There is nothing like writing about illegal immigrants to bring out the rubes. Some coward hiding behind a pseudonym, to whom I will decline to link, writes:
National Review has surrendered to the radical left and is slowly adopting the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty. It all centers around the ratchet effect, abject surrender, and much ignorance on immigration law.
NRO’s resident illegal alien Kevin Williamson, while officially claiming to be “agnostic” on the in-state tuition for illegal aliens, Rick Perry’s DREAM Act assistance to illegal aliens, in fact is a big supporter of illegal aliens, and always looking for a reason not to enforce immigration laws or build fences. Perhaps that would keep out too many illegals, like himself.
If you think Rick Perry represents the “radical left,” you are politically illiterate. There isn’t much more to say about that.
And I am, in truth, agnostic about the tuition question: If Texas runs a cost-benefit analysis and comes up with one answer, and Arizona does the same and comes up with another, both are acceptable to me. The question of how we deal with our undefended border and what we do about the millions of illegals already here is not going to be decided by how the University of Texas calculates tuition for less than 1 percent of its students.
The critic quotes above makes a lot of hay out of the fact that he thinks I am an illegal immigrant. This is a case study in the danger of writing before you know what you are talking about. I am not, of course, an illegal alien, having been by the grace of God born and raised in West Texas, which our friend would have known if he were at all familiar with my work or had bothered to do 30 seconds worth of fact-checking. (I was an illegal in India while working there, because public corruption and vast bureaucratic inertia would have made it all but impossible for me to do the work I was there to do, and so I became the principal of a U.S.-based “consulting agency,” which had no papers of incorporation, or address, or employees, or bank account, or clients, being an entirely fictional device, an episode I have referred to from time to time as my days as an illegal aliens, which is what I was.)
Am I opposed to building a fence? Here’s what I wrote about Perry’s opposition to a fence: “Governor Perry is wrong about building a border fence — the logistical challenges are significant, but they are not insurmountable.” I also suggested that we “establish a border zone with an inland barrier, with the understanding that there’s going to be some zig-zagging involved.” That should not be too difficult for a competent reader of the English language to decode, provided he is not a complete buffoon.
I would like to see a proper border fence built, and I would very much like to see expedited deportations, starting with those illegals already in custody for criminal offenses. Texas and other border states are faced with making difficult decisions about how best to handle their large illegal populations precisely because Washington fails and fails and fails to do its job, as Perry has pointedly reminded the federal authorities at every opportunity.
A remark in the comments section was typical: “Illegal aliens who are known to be illegal should be immediately deported. Period.” Another read: “These people are here in violation of our laws. The rate of their tuition is not even an issue. They should be expelled.” All true enough.
But Rick Perry is not the governor of Utopia; he’s the governor of a real place, with real-world problems. He hasn’t spent the last decade engaged in theoretical refinement and maximalist ideological posturing; he’s had to govern a big, complex state, the problems of which do not always fit into neat ideological categories. So while it’s fine to have your blog temper tantrum and scream “We ought to deport all of ’em!” — and I agree — the fact remains: We aren’t deporting them: Washington won’t, Texas can’t. That’s the reality. Now what? Governors and presidents have to answer that question; cranks with blogs (or cranks with think tanks or House seats) don’t.
Will you be rebutting every cowardly, crankish rube on the internet or is there something special about this one?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe got lucky, Henry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHeh.
As regards Perry's immigration policies as Texas governor, I had posted that the facts that Texas is 40% Hispanic, and that Mexico imports 33% of Texas' exports, might change how even a conservative governor must proceed politically in Texas, as opposed to how a governor of Massachusetts (9.5% Hispanic) or Utah (10% Hispanic) might proceed. The idea was neither refuted nor kindly treated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTrue, except that conservatives also happened to get elected in Arizona, New Mexico and California; in Arizona the conservative got elected after signing SB1070 into law and in New Mexico the Latina governor is harsher on illegal aliens and is looking to pass a tougher version of SB1070 in the her state. No, I think Gov. Perry ranks illegal immigration down close to dirt and treats it as such, which is why he is in the mess he is in now.
It's not a refutation nor an abuse of your point about Perry tiptoeing on the problem, but that it is a cop-out to state Rick Perry has more sensitivities to worry about than the other border states which are having the exact same problems.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, don't mistake what I said as agreement with the policy, only that I understand politicians make choices based on the voting public and the blocs which comprise them. Like otherwise conservative Thad McCotter making some decidedly unconservative decisions on union issues in Michigan, where you can't throw a rock without hitting a union member in the back. I can understand the reasoning behind a policy without necessarily agreeing with it.
The other border state governors make their choices too, yet they weren't urged to run for the GOP nomination as Perry was.
It may be irrelevant (imho) in that I don't think Perry (or Romney) will win the the GOP nomination.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>> [facts on the ground] might change how even a conservative governor must proceed politically in Texas
***
I certainly understand your point regarding Texas politics, Henry, as well as your nuanced comments about the general problem of how local politics can warp the natural inclinations of a politician.
Somebody at Fox -- maybe Hume -- has repeatedly made the wise point that Perry's problem is not that his position was indefensible but that he failed to defend it.
I saw in Perry on this issue -- and on his initial response to the attacks on his Social Security positions -- a reflection of some of the worst aspects of George Bush, a brash, obstinate defiance of the base. Much of the country has a suspicion that this instinct to shoot it out without trying to work it out is somewhat of a Texas trait. (That may not be quite fair to Texas in that it was also very much of a John McCain.) Anyway, it is not a kind of personality that I think the base is in much of a mood for. I know that I am not.
As to the illegal issue in general, Perry has the additional problem that he seems to be on the accommodating side in every aspect of this issue, not just the tuition thing. His genius as a structural engineer informs him that a fence cannot be built. And he has had issues with Arizona's approach. For someone touted as having great political skills, he has been stunningly incompetent in handling the issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@chrisboltssr
RE: "it is a cop-out to state Rick Perry has more sensitivities to worry about than the other border states which are having the exact same problems."
With respect, I think you can give a little on this. Contrast Texas with California. Texas has in place an ethic that says Texas is the greatest place on the planet (I am from Dallas). You hear on the radio and TV every day, and I hear it on streaming over the internet.
California, over-simply put, is self-loathing and anti-American. Hence, Mexicans in California have no hesitation in rallying and saying proudly that one day California will be back under Mexican rule.
Texas's ethic tells people that Texas (and America) is worth preserving. Texicans and illegal aliens from Mexico in Texas are much more loyal to Texas than what other states face.
I just wish Perry would explain things better, that yes in Texas we are different.
The heartless crack was disappointing at best. I think he could have recover if this were a one-shot issue, but coupled with his double-down to some extent on the HPV issue makes it hard to see an out.
Perry is an Aggie (so am I). Aggies have loved Perry (you read it in the alumni mailings). Aggies have always had an undercurrent of being opportunists. Slick Rick is going to stick.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe aren't deporting people but we should and we could.
Whatever it costs to subsidize years of tuition for known illegal aliens whose status is beyond doubt cannot possibly be more (especially in a border state), than it would cost to load them onto a bus, drive to the nearest border crossing, and usher them across the line into the custody of their home country.
And if cost is an issue then we should, as a matter of principle, bill the illegals' home country for the cost of their transport and their support while in custody. We may never see a dime of it, but it would establish an important principle that our borders matter.
I don't see where expecting our governments to actually enforce our laws rather than subsidize law-breaking makes me or anyone who thinks like me a "rube". An idealist, perhaps, but I have yet to see a really good argument for NOT simply transporting known illegals to the border of their home country and ushering them across to their own side.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe are not going to expel every illegal now in the country, regardless of whether they should be expelled or not. The long term problem isn't so much with those who are here; they or their progeny will ultimately be assimilated. The problem is those millions who will follow in the upcoming years if we don't seal the border and soon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNor can we wait for a fence to be built before we begin to assimilate those who are now. If we're going to accept those who are here now, why not begin with those who at least have the ambition to try to better their lot through education? I would daresay that anyone who makes it through high school, or the military, and gets into college can at least speak English and will possess a higher level of ambition than a lot who are born here and hang around being nothing more than drag on society. If a state sees that as a net plus, it should be able to make it happen.
RE: "Some coward hiding behind a pseudonym"
...says the dude who get paid to spew opinions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCowardice is cowardice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEasy for you to say.
I don't post anything that I wouldn't say - or haven't said - directly to somebody's face, but I work at a left-leaning company that is part of a very leftist industry. I sure as hell do post things that I don't need certain people there to read. I am best served by being as apolitical there as possible.
It is called being smart. I have a family to feed. I don't even donate directly to political campaigns and causes anymore (my employer requires us to fill out forms about that). My opinions are not going to generate one thin dime towards my mortgage, but the capacity for them, absurdly or not, to cause harm exists, which is enough. Nobody needs to know the political leanings of the person managing all of their data because it does not matter - it is not pertinent to my job.
It is to yours, though, and you get paid for it. Nice reality for you to have.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm with order. My employer (a major financial services company) promotes a Keynesian-esque view of the economy and donates fairly heavily to Dem candidates. I suspect posting here, even on my own time, would be considered a firing offense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf what you said is true, we've got much worse - and more frightening - problems in this country than illegal immigration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease hint at who your employer is.
Or at least, please, please tell me whether it's _not_ MetLife, as I am trusting what is left of my money with them.
My own employer is probably agnostic on politics (it has its own PAC, and from what I tell that PAC blows with the wind and is otherwise unprincipled).
Fellow employees are not, and conservatives there like me are all underground and have to nod and wink at each other. I am sure I would be pressured to quit if my politics were known.
We have an anti-discrimination policy statement that lists everything under the sun EXCEPT politics.
So, after all that, am I coward for not identifying myself better here in this esteemed Corner?
My CAPTCHA: invest at low cost and save
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan't hint. Identifying who I work for on a public forum is a definite firing offense. After all, someone might identify my icky conservative politics with them.
I will tell you it's not Met Life, though.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can define cowardice however you choose, but as Mr. Williamson points out, cowardice is cowardice and the justification for it is irrelevant. Do you think identifying himself and publishing his opinions for the world to read poses no peril for Mr. Williamson, financially and otherwise, simply because he's paid to do so?
Your comment that you don't post anything you wouldn't say to someone's face is confusing, as you then go onto explain why you choose not to share your political opinions with your co-workers. If you post a negative comment about left-leaning liberals, I have to assume you would not repeat that comment to the left-leaning liberals with whom you work.
I'm a "keep them out, send them home" kind of gal and it makes me furious that my tax dollars are spent for the benefit of people who don't belong here, while people who do go without. But I also live in the real world and know my preferred immigration policy won't work with regard to the illegal immigrants who live here today and are here to stay unless they leave voluntarily.
The federal government has neither the resources nor the inclination to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants they know about and have chosen to ignore. So what should Governor Perry do? Wear blinders and pretend the consequences of illegal immigration don't exist in his state or play the hand he was dealt by the federal government the best way he can?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna, I'm not sure you should be lecturing anyone on the subject of cowardice, since you don't provide anything more than a first name.
As for the idea that pseudonyms should be unacceptable, I'm open to considering it. But it's not a simple matter. Most of us are here as a form of entertainment; to banter ideas about. Sure, we should discuss everything with honor, integrity and charity. But sometimes, a few wisecracks are going to slip in. If they have to be attached to your actual name (and one's professional life), I suppose Kevin would get fewer criticisms, but it would certainly cut down on the give and take. Perhaps Kevin, who I've pretty much agreed with on this immigration debate, is being just a bit too thin skinned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "Do you think identifying himself and publishing his opinions for the world to read poses no peril for Mr. Williamson, financially and otherwise, simply because he's paid to do so?"
Only insofar as the quality of the work he produces. He is expected to have opinions on politics - without them, he'd be in a different line of work.
RE: "Your comment that you don't post anything you wouldn't say to someone's face is confusing, as you then go onto explain why you choose not to share your political opinions with your co-workers."
Nice strawman. I didn't say anything about my co-workers. They don't cut my checks. I do have and have always had ample discussion and friendships with people of all political stripes in and out of work. I am completely open and candid among people that I choose to know on that level. Not on company time, though.
In my present situation, if one - let me be clear on this point - ONE partner at the company for which I work - who might not have ever met me - doesn't like ONE thing he finds on the Internet about me, I'm out of a job. Presto. I know this for a fact because - guess what - part of managing data for them includes maintaining the logs they've used to push people out the door.
They had the Philly AG in for a lengthy, Q&A session once. I attended just for kicks. Not a single criticism or tough question was put forth. Nothing about Philly's defacto status as a safe haven for illegals, rampant street crime, or voter intimidation. You could have used the nodding heads in the room as an alternate energy source.
RE: "If you post a negative comment about left-leaning liberals, I have to assume you would not repeat that comment to the left-leaning liberals with whom you work."
You assume wrong.
If they are people with whom I have that sort of relationship, I have no problem saying whatever I want.
If the company actually is seeking my opinions on things that dip into politics, I have no problem giving them there, either. For example, they once issued an anonymous employee survey and, among other things, I eviscerated the [then-]socialistic bonus system ("Everybody gets a little something" instead of heavily rewarding top performers...this has changed since then, ca'*ching*) and the material they included on "diversity" and, then, signed it. I was the only person I know that did that (the signing part). You can also trust that I'm the worst person to force to attend those moronic P.C. "seminars". I almost started a civil war once within the "People of Color" table at a diversity workshop with a simple and true anecdote. Funny story with the key part being "Should we assume, or not, that a black woman's fiance is black when she makes it unclear?" Funny how they so vehemently disagreed on that subject.
Otherwise, unless I'm asked, discretion is, indeed, the better part of valor. I've met more than one idiotic comment about Palin, for example, with a simple sad shake of the head and moved along. I've been in a small room where [a big time Democrat] is the center of attention and felt the magnificently dysfunctional phenomenon where the assumption is that everybody thinks the same way. Bad time to make an issue out of it, though. The food and booze wasn't quite as "free" as it was advertised.
Whatever. Data is data. They've had two rounds of layoffs since I was hired in 2008 during which time I earned three raises and three bonuses. I am appreciated for what I do. Left leaning or not, my company does do a fair amount of good in this world. It is no more or less offensive than the other industries for which I've managed data. Call me a wily hoor, if you like, but not craven.
Mr. Williamson lives an entirely different existence which, I believe, makes his accusations of cowardice invalid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm with Jenna. You're a coward. If you can't be bothered to put your name to an opinion, then don't write it. If the company you work for is a true ballbreaker - and I find this line of excuse making for hiding behind a pseudonymn to be complete bs - then find a different outlet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse