From the desk of John Jay Myers
I have known Debra Medina for several years now, if one week ago you would have asked me “What is Debra Medina’s opinion on 9/11 truthers?” I would have said “hmmm, I have no idea, I imagine she knows nothing about it.” I wouldn’t even think it would be something on her agenda to even consider.I think Thursday proved that to be true.In my opinion her answer was pretty bad, but… not because she believes 9/11 was an inside job, which she doesn’t, but because she really doesn’t know anything about the conspiracy theories.Let me try to clarify, by going back over the questions,“GLENN: There was a theme that ran against you and that is you are a 9/11 Truther.MEDINA: Well, there’s lots of mud that people would like to throw at Debra Medina and make stick. (this sounds like a denial to me)The truth is I’m an everyday ordinary person. I am fighting for the things that our founders fought for, those very basic principles of a constitutional republic, and I’m going to champion people that hold their government accountable, hold me accountable but that’s the first time I’ve heard that accusation. So that’s an interesting one. (this again sounds like a denial)”
But here is where it gets interesting as a Ron Paul fan, I know his answer to this… it’s something like “I don’t think our country had anything to do with it, but I would like to have some of the questions answered, like why the attacks aren’t listed on the FBI’s website under Osama Bin Laden’s crimes?, and why 6 of 10 commissioners thought they weren’t given enough information?, who dropped the ball in intelligence arena?…..you know standard questions.”I think that Debra likes Ron, and she responded to a question she knows nothing about with an answer similar to what she had heard Ron give.Because after this incident I was informed that a “truther” is someone who wants to know the answers to the questions about the commissioners report etc… and an “inside jobber” is someone who believes our government brought down the towers. The things you learn on the internet…..anyway…..Now let me be clear, her next statement is bad, but again this is the first time she is being interviewed by undoubtedly the biggest conservative personality in radio today, she is nervous, and he is asking her questions so left field she is indeed out of her element. She is probably trying to remember “what does Ron Paul say about this?”, and trying to remember the answer while Beck is laying out his next line, I would imagine she is not focused on what he is asking, just trying to come up with an answer to a question she would have no idea of the answer to.“GLENN: Right. Here’s then let me be more frank and ask you the question: Do you believe the government was any way involved with the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?MEDINA: I don’t, I don’t have all of the evidence there, Glenn. So I don’t I’m not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there. So I’ve not taken a position on that. “
Again, it is my belief that she is saying the above, because she is just trying to get away from the topic and thinking about what Ron would have said to get rid of it. Unfortunately she knows so little about it, it came off awkward and messy.But that’s the good news… she really doesn’t know anything about it. After the interview she probably asked one of her staff “what the heck is a 9/11 truther?” Which is probably what got this statement sent out immediately:“I am not a 9/11 Truther“Followed by:“I was asked a question on the Glenn Beck show today regarding my thoughts on the so-called 9/11 truth movement. I have never been involved with the 9/11 truth movement, and there is no doubt in my mind that Muslim terrorists flew planes into those buildings on 9/11. I have not seen any evidence nor have I ever believed that our government was involved or directed those individuals in any way. No one can deny that the events on 9/11 were a tragedy for all Americans and especially those families who lost loved ones.
The question surprised me because it’s not relevant to this race or the issues facing Texans. This campaign has always been about private property rights and state sovereignty. It is focused on the issues facing Texans. It is not a vehicle for the 9-11 truth movement or any other group.”
She goes on to say “should people be questioning their government. And the answer is yes, they should be.”
I thought it was funny when most of the blog comments related to this said “Anyone who believes our government would have anything to do with this….etc etc…” But isn’t that what the Tea Party is about? Doesn’t the movement believe that our government is selling us down the river? Do they believe they are doing that out of the kindness of their hearts?
I have seen alot of fair weather friends flitting about in the wind, trying to decide what they are going to do, and testing which way the wind blows.
If you elect Kay Bailey Hutchison or Rick Perry because of this one incident you deserve the corpratised, blood sucking leech of a government you end up with.
The wind will be blowing constantly passed a giant pile of cow manure.
Just my thoughts…. for the record, I am not a 9/11 was an inside job guy…. at all.
John Jay Myers
www.JohnJayMyers.com
“If you elect Kay Bailey Hutchison or Rick Perry because of this one incident you deserve the corpratised, blood sucking leech of a government you end up with.”
What if we elect one of those ‘conservative’ hacks for another reason? Do we still deserve shitty government? The more I hear from contemporary “libertarians,” the more they sound like some kind of wild-west s&m cult.
“I have known Debra Medina for several years now, if one week ago you would have asked me “What is Debra Medina’s opinion on 9/11?â€Â I would have said “hmmm, I have no idea, I imagine she knows nothing about it.â€Â I wouldn’t even think it would be something on her agenda to even consider.
I think Thursday proved that to be true.
In my opinion her answer was pretty bad, but… not because she believes 9/11 was an inside job, which she doesn’t,  but because she really doesn’t know anything about it.” JJM
I stopped after the first paragraph. Medina knows nothing about the most devastating attack ever on American soil? Really? Yet she wants to govern a major state?
I thought the cover story was that she was referring to the 9 11 commission’s questions. Did the 9 11 commission ever pose the theory that the attack was an inside job by the US government.
Medina’s answer is what it is. She equivocated because she entertains the notion that with only 9 months in office, the evil genius George Bush orchestrated an attack that killed 3.000+ Americans so he could establish an oil pipeline across Afghanistan, or use the attack as an excuse to subjugate Iraq and remove the peace loving Saddam Hussein.
Truthers are insane. Their theory concludes with the notion that the United States is worse than the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Husssein.
I’m not a big fan of Glen Beck and his histrionics; Beck to me is like the Red Hot Chili Peppers, I’d rather listen to them perform than watch them. Glen Beck is not the bad guy here though, he asked a question and Medina answered. That answer very likely destroyed her gubernatorial race, and all the spin and redirection ain’t gonna change what she said to Beck.
John, as her friend suggest to her to drop out of the race now, while the rest of us resign ourselves to another Perry term.
Yes, resign ourselves to another term of a corrupt Governor who lets illegals in the boatload. All because Medina doesn’t rabidly denounce a position she doesn’t hold herself, that has nothing at all to do with Texas. No, I don’t care if she gets 1% because of this, I will not vote for a RINO or pretty boy Perry. I will not let the media tell me how to think about it and how to vote.
Con I’m not happy about another Perry term, I had every intention of voting for Medina; what makes you so sure that Medina doesn’t hold the truther position?
Medina’s res gestae statment to Beck convinces me she’s a truther.
JJM-I like you, I really do…
BUT, your post reminded me of something. Back in the day, on FB, Bethany and I would analyze “what you said” vs. “what he/she read”…Bethany is quite good at this. If memory serves, Daniel jumped in on a few of these. Lots of fun on a Monday, especially if you can get Jack E. Jett all wound up. IJS
She said it. Period.
It’s easy to Monday morning QB this, but she said what she said. What, she wanted all softballs? Because she’s got a vagina? The truth is, she isn’t ready to be gubnor of a big ol’ place like Texas.
Yes, it’s super fun to fantasize about throwing Perry out on his ass, but until we get an actual QUALIFIED (to lead and answer tricky questions) true conservative…
I liked Medina up until that moment. Sometimes there’s just no there there, and we really want there to be, but it’s not. It hurts, I know. It sucks. I know. But, in many ways, Medina’s past experience reminds me of Obama, and look at how that’s going.
This reminds me of being in the woods with 2 other campers….well and 2 bears.
I don’t have to out run 2 bears, I just have to out run 2 campers.
I really don’t believe she knows a truther from a inside jobber, or whatever, I don’t think she studies it. (In regards to Keiths post, it’s not that I thought she didn’t know what 9/11 was, sorry if I am a horrible writer).
Anyway… did you guys watch the debates? Did she seem less qualified there?
She seemed like the only one who knew what she was talking about.
Dallas, or Texas or The United States… the only thing complicated about being a government official is trying to figure out how you are going to get paid for your bad, yet complicated decisions.
What we really truly need…. is less government. All steps in that direction are positive steps in my book. Neither KBH or Rick Perry are going to take us in that direction. Of course the Democrats wont either.
My State Senator has 20 members on his staff, I am quite certain that Medina would have more than enough staff to cut through any complications, so she could make the RIGHT decisions for this state.
I feel like with her, at least we would have someone who was working for the people of Texas… not working the people of Texas.
I am not a politician, I know that sounds strange, but I am more of an issue guy, I didn’t like the Hotel, so I ran for city council, I don’t like the war and the nanny state, deficit spending of the Republican Party, and not a huge fan of the welfare, taxing, daddy state of the Democrats so I am running for Congress.
I know I am not bought and paid for by the monied interest, (especially by looking at our campaign account). I know that Debra isn’t either.
I have a simple set of requirements… (all I need to know) is it constitutional? Does it lead to less or more government? Do the Economics work? Run it past that test and you can decide any issue.
It is probably not in my interest to come out standing behind her, but I think it’s in everyones interest to make the right decision when you have the power to, regardless of its popularity, She is a good sweet lady who wont sell Texas down the river.
That is all that matters. Because she is the fastest camper in the woods this day.
With respect, because I always enjoy your posts.
JJM-Sorry if it feels like a blog version of “Smear the Queer.”
@Anonymous The more I hear from contemporary “libertarians,†the more they sound like some kind of wild-west s&m cult.
Yeah, that’s pretty much what sold me. I have a pamphlet if you’re interested.
Reminds me a little of a Monty Python skit where John Cleese gives a perfectly lucid answer and then walks out from behind his desk wearing no pants.
It’s so exciting…and scary!…to think we might have a new boyfriend or girlfriend. They might take us places Mommy and Daddy have never let us go before! It makes me tingly down there to think of it! You too! You said so! You were with the new girlfriend almost all the way, you were unbuttoning those buttons, you were unzipping those zippers…so thrilling! So exciting! So grown up! You were going to go with her…
And then she farted! Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
But Mommy and Daddy were there to catch you and hold you when you scampered away and leaped back into their arms, scampered away from the dirty, DIRTY new girlfriend who FARTED. Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
Now Mommy and Daddy will keep you safe, and happy, and CLEAN again!
Rock-a-bye, lull-a-bye…that’s better, that’s better, she’s gone now, Mommy and Dady will take care of you and keep the scary-scary all away.
I’ve watched it and read it, but I still think back to the Channel 8 debate where she was asked a questions, responded, “No”. And then asked if they wanted her to use the rest of her allotted 58 seconds.
Aside from her propensity to straightforwardly answer questions, I was seriously liking her. While messing up an answer isn’t necessarily a deal killer, Medina messing up an answer was surprising. Too bad it was this question.
I don’t think all “conspiracy theorists” are nuts, but I think the Truthers are.
Ann, great point, and taken.
I was just thinking about Perry insisting on putting a needle in my pre-teen daughter’s arm…and all the times KBH line jumped me at the bank, and ugh…I don’t care if she farted. I changed my mind. I’m a woman. I get to do that.
I would rather have Medina than Slick Rick or KBH.
Glen Beck is a douche.
I never read on any conservative/libertarian web sites about Beck’s douchness when he was outing Van Jones, or promoting the kid that exposed ACORN.
John Jay I’m still confused by your vision of “open immigration†with a “secure†border.
Keith, you know I LOVE you, and your family…
Here’s my devil’s advocate problem with the interview…
(As a writer, not a journalist…)
Beck is cozy with Perry’s folks. Best case scenario is for Big Hair and Perfect Hair to bloody each other, and their brand of being “conservative” to survive.
If Medina survives, all of Texas is in play. Suddenly, working class, union, and traditionally “minority” votes are in play. Kind of like the the 1980 election…except….let your brain chew on that for a while.
Beck’s questions and commentary were colored.
All you can do, Keith, is ask yourself if Perry is a true conservative. We know KBH isn’t. And, where do you go for that.
Change hurts. But, this is what it looks like.
I’m sure the Brits thought Paul Revere was a nut, too.
So wait… I write these long posts talking about how we should realize that Medina is the best of the three,, and then a post about Farting is what changes your mind? ; )
Keith, I have always been against Beck, I have always thought he was a douche, I have been defriended by many over it…. and of course have taken truck loads of crap, I think he is divisive, he doesn’t check his facts and he is dangerous.
“the darkest lie is half truth”.
Open immigration doesn’t mean no check points it means if you come in legally…. come on in.
But, when you arrive there will be no entitlements, where I have a problem is balancing what to do until we remove the entitlements?
So I admit my position is not concrete, it does start with securing our entries.
But if we had an open immigration policy the only people entering illegally would be those who are doing something illegal, or intend to do us harm.
Having more people here working isn’t breaking this country, if no one was then all the manufacturing base would be in Mexico. That would break America, more people are not the problem, if you think about the bubble we have created in the economy more people and less spending would help to solve it.
The other problem is taxes, when people come here illegally and start a business in a garage and don’t pay sales tax, employee taxes, federal taxes, business property taxes etc… but I have to, that is definitely not the free market at work.
My choice would be to reduce all taxes…but like gay marriage until the government gets out of the marriage racket completely, it needs to be fair to everyone.
I hope that makes my thoughts on it more clear, and I am sure it is better than both the left and the right saying “I believe in comprehensive immigration reform” But not saying anything else…. leaving both sides to believe that they want positive change on their behalf.
Amanda
At a New Years Day open house party, I offended the host who is working on KBH’s campaign because I told her I was a Medina supporter.
I still like Medina and agree with most of her positions, but I’m deeply disturbed by her answer to Beck. I’m sitting home today waiting on the body shop to return the car Ryann wrecked, and with time on my hands I listened to that interview again; I can’t help but think anyone who didn’t entertain the notion that the government was involved in perpetrating 9 11 would have answered Beck’s question with a resounding NO.
To subscribe to the theory that the United States government was behind 9 11 is to accuse the US government of framing our enemies.
I’m not gonna vote for Perry or KBH despite the Medina interview. I’ll probably hold my nose after convincing myself that I’m not voting for a possible truther but voting against the status quo. But I ain’t gonna like it.
John Jay
You whole open immigration philosophy is predicated by the notion that anyone who wants to come to the United States should be able to. I disagree. Just as your house isn’t secure when you leave the door wide open, the United States can’t have open immigration and a secure border.
@ Keith and JJM…
On the borders, Keith…you see the manifestation of that stuff on a daily basis as a cop, so I can’t really try to counter.
JJM-It wasn’t the fart. I had a stomach virus, and was up all night sick, and read, re-read, and read again a bunch of stuff about the race, and the context wit Beck just seemed really chicken shit to me. Like his old “More ON” radio segments mocking the knowledge base of convenience store employees. (Leno did that like forever ago, so move along poser.) I dunno, so then I started to think about the long arm of Slick Rick, and forcing me to immunize my daughter with drug for which the long term efficacy and safety is a big “?”…
And, you know then, I started to think about my life growing up, and when a man’s word meant his word, and that doesn’t apply anymore, especially when Rick Perry is involved. And, KBH cut in front of me in line a bunch of times at my bank, and on SWA flights…and so, she’s a liberal and a line jumper, and I started thinking, well, what if JJM’s word and Medina’s word was what “word” was back in the day, and wouldn’t that be refreshing.
And, then I had some more saltines and 7-up, and then I got really sick again.
Next, I donated to your campaign.
And, then I felt bad for going off on Medina.
And, I sort of miss JEJ.
And, you know. That’s just me.
Keith, you would need to be more specific on why you think it’s a bad idea, we have property rights, and we have laws.
I am not inviting everyone in to ransack the house. I might be able to address your concern if I knew more specifically what you fear is going to happen.
I actually mentioned my concerns with doing it in an uncertain order.
It is the federal governments jobs to set up the rules for naturalization. (article 1 section 8) So we could decide to end “birthright citizenship” etc.
But States have the right to decide who comes across their borders (article 1 section 9).
I have a friend Eugene Flynn (who is an immigration lawyer) who could probably do a better job of going through the legalities with you.
I will invite him if you like.
Actually John, IMHO, it would take a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship.
Fellow originalist, Prof. John Eastman, takes the position that Congress could simply declare a different interpretation of the “subject to the jurisdiction clause†of the 14th Amendment. Prof. Eastman bases this on his reading of the Senate debate surrounding the 1866 Civil Rights Act at 39 Congressional Globe 2893 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=2 [change the page number to 2893 and click]. My reading of that debate is that it actually supports the interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction†that has been recognized by the U.S. Government since the enactment of the 14th Amendment, that is territorial, not solely political jurisdiction. Hence I believe a Constitutional Amendment would be needed.
I would, of course, oppose such a Constitutional Amendment based not just on the history of birthright citizenship in this country but also on the cost of creating a new bureaucracy to determine who is and who is not a citizen. See http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/Birthright%20Citizenship%20091509.pdf papers by James Ho and Prof. Margaret Stock. See also comments by Prof. Margaret Stock at 33 Administrative and Regulatory Law News No.1 at 7-9 (ABA Fall 2007).
@Amanda, Thank you very much. I wont let you down.
As to the assertion John that the States retain the right to determine who can immigrate into their territory from outside these United States, it is an issue that has been debated but for which no definitive conclusion has been reached.
Everyone assumes the Federal Government has the power to regulate Immigration. But what is the basis of this.?
Chapter one of most Immigration Law casebooks deals with the issue of where the authority to control Immigration comes from. In the Legomsky casebook (2nd Ed. 1997) he writes:
“If you are uneasy about concluding that all our immigration laws are unconstitutional, then the question becomes: Where, exactly, does the federal government get the power to regulate immigration? The Supreme Court has struggled with this problem since the mid-nineteenth century, and no single dispositive answer has ever emerged. There are, however, several arguable answers.â€
He lists the following possibilities:
The Commerce Clause
The Migration or Importation Clause
The Naturalization Clause
The War Clause
Implied Constitutional Powers
I have the entire 107 page chapter in WordPerfect and would be happy to upload it directly to any libertarian who is interested in reading it. Note that there are newer editions but this is the one I have on my hard drive.
If I am to decipher you… are you saying that it is a “states right” issue?
It brings about questions though… we probably need to have a beer to have this conversation.
Here is a question, just to clarify… what about a state like Montana? They couldn’t possibly afford to patrol their border or even maintain an honest amount of security. But the security could be construed as “national security” so wouldn’t that make it a federal issue?
To cite the power…. I would hate to, but will play the “common defense” card.
This is just me trying to pull your chain.
Is the United States the only country on earth that doesn’t get to decide who cross the border and whose citizens have rights above and beyond non-citizens? Seems to me that a sovereign nation has the right to make its own rules with regard to citizenship. Also can we not restrict government largess to citizens? I am thinking there ought to be some perks from the government of the country you’re born in.
1.I am not inviting everyone in to ransack the house. I might be able to address your concern if I knew more specifically what you fear is going to happen.
What I fear is the balkanization and theft of my country. If you started a garden in the Spring, cultivated it all Summer, when Fall comes should your neighbors be able to help themselves to your corn and tomatoes?
While a sophomoric metaphor, this is exactly what I see happening to my country.
I had a brother and good friend who lived in South Florida in the early 80′s, and I saw first hand what happened in Miami when another buffoon in the White House allowed 125,000 or so from the 3rd world to descend upon a city of 300,000. Miami and Dade County have never recovered.
Extrapolate Miami across the nation with commensurate numbers, and the consequences are obvious.
Thousands a day are crossing that border, with no intention of assimilating into our culture. These gate crashers barge in here and demand squatters rights.
You seem to believe that only legals with good intent will come across with an open immigration policy, and the scum will be kept out with our “secure†borders.
A lot of “undocumented immigrants†may work hard at their day job, but after hours too many to count drag down this country by receiving social benefits and committing crimes.
3rd world workers competing in a first world economy offers no advantages to the United States, the only outcome is depressed wages for once solid working class jobs. Look at the construction industry in the southwest for one example.
This isn’t an academic issue to me, I’ve seen first hand the devastation left behind by the looters; attending a police funeral of an officer who was killed by a scumbag that shouldn’t have even been in the country in the first place tends to harden one’s position on this topic.
We are a sovereign nation. We have laws, we have a border. To paraphrase the great Ronald Reagan, a nation without a border ceases to become a nation. The open immigration policy you envision will erase that border, and will destroy this counry.
Where in the Constitution does it stipulate that the States can contravene Federal immigration law?
When someone like Sheriff Joe tries to stem the illegal tide, someone like Napolitano comes after him telling him it’s the Feds responsibility.
The 14th ammendment was to insure the citizenship of former slaves. It was never intended to allow anyone to wander in here and aquirt a kid for instant citizenship.
Securing our border is part of the common defense of government.
>>I would hate to, but will play the “common defense†card.<<
That's the War Clause argument.
A beer sounds good.
Since Mr. Johnson wishes to quote Ronald Reagan, so will I: “I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it and see it still.â€
Ronald Reagan’s Farewell Address to the Nation January 11, 1989 http://www.reaganlibrary.net/
Mr. Johnson discussed some empirical observations which, if true for all immigrants would certainly want anyone to “keep them all out!†I am happy to say they are not true. Rather than go through them one by one here, if anyone is interested in ridding themselves of those notions go to the website of the National Center for Policy Analysis http://www.ncpa.org/avo/ and click the 9/25/07 presentation by Linda Chavez. She addresses those concerns.
Reagan believed in the border, and he believed there were conditions when opening that door.
Although Reagan signed the Simpson Mazzoli act that gave far too many illegals amnesty (and they’ve been coming ever since) the law outlawed knowingly hiring illegals and recruiting them.
We have more illegals in this country than before the IRCA was signed into law.
Eugene, do you believe coming to the United States is some kind of universal birth right?
Should Obama’s welfare receiving illegal alien aunt be allowed to stay?
If you can peaceably invade and occupy a nation at will; if you can help yourself to its resources and institutions at will, including using the false documents you use to enter and establish yourself to then establish yourself as a legal voter, then nominate and vote for those candidates who will further the ease of your entry and occupation; if you can then return to your beloved native lands at will for family and holidays; and if you can then upon the chance event of your naturalization retain dual citizenship in both nations–why go to war?
Further, why fight for anything in your native land? Justice? Economic parity? Bah. Too much trouble. Just “emigrate” and “immigrate”, come and go, take the easiest and the tastiest where you find it and leave the rest for the foolish. Nations are now disposable consumer goods, to be used and discarded when they begin to provide diminishing returns.
War is old school, for the stupid. The young and smart just take what they want, what they are obviously entitled to, because they can.
Back on topic, JJM you convinced me to hold my nose and vote for Medina.
You’ll never convince me on the border issue.
Entitlements MUST end, that is number 1.
What I am saying we should have a secure border. People who come across should work legally. No one should have entitlements.
But we should have an open policy on who is allowed to enter legally.
To be honest, immigration is not my issue… I do not see it as the economy sucking blight that you do, but I also don’t see having an unsecure border as a workable option.
(my main issues: Banks and their cozy relationship with our government, the wars and policing the world, HHS spending ie welfare, and corporate welfare)
As you can see by my post to Eugene I could see our border as part of the common defense.
If we were to sit down and talk this out, we would probably find we mostly agree.
I don’t believe we have “squatters rights” here, and if we do we need to change that. Property is a key to the American Dream, and if people are “squatting” on your property you may want to do something about it.
People come here to work. My wife is hispanic, and I live in a mostly hispanic neighborhood. I just don’t see a big problem with the hispanic community.
I read alot more into article 14 than just slaves, I see it as a statement reinforcing our original “Declaration of Indendence”. That all men are created equal. That we were not just setting out for the rights of citizens, but all men. Not to “entitlements” but with opportunity.
The problem we have in America is that we do not protect “our rights”, instead we are to quick with the entitlements etc, which creates an environment that fosters the negative and punishes the positive.
These are the things we need to work on.
I am glad Keith… we don’t have to see eye to eye on everything… what would be the fun in that.
; )
Keith…read/listen to this:
http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/feb/12/my-day-medina/
There is, of course, no “universal right†to come to these United States. Believe it of not the fact of the matter is that most people (something like 92% to 97%) never permanently leave their country of birth. Many people would never want to come to the United States.
The problem with our current immigration laws is that the system does not reflect the reality of the marketplace. Although much of my work is fitting square pegs into the round holes of our immigration laws I would have no problem if the system was simplified so that people who wanted to come to work here and who were needed in the particular geographic area were allowed to do so without restrictions that they either commit to stay forever or commit to stay only a set period of time, which those who can come now have to so chose.
We must reestablish the rule of law. The rule of law requires that laws must be just. Since 1996 people have been unable to get right with the law. The 1996 Immigration amendments, first and foremost, must be repealed. Following that a guest worker program must be established. It could even incorporate many of the current non-immigrant categories thereby simplifying our laws. As to those here illegally (those still not able to get right with the law after the repeal of the 1996 Act) they could, as Chuck Norris has suggested, be given the first shot at the new program. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=43205
Why MUST a guest worker program be established? Where I grew up American citizens poured concrete and roofed houses. Americans would be doing those jobs here if the depressed wages hadn’t driven them from the work.
Why MUST it be easier for those here illegally to become legal?
I accept your statistic at face value that 92-97% of foreigners never leave their homeland, but 20 million plus in this country is still a lot of folks. If Obama gets amnesty, that 20 million can sponser their extended families, who knows how high the number could go.
You contend that there’s no universal right to come to this country, then you criticize the laws that you think make it too difficult to come here.
Maybe my view is too simplistic, but from my vantage point if you live in a 3rd cesspool stay home and change it rather than sponge off the efforts of 200+ years of American struggle and determination.
If people are allowed to come here without restrictions or commitment, eventually we’ll devolve into a mercenary work force with no loyality to our language, our heritage or our culture.
What a slap in the face to those that came before us.
â– amanda on February 15th, 2010 4:54 pm
Keith…read/listen to this:
http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/feb/12/my-day-medina/
That was a good read. I’m still concerned about her mindset, but as you stated the gov of Texas has little power, and her election would send a powerful message to the political elite.
I’ll vote for her, I just may have to cross my fingers when doing so.
I’m gonna be in big trouble, I spent most of the day on the internet when I should have been out sawing up limbs from the storm.
@ Keith…I just thought the audio paints a very different picture than the sound bite.
>>Why MUST a guest worker program be established?<>Where I grew up American citizens poured concrete and roofed houses. Americans would be doing those jobs here if the depressed wages hadn’t driven them from the work.<>Why MUST it be easier for those here illegally to become legal?<>I accept your statistic at face value that 92-97% of foreigners never leave their homeland, but 20 million plus in this country is still a lot of folks.<>If Obama gets amnesty, that 20 million can sponser their extended families, who knows how high the number could go.<>You contend that there’s no universal right to come to this country, then you criticize the laws that you think make it too difficult to come here.<>Maybe my view is too simplistic, but from my vantage point if you live in a 3rd cesspool stay home and change it rather than sponge off the efforts of 200+ years of American struggle and determination.<<
Again, go to the website of the National Center for Policy Analysis http://www.ncpa.org/avo/ and click the 9/25/07 presentation by Linda Chavez. She addresses those concerns. [Hint: immigrants cannot just come here and get welfare. It is illegal and has been for years. In any case libertarians would repeal welfare so that is a non-issue.]
OK, that didn’t work. Let me try using quotation marks instead.
“Why MUST a guest worker program be established?â€
Because that is the reality of the marketplace. People are here illegally because there are jobs available. Most employers want to hire people who are legally entitled to work.
“Where I grew up American citizens poured concrete and roofed houses. Americans would be doing those jobs here if the depressed wages hadn’t driven them from the work.â€
1) What depressed wages? 2) Would this generation of Americans do such work at any price? Few, very few.
“Why MUST it be easier for those here illegally to become legal?â€
OK. just let them stay illegal forever. They aren’t going anywhere.
“I accept your statistic at face value that 92-97% of foreigners never leave their homeland, but 20 million plus in this country is still a lot of folks.â€
20 million???? Try 10, maybe. http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf
“If Obama gets amnesty, that 20 million can sponser their extended families, who knows how high the number could go.â€
Nonsense. 1) I don’t support forcing every illegal alien to take a “green card†(permanent residence). That perpetuates the problem of either commit forever or commit to stay only a short time. People can change their minds and if they do they should have a way to change directions without screwing up their current status. 2) Under the current immigration laws for a “green card†holder it take over 5 years to get a spouse or child here. They can’t petition for parents unless and until the become citizens (usually five plus years). As to brothers and sisters, they can’t petition for parents unless and until the become citizens and the backlog looks like 14 years but it is actually more. No one can petition for a cousin (no matter what they say on the talk shows).
“You contend that there’s no universal right to come to this country, then you criticize the laws that you think make it too difficult to come here.â€
The current laws do not reflex reality.
“Maybe my view is too simplistic, but from my vantage point if you live in a 3rd cesspool stay home and change it rather than sponge off the efforts of 200+ years of American struggle and determination.â€
Again, go to the website of the National Center for Policy Analysis http://www.ncpa.org/avo/ and click the 9/25/07 presentation by Linda Chavez. She addresses those concerns. [Hint: immigrants cannot just come here and get welfare. It is illegal and has been for years. In any cases libertarians would repeal welfare so that is a non-issue.]
Eugene you’re an immigration attorney-you have a financial interest in promoting immigration. I don’t begrudge you that, it’s a legitimate legal field, , but every poll I’ve ever read shows you on the wrong side of the argument. Even the folks in California are tired of paying the freight.
You say people are here illegally because there are jobs available; you mean like publc school teaching jobs? Remember when DISD got caught importing illegals to teach, and provided them with false SS numbers? Hope no one in your firm had their ID stolen. Americans won’t teach school? Don’t tell my wife that.
Do you really have such contempt for the American worker that you think they won’t perform manual labor at a competitive wage? I can take you to St Louis, Chicago, Indianapolis where American citizens are working road crews, roofing houses and doing paint and body work. The influx of illegal labor shut those Americans out of the workplace here. Billy Bob can hire his illegals and have them roofing houses while he pockets the extra profit-if Billy Bob’s illegals get hurt on the job, they’ll go to PMH and Keith and Eugene will pick up the tab.
If Billy Bob’s illegals bring their familys, they’ll get educations on Keith and Eugene’s dime. If one of Billy Bob’s illegals has a kid while in the country illegally, well Keith and Eugene will pick up the tab for that.
Do you really believe there’s only 10 million illegals here? It kind of makes them hard to count, seeing as they’re here illegally and all. If the government says 10 million, instinct tells me to double that figure. Back in ’86 about twice the illegals received amnesty that what was projected.
You say immigration laws do not reflect reality-whose reality? Immigration laws seem pretty straight forward to me; don’t come into the country or (in a perfect world) you’ll get deported.
I don’t need Linda Chavez to tell me to believe her or my lyin’ eyes; are you saying that an illegal that comes here and has a kid in this country doesn’t quailfy for welfare for that child?
I read recently that the United States allows more legal immigration per year than all of the western democracies combined. What other country in the history of the world would offer driver’s licenses, sanctuary cities, and in state tution to college for those that willfully and wantonly broke that country’s immigration laws?
The illegals sure appreciate it, every May Day for the last few years they’ve marched in the streets demanding more “rights.”
I think we’re just gonna have disagree on this topic.
“. [Hint: immigrants cannot just come here and get welfare. It is illegal and has been for years. In any cases libertarians would repeal welfare so that is a non-issue.]” Eugene
So Eugene, since illegals can’t come here and get welfare, is it untrue that illegal alien Zeituni Onyango, aunt to Barack Obama, is living in public housing and receiving welfare?
“Eugene you’re an immigration attorney-you have a financial interest in promoting immigration.â€
Immigration lawyers laugh when people make that statement. It is so obviously untrue yet people keep saying it. That is why I made a preemptive statement earlier that: “Although much of my work is fitting square pegs into the round holes of our immigration law….†In other words, Immigration lawyers make money when the laws are complicated and it is difficult to navigate the pitfalls, not when they are simplified. In 1976 there was one member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in North Texas. The area membership is pushing 200 now.
“I don’t begrudge you that, it’s a legitimate legal field, , but every poll I’ve ever read shows you on the wrong side of the argument.â€
Poll? As in what people believe despite the facts?
“You say people are here illegally because there are jobs available; you mean like public school teaching jobs?â€
That is currently one.
“Remember when DISD got caught importing illegals to teach,â€
False. Those people were here legally.
“and provided them with false SS numbers?â€
Yep. The aliens should sue DISD for doing that. The aliens did nothing wrong. DISD is the one that broke the law as to the SS numbers.
“Americans won’t teach school? Don’t tell my wife that.â€
It is not that Americans won’t take this job or that job. It is that not ENOUGH Americans are willing to fill jobs in certain fields. As a percentage of the workforce immigrants are just a drop in the bucket. (See numerous studies by the Cato Institute.)
“Do you really have such contempt for the American worker that you think they won’t perform manual labor at a competitive wage?â€
It is not just manual labor. Like people around the world Americans like to stay where their extended family resides rather than pick up and move to another part of the country. Some do, but most don’t.
“I can take you to St Louis, Chicago, Indianapolis where American citizens are working road crews, roofing houses and doing paint and body work. The influx of illegal labor shut those Americans out of the workplace here. Billy Bob can hire his illegals and have them roofing houses while he pockets the extra profit-if Billy Bob’s illegals get hurt on the job, they’ll go to PMH and Keith and Eugene will pick up the tab.â€
You assume that Americans that want to work in construction here cannot do so. Not true. The crews that worked on my roofs after the July hail storm were all legal.
“If Billy Bob’s illegals bring their familys, they’ll get educations on Keith and Eugene’s dime. If one of Billy Bob’s illegals has a kid while in the country illegally, well Keith and Eugene will pick up the tab for that.”
Illegals who only wanted to stay here a short time to work only started to try to bring their families (if they had any, most are young and did not) after the 1996 Act made it more difficult to go back and forth.
“Do you really believe there’s only 10 million illegals here?”
No, far less, but that is the DHS estimate for 2009.
“It kind of makes them hard to count, seeing as they’re here illegally and all.”
Correct.
“If the government says 10 million, instinct tells me to double that figure.”
Instinct tells me to cut the figure in half as it is in the interest of the enforcement agencies to inflate the number here in order to request more resources from Congress.
“Back in ‘86 about twice the illegals received amnesty that what was projected.”
Correct. There was widespread fraud in that program. Many people got legalized who were not in the U.S. on the dates required. That is another reason why I do not support a new program to give all illegals “green cards†which many do not want.
“You say immigration laws do not reflect reality-whose reality?”
That of the market economy and how people react to it.
“Immigration laws seem pretty straight forward to me; don’t come into the country or (in a perfect world) you’ll get deported.â€
Very funny. We hear this all the time: “Just go to the border and apply.†The statement would be laughable if wasn’t so sad. “We have had occasion to note the striking resemblance between some of the laws we are called upon to interpret and King Minos’s labyrinth in ancient Crete. The Tax Laws and the Immigration and Nationality Acts are examples we have cited of Congress’s ingenuity in passing statutes certain to accelerate the aging process of judges.†Lok v. INS, 548 F.2d 37 (2d Cir 1977)
Things have gotten worse since then. In 1977 title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (the Immigration Regulations) was only 191 pages. In 2009 is reached 1191 – one thousand additional pages and it took thousands upon thousand of pages in the Federal Register to distill that many pages in 8 CFR.
“I don’t need Linda Chavez to tell me to believe her or my lyin’ eyes; are you saying that an illegal that comes here and has a kid in this country doesn’t quailfy for welfare for that child?â€
That child is a US Citizen. The child could qualify under our current welfare system (which I oppose) but an illegal parent would not.
“I read recently that the United States allows more legal immigration per year than all of the western democracies combined.â€
So? If those other countries want to let there societies stagnate and die that is there problem.
“What other country in the history of the world would offer driver’s licenses, sanctuary cities, and in state tution to college for those that willfully and wantonly broke that country’s immigration laws?â€
Despite the lie told by Debra Medina during the Jan. 29th debate, Texas does not issue Drivers Licenses to illegal aliens. One can read the identity requirements for obtaining a Texas driver license here: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/driver_licensing_control/identificationrequirements.htm
With a little knowledge of U.S. Immigration law you would also know from reading the above that LEGAL aliens here on certain temporary visas such as H-2B in most instances cannot obtain a Texas driver license. (Period of time of admission is too short to comply with the Texas requirements.)
There have been lawsuits filed on behalf of LEGAL aliens because they can’t get licenses.
http://www.texascivilrightsproject.org/?p=448
http://www.maldef.org/news/releases/dps_040909/
http://thelatinojournal.blogspot.com/2009/07/legal-hispanics-in-texas-await-license.html
http://austin10.cityspur.com/2009/12/14/texas-law-regarding-immigrants-and-drivers-licenses-to-receive-test-in-court/
http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=4710
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2009/04/judge-rejects-rules-restricting-immigrant-id-and-drivers-license-access-debate-rages-on.html
As to “sanctuary cities†– So the State or Federal government must order cities to enforce civil immigration laws? How about Federal tax laws or any other Federal civil violations?
As to in state tuition it goes to kids who were brought here at a young age, not “those that willfully and wantonly broke that country’s immigration laws….†In any case, I am not a big fan of public colleges.
“The illegals sure appreciate it, every May Day for the last few years they’ve marched in the streets demanding more ‘rights.’â€
and you know those people were illegal because? They weren’t. That’s why one party was trying to register voters at those rallies.
>>I think we’re just gonna have disagree on this topic.<<
Yep
“So Eugene, since illegals can’t come here and get welfare, is it untrue that illegal alien Zeituni Onyango, aunt to Barack Obama, is living in public housing and receiving welfare?â€
When that was first announced many of my colleagues questioned how she could get such. The answer from those in Massachusetts was that they were turning a blind eye to the law up there. But what do you expect from an aunt of Obama's?
Eugene I haven’t the time or the inclination to go point by point to answer your latest rebuttal, but there are a few statements you make I must take exception to.
You question polls taken regarding the opinion of the American people on illegal immigration. There’s a myriad of polls out there that consistently reveal that Americans don’t want open immigration, that they want their borders secured. Even in left wing California Prop 187 passed, and just recently Guv Arnold suggested deporting 20,000 illegal alien prisoners to Mexico for incarceration. That’s pretty heavy for the governor of California to admit there’s an illegal problem in Cal.
Every piece I read at the time said DISD was indeed importing illegal aliens for jobs at DISD. Perhaps all the accounts got it wrong. I doubt it.
You say Americans like to stay where their family resides rather than move across the country. Where do you get this? The owner of this blog is from Mississippi if I recall correctly, a frequent contributer to this blog recently moved to St Louis, and I moved here from the midwest myself. I have a lifelong friend who is a journeyman millwright, he’s been all over the midwest working jobs. Recently my friend asked me what the construction industry is like here in the DFW area I told him it’s booming; I also told him to forget about plying his trade here, as he doesn’t speak Spanish,& he can’t afford to work for $10 an hour. You ask how I know the May Day protesters were illegal (since they’re taking to the streets demanding immigrant “rights†waving the Mexican flag I make a logical assumption) how do you know the laborers that worked on your roof were legal?
What is unreasonable about expecting people to come here legally? You lament how hard it is to come to this country. Well it’s been pretty hard for me to get an invitation to the Academy Awards, I guess I’ll just crash the gate and force my way into the ceremony. Too bad if it’s too hard to come in, our country our laws. Life ain’t fair.
You concede that anchor babies are eligible for welfare benefits, yet even though you concede that Obama’s aunt received benefits, you say that illegals don’t get benefits. If I have a kid that the US government is helping to support, I also benefit from the hand out. Do you consider free public education, & free emergency room treatment a welfare benefit? I sure do.
Do you really think our country will stagnate and die if we don’t allow millions of uneducated, un assimilated people into our country? Really? How have we survived so long up to now?
Illegals don’t get Texas Driver’s Licenses? I’m just some putz on the internet, you don’t have to believe me, but I have held in my hand State of Texas Dls that were handed over to illegals. Something like 11 states in the union knowingly give them out; I recall during the Democratic Primary that Obama and Hillary Clinton both called for Dls for illegals to make the streets “safer.†If you don’t believe illegals are getting Dls and using them as gateway IDs to vote and collect social benefits, I have a bridge to sell you.
You ask if the Federal Government should order cities to enforce “civil†immigration laws. If those cities receive federal money, hell yes! Calling illegal immigration a “civil†offense is a coy way to minimize the offense. It’s civil if I don’t take my movie back to Blockbuster on time, how many “civil†offenses can you commit that can cause you to be handcuffed and forcibly removed from your location? Besides, isn’t 2nd offense border crashing a FELONY? Are the crimes associated with illegal immigration such as tax fraud and ID theft also civil?
Your solution seems to be to fastrack the illegals in this country to legal status-if everyone’s legal, we don’t have an illegal problem, right? Wrong. It didn’t work in ’86, and it won’t work now. If overnight every illegal in this country was anointed citizenship, other than being a Democratic voting block, they would have outlasted their usefulness. Not only would we have millions of former illegals demanding full unfettered access to our social networks, but more illegals would follow them picking up the low paying jobs they’d leave behind. There’s a reason Billy Bob’s roofing company hires illegals, and he ain’t gonna hire the newly minted citizens that now demand prevailing wage.
Sorry I got so long winded here Eugene, please forgive any spelling or grammatical errors as I’m in a hurry to get to a basket ball game.
I’m sure you’re a decent guy, and I’m sure there’s issues we’d find common ground on, but like many Americans I’m as dug in on this issue as you are on the opposite side.
You can have the last word, I’m done with this debate.
“Every piece I read at the time said DISD was indeed importing illegal aliens for jobs at DISD. Perhaps all the accounts got it wrong. I doubt it.”
I don’t know what you read that was NEVER STATED in any media I read or heard. Perhaps you just hear what you want to hear.
I’ve stopped reading after the above. Trying to point out facts to someone like you is impossible. Goodbye.
Eugene I find it odd that you ignore the rest of my spiel and focus on the DISD fiasco.
A cusory google search came up with this article; the article refers to them first as “foreign citizens” and down into the article they’re called foreign citizens on visas. Call me a cynic but the terminology in the article makes me suspicious.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/111408dnmetdisdsocials.3d93dbc.html
Educate me here, I’m always ready to learn. If these teachers were here legally, why would they need fake social security numbers furnished by DISD?
Is it possible their visas were expired (which would define them as illegal aliens)?
Am I to believe that there no bilingual American citizens that could have taken these jobs for DISD?
English immersion classes would solve this problem if there really is a shortage of bilingual teachers-which I doubt.
This guy doesn’t mince words, he calls them illegal aliens.
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/003011.html
One more.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/14/school-supplies-fake-social-security-numbers-to-teachers/