Andrew Hamm: the Bipolar Express

Ruminations on theatre, music, and just about anything else that crosses my bipolar brain.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Harry Reid Promotes Illegal Aliens to "Undocumented Americans"

It happened a few days ago. On June 4, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the floor of the Senate:

"This week, we're going to complete that legislation. We will hopefully bring to final passage a comprehensive bill that will strengthen our border security and bring 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows."

I've been percolating a gigantic immigration-and-border-security diatribe for months, which is damn near a boil since the ridiculous bipartisan American Suicide Bill, which has me more pissed at the President than I think I have ever been at any politician since Clinton didn't know what "sex" or "is" meant. (See? I'm so pissed I'm writing run-on sentences.) I can only hope that the opening of The Tempest will finally give me time to finish the research and write the thing. But hearing about this I can't say nothing.

Illegal aliens are illegal aliens. They're not Americans. They're not even illegal immigrants; "immigrant" is a term denoting legal naturalization and citizenship. There's already a term for people who are in the country in violation of the law: illegal aliens. Now Majority Leader Reid is calling them "undocumented Americans"???? What "shadows" is he talking about? The "shadows" of being a felon on a daily basis? I'm really just speechless. I guess I can say nothing if I can't say anything.

Perhaps this is the time to mention that Senator Reid's current approval rating is 19%. That is half of Vice President Cheney's approval rating. Half. Of Cheney's. (Find me a "mainstream" "non-partisan" media outlet that's reporting that information.) I hadn't realized that the office of Majority Leader empowered Reid to naturalize immigrants, since of course only an American citizen has the right to be called "American."

Since I don't have time to comment deeply on the subject, perhaps you'll enjoy New York Sun columnist Mark Steyn's take, which reads, in part:

I forget where I was when I first heard the phrase "undocumented worker." Possibly it was after swimming the Rio Grande and emerging dripping on the northern shore to be handed a fake Social Security number and a driver's license. But I assumed, reasonably enough, that this linguistic sleight of hand was simply too ridiculous to fly even with the American media. I underestimated my colleagues, alas.

The "undocumented" are, as it happens, brimming with sufficient documents to open bank accounts or, on the other hand, rent a Ryder truck, as Mohammad Salameh did in 1993 when he and his pals bombed the World Trade Centerfirst time round. Being "undocumented" means being documented up to the hilt as far as everyone else is concerned but "undocumented" only to the US government. Which, when you think about it, is a very advantageous status to have.

The tip of the wedge these days is always changing the name.

(That's not true, actually; first you accuse all people who oppose your issue of being bigoted in some way. If I oppose gay marriage, I'm a homophobe. If I support military action in the Middle East, I'm a war-monger. If I oppose the blanket naturalization of illegal aliens, I'm a racist. This is the Democratic Party's political dialogue strategy in a nutshell: When you can't win minds and hearts with your arguments, just vilify your opponents. Works every time. How very very stupid we Americans are.)

If we're going to insist on calling them "illegal immigrants," let's combine the two ideas into one adorable, easy-to-remember term: Crimmigrants.

Hell, I'm starting to rant. Save it for later, Hamm...

Labels: ,


  • At 6/14/2007 12:02 PM , Anonymous Bob said...

    On immigration...

    I shop at my neighborhood Wal-Mart store at least once a week and have yet to join the liberal, anti-Wal-Mart chorus on issues such as labor practices and monopolistic business practices. Today, however, I must chime in with an observation: It appears the world's largest retailer has adopted the federal government's half-hearted approach to border security for use in its stores nationwide.

    I learned about this phenomenon via an Associated Press article, Theft Rising at U.S. Wal-Mart Stores, published this morning. In the article, writers Anne D'Innocenzio and Marcus Kabel point out that Wal-Mart's recent public disclosures include data that shows the company is experiencing an increase in losses -- more than $3 billion worth -- due to "shrinkage" (i.e., a combination of inventory losses due to shoplifting, employee theft, paperwork errors and supplier fraud) at its U.S. stores.

    Two of the root causes behind this increase in shrinkage, according to experts cited in the article, prompted me to write this post. Those root causes are:
    Wal-Mart's highly-publicized decision last year to no longer prosecute minor cases of shoplifting in order to focus on organized shoplifting rings; and

    Reduced staffing levels, including security personnel.

    Sounds similar to the federal government's strategy -- or lack thereof -- for safeguarding the nation's borders:

    Congress authorizes construction of a 700-mile fence on the U.S.-Mexico border and then approves separate legislation to ensure it will never be built, at least not as advertised. [Source: An Oct. 6, 2006, article in the usually-liberal Washington Post]; and

    In addition to ensuring the U.S. Border Patrol remains understaffed, ill-equipped and hamstrung by rules of engagement that favor illegal aliens, the federal government unjustly convicts two U.S. Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, and sentences them to a combined 23 years in federal prison for simply doing their jobs

    [For more info, read this Bob McCarty Writes™ post].

    Note to readers: If you own Wal-Mart stock, you might want to consider selling it -- NOW!*

    *No data or statement contained in the post above should be construed to be a recommendation for the purchase, retention or sale of the securities referred to herein, and Bob McCarty Writes™ accepts no liability for the consequences of your reliance on this data.

  • At 6/14/2007 1:39 PM , Blogger Scott Wichmann said...

    Why build a 700-mile fence across a 2,000 mile border? That makes no sense. Especially some flimsy corrugated tin piece of crap that one can simply plow through by banging on it... The freaking thing is being made by illegal immigrants anyway!! I say we let china make the fence and then import the sonofabitch like we do every other damn thing we use on a daily basis. besides, china has a good track record when it comes to building giant walls.

    I think we've got to seriously look at cancelling NAFTA and get mexico to get it's house in order. I think we should close the borders-- but then what to do about the people who are already here? Do we jail them? Deport them all? Good lord-- Do we keep allowing them to be paid peanuts for their slave-like labor? They have no money, no access to insurance, so they bog down the already overstretched healthcare system and drive down property values by living twenty to a house.!! They are in a perpetual sub-class that they cannot escape.

    We need to give anyone who comes here a path to citizenship. I have no answers-- nor does Bush or Harry Reid, under whose leadership the Senate should be called 'The Waffle House.' I see the arguments on all sides. I remember the line in '1776' where John Adams says of the african slave population: "Yes, they ARE americans. They're people and they're here. If there's any other requirement, I've never heard of it." I agree with that in it's sentiment, but I am not blind to the situation and the plight of all those affected by this problem.

    can we honestly, in good conscience,shoot these people as they run across the border?? Then say "well, I was just doin' my job?" But then again, can we also allow them to be transported via black-market, packed 45-deep in a tractor trailer only to die in the hot Arizona sun when the driver gets spooked??

    I say we deport all of the illegal immigrants and all of their descendants. Dig up the dead illegal immigrants and their descendants, deport them all on a giant ark back to wherever the hell they came from, and leave the land for the true americans-- the Native americans who were here way before us all. That'll solve it!!!

    as easy as uno, dos, tres.

    Oh shit...

  • At 6/15/2007 9:03 AM , Blogger Andrew Hamm said...

    Great wall = brilliant. I admire Doctor Doom's "Castle Walls Initiative."

    I, too, have no answers. All the options suck. But according to recent studies a disproportionate number of illegals (in California and Texas especially) are violent criminals and sexual predators, and over 30% of California's incarcerated violent criminals are illegals.

    But it's the Ramos and Compean story that has pushed me completely over the edge. It is clear that our government, right and left, is complicit in the leaky border. It's equally clear in the past two weeks that the American people are seeing through it.

    (Hee hee. "Waffle House.")


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home