Indeed, Barack Obama is one heck of an enlightened "person of color," as is illustrated in his recent praise of a court decision that castrates Hazelton, Pennsylvania's "Illegal Immigration Relief Act." A slight digression: is a "person of color" who is half-white more aptly described as a "person of diluted color?"
Either way, Obama called the judge's ruling "a victory for all Americans." This "victory" entailed halting efforts to stop landlords from renting to known illegal aliens. In what utopian plane of existence or topsy turvy dimensional offshoot is this a win for Americans? Since illegal aliens are more likely to commit crimes and carry diseases than citizens, how is deterring them from entering or staying in one's city a negative? And shouldn't states and cities with popular support in these matters have the right to decide for themselves?
"Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton's measures, the city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not," Munley (the judge) wrote.
This is a cute, legalistic way of saying: "I suggest we ignore problems associated with illegal migration." At stake here is whether or not states or cities should have the right of handling illegal immigrants, when the federal government shirks its duty in addressing the issue. In this judge's opinion, the answer is no. Furthermore, I'd like an elaboration on how one's mere presence in this country can be a crime, yet the criminal-in-question has a constitutional right to become a tenant on a particular tract of land within our borders. This judge has the same grasp of logic and our Constitution that Porky Pig has of crisp elocution.
Munley also wrote that Hazleton's law was at odds with current federal immigration policy, which he said avoids "excessive enforcement" against illegals so as not to jeopardize foreign relations. Hazleton, he said, failed to consider "the implications of the ordinances on foreign policy."
More garbage. Federal "immigration policy" in a nutshell is "Let's make them all Americans," which solves nothing and creates a host of new obstacles. Apparently, anything less than citizenship, full constitutional rights, and a voter's registration card and driver's license is "excessive." And since when does the U.S. allow foreign opinion dictation rights on policy? That's certainly not the approach the executive has taken in Iraq or Afghanistan. I suppose we should make an exception when it comes to Mexico's role in determining who should and shouldn't be an American.
Obama, addressing the National Council of La Raza's annual convention in Miami Beach last week, called the debate that defeated the Senate immigration bill "both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights" and pointed to his marching in the May 2006 immigration rallies in his appeal for the group's support.
This is one of the more hilarious things I've read in a long time. The irony of dubbing opponents of the failed amnesty bill racists at a La Raza meeting doesn't escape me (La Raza means "The Race," and the group's motto is "for The Race, everything, for those outside The Race, nothing!"). You know all you need to know about someone who would sully himself in a public speaking engagement with these people. In his accusation of nativism leveled toward those who don't embrace amnesty, he stands on the same side of the Rio Grande as G.W. Bush.
Obama continued: "Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last year," he said. "Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk – because I walked.
That depends on where the rally took place. If it happened at the border, chances are, you had to run to keep up.
No comments:
Post a Comment