Immigration’s Plan B:

Mi Familia VotaMeanwhile, back at the ranch, whilst you were watching Syria and weren’t paying attention domestically — and without statutory authority:

A Plan B.

Immigration-reform activists aren’t supposed to talk publicly about a Plan B. They can’t, or won’t, answer questions from the media about what they will do if no bill passes this year to legalize the undocumented population. But as August wears on and there is no clear sense of what the House will do on immigration, some are starting to speak out.

“There are groups that are for immigration reform no matter what. Then there are groups like us, grassroots…. We have the other track,” said Adelina Nicholls, the executive director of the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights. “The other track is Barack Obama.”

The idea behind the “other track” is to freeze the current undocumented population in place through an administrative order, give them work permits, and hope for a better deal under the next president, with the hope that he or she is a Democrat. It’s a significant gamble, but some advocates—particularly those outside of the Washington legislative bartering system—argue that it’s better than what they stand to see under the legislation being discussed now.

Many advocates have been discussing Plan B quietly for months, but they have kept a disciplined public message solely focused on supporting a comprehensive immigration bill in Congress. Even if they are uncomfortable with some of the bill’s provisions (like, say, excluding anyone who has been convicted of petty theft from legalization), advocates don’t want to appear fractured before a group of politicians who are wary about voting for anything that gives unauthorized immigrants legal status. As soon as reluctant lawmakers smell dissension in the ranks, they flee.

All Obama needs is “proof” that Congress can’t get the job done — then Obama reacts with an EO on his own, unilaterally.

Activists fear the border will be “militarized.”  And that immigrants will be driven “underground.”  Our sovereignty at literal risk, supported by foreign consulates.  Dual citizenship, tri-citizenship.  This is how you kill a nation.

Obama plans, by Executive Fiat, to legalize and normalize millions of Mexicans above and beyond the Dream Act.  The Leftists will do anything to accomplish their objectives, and they are unceasing.  If not by legislation, then by any manner in any fashion.  They are beyond resolute.  They are advocating “turning up the heat.”  The proverbial “squeaky wheel,” ladies and gentlemen.

Do you find Republicans who are likewise resolute or unceasing or unaccepting of defeat?  Who attack like steamrollers and piledrivers?

And who create websites like Mi Familia Vota, the sole goal of which is to bring as many illegal Mexicans into the United States as possible?  Not the French, not Ethiopians, not Russians, not Canadians.  Mexicans.  Who speak Spanish.  And who do not hail from Spain — though it was Spain that conquered the Indians of Mexico, which is why they speak Spanish today and not Tagalog.

Whose headlines read:

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS LEADERS TRAVEL THE ROAD TO CITIZENSHIP: VOW NOT TO TAKE ‘NO’ FOR AN ANSWER

Obama’s Executive Fiat and a SCOTUS that supports it.

I ask: how can you say you “love your country” and truly hate your Constitution?

Your Constitution and Founding Fathers provided recourse.  A convention for proposing amendments.

Article Five of the United States Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.[2]

Perhaps a reference to Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments.

I submit that Mr Levin possesses a logical and sane alternative to the illogical and insane path our nation is currently taking.

Tell me: how many of you recognize our country from, say, thirty years ago?

Not in terms of melanin count, but in terms of logic, common sense, law, reality, proportion and rationality.

Don’t think Leftists don’t have a strategy:

Most activists for immigration reform have been so wrapped up in getting legislation through the Senate that they haven’t had time to look up and see what’s down the road. They are doing so now. “We’re saying, ‘What if? What are the next steps? If we come to a crossroads, what are the next strategies, the next talking points?’ ” said Lizette Escobedo, communications and development director for the Latino group Mi Familia Vota. “Our groups on the ground are seeing this as a new challenge. And when you get a new challenge, you just need to turn up the heat.”

Really.

What have you heard is the GOP‘s so-called “Plan B”?

Correct: nothing.

BZ

 

 

California senate passes bill permitting non-citizen poll workers

As if Fornicalia hasn’t already “jumped the shark” in terms of its over-the-top support of Illegal Mexicans, I say: “but wait; there’s more!”

First, a sign in the desert:

Border Sign In the DesertThen, from Breitbart’s Big Government:

CA Senate Passes Bill Permitting Non-Citizen Poll Workers

On Monday, the Californian State Senate passed legislation AB817 that would allow non-citizens to help voters when they cast their ballots. Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda sponsored the bill, which would permit as many as five permanent residents who entered the U.S. legally to help voters at polling places.

But wait!  There’s more:

Sen. Norma Torres, D-Pomona, who placed Bonta’s bill before the Senate, said that the non-citizens could help the 2.6 million Californians whose English skills are limited: “These individuals have the absolute right to make fully informed voting decisions on Election Day,” she said.

The bill was passed by a 22 – 10 vote.

All 22 “ayes” were Demorats; all 10 “nays” were Republicans.

There, then, was a small glimmer of hope for Republicans at least displaying a modicum of unanimity.

The bill goes back to the Assembly with the Senate’s changes.

It will pass.  It has to.  Demorats possess a clear and distinct SuperMajority in Fornicalia.  A pro-Mexican bill sponsored by a female Mexican.  It doesn’t get any better than that.

And Fornicalia, it do love its illegal Mexicans because of DIP: Demography Is Prophecy.

Listen, Demorats, it’s not like you haven’t gotten your way entirely in Fornicalia.  Not only do you lord it over the GOP, but you have to rub Republican noses into your feces?

Apparently so.

BZ

 

 

The US Senate: looking out for your best interests regarding border security

Mexican-American_border_at_NogalesAnd the US Senate has determined that your best interests are not served by having a border fence along our southern border with Mexico.

From the WashingtonTimes.com:

Senators on Tuesday rejected building the 700 miles of double-tier border fencing Congress authorized just seven years ago, with a majority of the Senate saying they didn’t want to delay granting illegal immigrants legal status while the fence was being built.

The 54-39 vote to reject the fence shows the core of the immigration deal is holding. The vote broke mostly along party lines, though five Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio and the rest of the bill’s authors, voted against the fence, and two Democrats voted for it.

Please note that: Marco Rubio voted against the fence.

Republicans had offered the fence as a way to build the confidence of voters skeptical that the government will enforce its laws, but opponents said building more fencing is costly, would take too long, and shouldn’t be dictated by Washington.

“I think we should leave that to the best judgment of the Border Patrol,” said Sen. John McCain, one of the eight senators who wrote the immigration bill.

John McCain, a POW from the Vietnam era, has served his country well whilst in the military.  I believe he does not serve his country now, though he “represents” the state of Arizona, obviously a border state with Mexico.  This is a conflict that I cannot conjur or condone.  Mr McCain has served his time and needs to leave politics immediately.  Which, of course, he will not.

Sen. John Thune, South Dakota Republican, proposed the border fence amendment, which would have prevented the administration from granting any illegal immigrants legal status under the bill until at least 350 miles of double-tier fencing has been erected, and would withhold full citizenship rights until 700 total miles have been built.

Correct.  Thune proffered a logical amendment in which he required the government to do something actively and up front.  I concur.  I don’t trust the federal government.  They have given us many years of execrable performance (mostly the lack thereof) to justify this tanking of trust.

This was a bit of my personal “make or break” point, and the federal government has broken things once again.  They are men and women who are primarily interested in serving their own best interests of self, and the American Taxpayers can predominantly go straight to Hell.

Minutes after the border fence, senators also voted to weaken current law that requires the government to have biometric checks such as fingerprints or eye-scans for every visitor to the U.S. — a recommendation of the 9/11 commission that looked into the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York.

Read that again: weaken CURRENT law.  A “recommendation of the 9/11 commission that looked into the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York.”

Then the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) weighs in:

CBO: Immigration bill only stops 25 percent of illegal immigration

The Senate immigration bill will be a major boost to the federal budget but does relatively little to clamp down on illegal immigration — cutting the future flow by only about 25 percent — according to the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the bill, released Tuesday afternoon.

Under the bill, which legalizes illegal immigrants and invites in foreign workers, immigration will total 10.4 million more people over the next decade and 16.2 million by 2033.

So: another “feel good” bill which is predicated, again, on naught but emotions, leaving facts and reality kicked to the curb?

Apparently so.

With a caveat to John Boehner via Politico.com:

Dana Rohrabacher warns John Boehner on speakership

By REBECCA ELLIOTT | 6/18/13 7:27 AM EDT

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) says Speaker John Boehner should be ousted if he rams through an immigration bill without majority Republican support.

“If Speaker Boehner moves forward and permits this to come to a vote even though the majority of the Republicans in the House—and that’s if they do—oppose whatever it is that’s coming to a vote, he should be removed as Speaker,” Rohrabacher said on World Net Daily radio on Monday.

On the other hand, does anyone think that, suddenly, magically, the GOP will somehow find a pair of testicles and/or a spine recently discarded from a person missing both these essential items?

I don’t.

BZ

 

 

Rubio: Legalize Illegal Immigrants So They Can Fund Border Security

Legalization For AllHonest.  I swear.  I had another post envisioned for Saturday but, when I came across this article at Breitbart.com, it got kicked to the curb because — in concert with my Thursday post — Republicans seem to be displaying the intelligence contained within the pot of an average houseplant this week.

To wit:

On Thursday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said one reason illegal immigrants must be legalized as soon as possible is so they can help fund border security measures by paying taxes and fines. 

During an interview on “The Andrea Tantaros Show,” Rubio, as Byron York points out, first said there was no choice but to legalize at least 11 million illegal immigrants because he said the country “cannot wait another four years” to enact immigration reform.

He then said illegal immigrants needed to be registered “as soon as possible” so the fines they pay into the system help fund border security programs. 

“We need to register them as soon as possible, not just to keep the problem from getting worse, but we’re going to require them to pay a fine, and that’s the money that we are going to use to pay for the border security,” Rubio, said, according to York. “If we don’t get that fine money from the people that have violated our immigration laws, then the American taxpayer is going to have to pay for border security.”

Does anyone besides the ol’ BZ see any kind of a problem with this urgent registration?

For those amongst us who need a bit of a nudge and a prompt, let me suggest this:

Illegal immigrants are, by their very nature, law breakers.  It’s why they fall under the category of, uh, “illegal.”  Hello?  Definitions?  Words?  Actual meanings?

So what it is about the nature of Illegal immigrants that Mr Rubio thinks will somehow suddenly yield lawful activity?

As in, magically willing to be “fined”?

Because here’s the alternative to “fined:” they can simply continue to do what they currently do best.  Exist as illegals under the radar and still stay in the country to work or conduct illegal activities or stick their proboscis into the vital and nutrient-rich streams of social welfare.

In conclusion, allow me to refine the words Mr Rubio leaves unrefined: illegal Mexicans.  Mexicans are from Mexico, a nation conquered by Spain, which is why they speak Spanish and not Urdu or Swahili.  The United States is not suffering from an illegal tide of French or, say, those from Eritrea or Luxembourg or Vatican City.  Mexicans.  Illegal Mexicans.

So let’s just do what I call the Logical Extension, Mr Rubio.  Illegal Mexicans have no real motivation to “pay fines” if the status quo does not change.  And where will you get these fines, pray tell, when lawbreakers decide it’s not in their best fiscal interest to “obey” said laws?

With finality: yes.  The American Taxpayer.

BZ