crime), then that’s a problem…. but that simply doesn’t seem to be true. They’re distinct issues.

    I personally tend to read Sanctuary towns like sit-ins. They’re not intended to be solutions – a few cities with that stance doesn’t constitute systemic change any more than a few people chained to a seat makes for an integrated lunch counter – they’re intended to make a moral point and to force the issue to resolution. And, well, if the government takes issue with it, fine; civil disobedience means taking your lumps, and continuing to take your lumps until things change.

  11. “At the time of the killings, Jose Lachira Carranza, 28, was out on bail awaiting trial in two separate cases related to a bar fight and the alleged sexual assault of a 5-year-old girl.

    Newark authorities had not notified immigration officials that Carranza was in the country illegally following his arrests.

    Turns out, they never do. In New Jersey, local officials are not required to report undocumented immigrants to federal officials until after they are sentenced.”

    If law enforcement had been doing its job and informed the feds that they had someone in their custody who was breaking the law, then Mr. Carranza would not have been out and about killing random college students.

    But beware the civil disobedience argument Mag. Do you really want local communities deciding which federal laws they want to enforce and which ones they don’t want to enforce.

  12. When all else fails, wave the bloody shirt. Lee, I’m not sure there’s any point in debating you, when you don’t even pay attention to your own evidence. Case in point:

    From the very material you quoted, Lee, it appears that the alleged perpetrator of the killings was out on bail for other alleged crimes. If, in New Jersey, “local officials are not required to report undocumented immigrants to federal officials until after they are sentenced,” then how was it that they weren’t doing their jobs by not reporting someone who hadn’t yet been convicted? More importantly, instead of hyping his immigration status, why not bitch about why he was allowed bail after being accused of sexually assaulting a 5-year-old?

    We’ve got a serious problem with violent crime in this country. Trying to push frustration with that problem onto an entire class of people (undocumented immigrants) is disingenuous and counterproductive.

  13. Yes, letting an illegal immigrant out on bail. That’s like the catch and release program where INS finds some folks, has them sign a paper, and tells them to return on their honor. Guess how many actually do?

    And yes that is different from bail, because it involves money. But is letting pedophile illegal aliens with a penchant for violence is out on bail in the first place a good thing? Even if not an illegal immigrant?

    Apparently a judge in NJ thought so, but that is besides the point. The point is whether once someone is caught for a violent crime, and then they are determined to be illegal, they have all the incentive in the world to flee.

    But then again, CS, I am probably butting my head up against a wall with you and all. I don’t loathe my country.

  14. You’re butting your head up against a wall, alright, but that has nothing to do with me. That’s part and parcel with the philosophy that passes for conservatism these days. In order to accept the various logical and moral contortions that are required to define sabotaging the nation as loving the nation, you’re bound to collide with a wall or a floor here and there. It’s a wonder your skull is still intact.

    And to anyone else reading, I’m not just tossing out an insult. Look at how Lee argues.

    He’s apparently responding to where I pointed out– as any reasonable person would– that the alleged perpetrator’s immigration status was far less important than his being out on bail after being accused of doing some pretty heinous things. Would that not be a consideration even for a citizen accused of the same acts? But ol’ Lee can’t let go; he has to shove the immigration thing out to the fore again, because that’s the dead horse he’s beating today. It gets worse, though.

    The point is whether once someone is caught for a violent crime, and then they are determined to be illegal, they have all the incentive in the world to flee.

    See what I mean? That middle clause is redundant. What violent criminal wouldn’t want to flee? That’s why we have a system of bail, because it is intended to give the accused incentive to not flee (and if the accused is deemed to be particularly dangerous, he can be denied bail). But the clause is also irrelevant to Lee’s own example because the alleged perpetrator in this case– even though an ‘illegal’ with an obvious way out of facing prosecution for his other accused crimes– did not flee. He allegedly stuck around to make himself even more of an asshole to the community.

    So the immigration issue still has no relevance to this case. If anything, the people of Newark need to be asking what value that arraignment judge places on their community, seeing as he/she agreed to let such an apparently violent asshole out on what must have been a ridiculously low bail. Of course, if the asshole in question is a drug dealer/gang leader who is successful enough to be able to put up a huge bail, then Newark has another problem on its hands. In any case, here we are again: we’re staring at the facts, and the immigration issue is nowhere to be seen.

    But the best part of Lee’s ‘argument’ is when he throws the oregano on the pizza by suggesting that people who don’t want to smear undocumented immigrants must hate America. Classy and reasonable; it’s the sort of mature approach that gets problems solved (e.g. national drug problem, 9/11, Iraq, Hurricane Katrina…).

  15. It’s a wonder your skull is still intact.

    Ok, I spit out my coffee on that.

    Look, let me toss something out to the “Lees” of the world that think punitive measures are going to fix the immigration issue. In fact, let us look no further than our own town. Here in Davidson County, the good sheriff, appalled at the senseless tragedy caused by a serial drunk driver named Reyes, decided to petition the Federal Govt to allow his deputies to check the immigration status of everyone arrested in his county. It’s called the 287(g) program. His logic was that if only he had possessed that particular tool, Reyes would have been identified as a threat to the community and deported. A simple criminal check on Reyes would have shown that he had been arrested previously like 9 different times. Where the hell was the court system during this reign of terror? He continued to make bail, or receive slap on the wrist sentences when before a judge. Yet, we somehow prefer to blame the Federal Govt for “not doing their jobs”.

    I have to ask, how is deportation any sort of guarantee of future safety? There is no impenetrable wall built, so whats to prevent these people from simply coming back, particularly if they have ties to the community? There has already been one processed through this program twice. 1200 deported, at least one returned already within 4 months.

    Folly. Myopic “solutions” disguising craven political ambitions.

Comments are closed.