Tancredo Thinks the Arizona Immigration Bill Goes Too Far?
I couldn’t believe it, either. I was watching Morning Joe, and they had a clip of Tancredo speaking against the immigration bill. I’ve been kind of wobbling on the bill, myself- having watched and read a bit about it over the last week or so, I certainly can understand why it’s controversial. I think, though, it comes down to these few points:
1. It’s mostly a wake-up call by Arizona to the federal government to protect its citizens and enforce existing law (one Arizona state senator defended the bill while saying that enforcement of the 1986 immigration reform law would suffice in this country).
2. While not quite a violation of civil rights, by the letter of the parts of the law I’ve read, and seen analyzed, I think the ramifications regarding civil rights would be highly questionable. Certainly, abuse would happen, as the law gives what I think is too much flexibility to law enforcement officials. This is the issue Tancredo has with it, as well.
3. Why is it controversial, as Stewart would have you believe at the first link above, to have immigrants carrying ID around? While some of the points he highlights are legitimate- suing police for not enforcing the law enough? Give me a break- illegal immigration is a huge issue in this country. He compares it to making free blacks carry IDs in the 1860s, but free black people were legal residents of the country. Illegal immigrants are, well, illegal.
As I said, I think the bill is mostly a wake-up call. Hopefully the more ridiculous, offensive and unethical portions get overturned in the courts, and the federal government passes a strong, effective and humane immigration bill soon. Perhaps with Tancredo’s support, the anti-bill lawsuits will pass quickly.
AllahPundit has a link to the bill here.
Update: AllahPundit has an updated post, which notes that a “reasonable suspicion” lawful act- i.e. someone is speeding and a police officer pulls the person over- must take place before the second, illegal residency “reasonable suspicion” portion kicks in. There are more protections here than meets the eye. It doesn’t mean it’s a great law, or even a Constitutional one…but it’s not as bad as it looks at first glance, and certainly better than liberals are saying it is. Again, here’s hoping that section gets clarified more sharply, and the federal government sees this action as a kick in the pants to have good immigration reform.
Kudos To Bill O’Reilly
H/T to Hot Air for noting that Bill O’Reilly will cover the legal fees the Fourth Circuit Court has applied to the Snyder family. (This is the family that is going to the Supreme Court over whether the Westboro Whackos have the freedom of speech to say the Snyders’ Marine son died because America supports gays.) The court said the Snyder family would have to pay the Westboro’s legal fees, but the brief they wrote, and the lack of explanation therein of subsidiary questions and issues, is rather odd. Take a look at the link above for an explanation of why and how. Additionally, there is a link to a website for donations to help the Snyders pay their court costs.
I think it’s great that O’Relly is covering the cost of the family’s expenses, to the tune of over $16,000- whatever you want to say about the guy, he’s well-intentioned and when he supports you he does so by jumping in with both feet. Unfortunately for his view on the matter (that the Westboros should be arrested), as AllahPundit notes, the Snyder family will probably lose the case. That’s the price of free speech, even for the despicable Westboro family.
Of course, there is an argument that a) funeral plots are private property, and b) the funeral plots the Westboro family stands on and near are also private. I suppose it depends on the situation, though- the Snyder funeral had 1,500 people in it, according to NewsMax, and so the Westboros might have been standing on the sidewalk or something.
Kucinich Thrown Under The Bus
Ohio Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich is truly a far-left liberal. He supports a Department of Peace, told me he was against free trade when he visited my campus, was the only 2008 Democratic candidate for President who voted against invading Iraq and was slammed by Daily Kos founder and far-left fanatic Markos Moulitsas for being too principled on health care reform. (Kucinich is opposed to the current version of health care reform because it is not liberal enough.) Being a conservative, I disagree with Kucinich on just about every policy issue and perspective. However, as is true with most extreme Members of Congress- Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), for two examples- I respect his holding to his principles.
Unfortunately for Kucinich, President Obama has an odd way of showing his respect for Kucinich’s principles. The president was in Kucinich’s district to talk about health care reform today, where he commended Kucinich for fighting for the average person. As a follow-up, literally seconds later, Obama asks an audience member who yelled “Vote Yes” to repeat his statement.
Perhaps I’m reaching for straws here, but why is President Obama needling Kucinich? The man introduced impeachment articles against former President Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney, and supports enacting a new Fairness Doctrine. He is not going to bow to pressure. Besides, as AllahPundit put it, Kucinich could very well be the deciding vote on health care reform. Alienating him is not a good way to get his vote.
Pro-Life IS Pro Health Care Reform
A few months ago, I wrote on Townsend?s Newsweek opinion supporting abortion and other non-Catholic beliefs. Now, she?s at it again, this time saying that the American bishops are ignoring health care over what she makes clear are minor concerns over abortion.
I don?t understand pro-choice Catholics. The Church has been against abortion since time unknown, and these Catholics want it to compromise? Why not join the Church in helping the poor, the homeless, orphans, preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place?and couples with marital problems? By helping the Church do these things, Townsend would take away much of the ?need? for abortions, as poorer, single woman who become ?unintentionally pregnant? tend to have a higher number of abortions than married, affluent women.
Townsend clearly doesn?t understand the Church?s view on abortion, as is made clear when she writes the following:
Why is it that the bishops are more concerned with restricting millions of American women from making health care decisions that are best for them and their families than they are with ensuring that millions of Americans ? women, men, children, immigrants, the poor, the middle class ? get much-needed health insurance?
As a Catholic, I dare say it?s because the Conference of Catholic Bishops has lost its way. For example, in Missouri, the Catholic Conference issued an e-mail alert urging ?those who are opposed to health care reform but are also pro-life? to ?stay focused on the abortion issue and get the Stupak-like amendment adopted in the Senate.?
Really? As Catholics, are we so laser focused on the issue of abortion that we are willing to join tea partiers and the like to bring down the health care reform bill? And at the enormous expense of millions of Americans who suffer every day because they can?t afford to get checkups, because they must choose bankruptcy in order to save the life of their loved one?
There are at least three major flaws with Townsend?s statements above. First, pro-life stances?are pro-healthcare reform. After all, the Church believes abortion is murder, and if health care reform is to be about improving life, health, happiness etc., than the Church?s position is 100% pro-health care reform.
Secondly, note what the Church did and did not do in the Missouri example Townsend uses. First, it asked people against the current health care reform efforts to support getting a pro-life amendment in. Essentially, the Church was asking its more conservative members to support saving the lives of unborn children by helping to?pass health care reform, despite those members? opposition to the latter. Secondly, the Church did not say- again, according to the limited information Townsend provides- that it wanted health care reform to fail. Instead, it specifically said it wanted the amendment included to pass health care reform.
Thirdly, the Church will never support abortion policies within our lifetimes. However, since it is clearly willing to give its substantial endorsement to a Senate bill that includes pro-life policies, perhaps Townsend could open her eyes to this fact and realize that by compromising on abortion, Democrats would already likely have a bill nearing completion in the Senate. As much as I dislike giving advice to Democrats, in this case it seems to be a no-brainer. Pass a pro-life amendment, you likely pass health care reform.
Unfortunately, it seems that Democrats didn?t get the memo. The Nelson/Hatch amendment mirroring the House Stupak amendment was tabled- essentially killed- yesterday. Also unfortunately, AllahPundit thinks Nelson left himself some wiggle room on filibustering a final Senate bill if it does not include the amendment. Let?s hope not, for the sake of millions of helpless unborn children who are currently at risk from this bill. Let?s contact the offices of Senators Nelson, Casey, Conrad, Pryor, Dorgan and Bayh, the six Democrats who voted for the amendment, and make certain they kill any bill that does not get the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Healthcare Reform Is A Work In Progress
So I disagree with?many of the health care reform ideas that are likely to make it to the final conference bill- including but not limited to higher taxes, more debt and government rationing, to name but a few- but I think Allahpundit was incorrect when he?went after the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, for saying health care reform is going to take years or decades before it really pays off.
Allahpundit is correct that the bill cost is much higher than what the Congressional Budget Office says it will be, as their estimates are based upon the next ten years and have other necessary limitations such as awareness of the sway of the various political winds. However, the American health care system?is not something that can easily be fixed, and therefore I must agree with Orszag that reform will take years or decades to really kick into gear (assuming this group of elected knuckleheads?gets it done right, which is highly unlikely). Of course, if they really wanted to kickstart the process, Congress and the president could do the following: create interstate insurance competition, institute tort reform, put a substantial effort into?at least some of the Dartmouth Atlas Group recommendations, modifying the employer exclusion tax, get rid of the public option, give the average American the same options that Congress and Congressional staffers have for insurance?and make certain Members of Congress have to be join whatever bill finally gets voted into law. This last part is especially important, since Members would undoubtedly not vote for a bad bill like the one that may very well get through the conference, whereas now they can vote how they like and keep their competition-based insurance plans.
