Falling Awake

I just took a SurveySpree survey, and got asked this question:

“Anglo?”  I’m not English, thanks.  I know, I know: “Anglo” is an informal term Hispanics use that means “not our kind.”  I also know that some no-class Whites have informal terms they use to designate others as “not our kind,” but fortunately those terms aren’t used in opinion polls.

This is completely beside the point, but now that I’m looking at this list I have no idea what I’d check if I were a Jew.  Are Jews “Anglos?”  They’re not Caucasians, are they?  Or are they?

Hey!  Are you guys Caucasians?  I really don’t know.  I never thought about it until I saw that “Anglo” there.  You’re not Anglo, though.  Right?

How come you don’t get a box?  Are there really more Indians than Jews in the US?  What if you don’t count “Ward Churchills” and “Indians-for-casino-purposes?”

Anyway, I cancelled my SurveySpree subscription.

Not representative of illegal aliens, but of the federal government’s response to them.

Man accused of rape hours after he left jail

COLUMBIA, Tenn. - Maury County deputies and federal agents are looking for a man who is accused of raping a 15-year-old girl only hours after being released from jail.

Juan Villa, 24, has been in the Maury County Jail 11 times since 2001 on charges of assault, public intoxication, driving without a license and contempt of court.

He was released from jail on $1,000 bail on Friday at about 9:45 p.m. and is suspected of raping the 15-year-old shortly after midnight.

Villa is suspected of being in the country illegally and [Sheriff Enoch] George said the department had contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement about him before he was released from jail but the federal agents said they would deal with him later.

Either the federal agents couldn’t be bothered, or they’re overwhelmed.  I can’t decide which I prefer to believe.

If you’d like to check out the proposed amendments, they’re here.

I can’t be bothered to read them closely, for the simple reason that I have no confidence that any proposal to tighten the borders will be enforced if it happens to pass.

Mark Krikorian at National Review’s the Corner feels the same way:

Some of the [White House's] fact sheet’s claims are so disingenuous as to be amusing. It says that if the amnesty bill passes, the employer fines for hiring illegals will go up. Well, that’s great, except that this administration has all but stopped fining employers, so who cares what the size of the never-issued fines are? It also says that under the Senate bill, the punishment for illegals caught re-entering the country would be more severe; again, that’s just peachy, except that U.S. Attorney offices seldom prosecute people even for the felony of re-entry after deportation — what difference would stiffer penalties make when no one is prosecuted?

I actually feel sorry for the folks at the White House press office for having to put out this sort of drivel.

Stanley Kurtz (also at the Corner) has this to say:

Something about this immigration battle doesn’t sit well. For all the bitterness of our political battles, there’s at least the sense that the government responds to the drift of public opinion. The Republicans in Congress turned into big spenders and the war in Iraq went poorly. As a result the Democrats prospered in 2006, if narrowly. That’s how democracy works.

Somehow this immigration battle feels different. The bill is wildly unpopular, yet it’s close to passing.

I’m still stuck on the way this bill was going to be pushed through without a public airing of crucial provisions, in the two or three days before Memorial Day recess. But I should be stuck even further back–on the way this bill was cooked up in a backroom deal that bypassed the ordinary process of public hearings. We take them for granted, but those civics textbook fundamentals are there for a reason. We’re going to pay a steep price for setting the fundamentals aside.

Supporters of this bill sell it as a compromise that will heal America’s divisions. I fear it’s quite the reverse. This bill is infuriating the public and undermining faith in government itself. You can see it in the polling on confidence in Congress and the President. If this bill passes, it’s going to aggravate and embitter politics for years to come. Passing a measure over such overwhelming opposition is like slapping the public in the face.

You can’t solve an argument by imposing a “compromise” on parties who don’t actually view it as a compromise. You can’t heal social divisions by forcing your version of a “solution” down the public’s throats. Real healing comes only when two sides reach what they themselves consider a valid compromise, or when one side wins the argument by persuading a clear majority of the validity of its case. Democracy does work, but first the Senate has got to give it a try.

The argument–put forth by the Wall Street Journal, among others–that passing this immigration bill will allow our country to “get past” the divisive issue of illegal immigration reminds me of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision.  Yeah, taking social policy out of the hands of the voters really ended that debate, huh?

The President and the Senate are also emulating the European Union in their push to pass their constitution.  The voters keep rejecting the damn thing, and the politicians keep acting as if that’s a mere detail, of no real consequence.

The Corner (third time’s the charm!) also quotes Senator John Cornyn of Texas on the bill.  He addresses the fact that it is absolutely impossible for the federal government to enforce the bill as it’s written.  Read it if you have the chance.  And the stomach.

Have you noticed the recent upswing in enforcement of our immigration laws?

• 29 illegal immigrants arrested in New Haven, CT
• Scores arrested in California immigration raids
• Feds arrest 38 in immigration sweep in Colorado and Wyoming

Now, if this sort of thing had been happening for the past three or four years, I think President Bush would have an easier time selling his immigration bill to the American public.

But it’s a good start.  No, not towards deporting 12 million people, but in making those 12 million people aware that there is a chance that they may be next.  Otherwise, why would they even apply for legal status?

So let’s see how this goes for the next several years–especially if the next president is a Democrat–and then we’ll talk again about comprehensive immigration reform.

Father Richard John Neuhaus talks about Cardinal Mahony of the diocese of Los Angeles here.  The cardinal made news last year by vowing to ignore, and to direct members of his diocese to ignore, laws requiring the reporting of illegal immigrants to the authorities.

Father Neuhaus continues:

More recently, Cardinal Mahony offered a comprehensive account of the Church’s position on comprehensive immigration reform at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. He very specifically and repeatedly asserted that he was setting forth “the underpinnings of the position of the Catholic Church on immigration reform legislation.” His lecture is sprinkled with expressions such as “the church leadership argues that . . .”; “the Church maintains that . . .”; and “the Church’s position is . . .” We are clearly given to understand that he is not merely expressing his own views or speaking in his capacity as the archbishop of Los Angeles but is speaking for the Catholic Church.

Immigration, the cardinal says, has to do with much more than what we ordinarily mean by the economy. He notes that economy comes from the Greek oikonomia, which means the arrangement of a household. The concern, he says, is “the full flourishing of everyone who is part of God’s economy, household, or community. The question is, Who belongs in the household? Is God’s good household roomy enough for all? Or who precisely is the we in we the people?” [Me: I've always been puzzled by the argument from etymology.  Words change their meanings constantly, and old definitions have no relevance outside of a dictionary.]  At points in his presentation, it seems that God’s household is the Church; at other points, it is the people of Israel. In the latter connection he cites Deuteronomy 10, “You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt,” and Exodus 22, “You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” At yet at other points, God’s household seems to be the entire human race.

“As a Christian,” says the cardinal, “there are no prior commitments that can overrule or trump this biblical tradition of compassion for the stranger, the alien and the worker.” “These scriptural and theological foundations can be applied to the current debate on immigration in our country.” Current policies are “unjust” and “immoral.” They do not provide that every worker “reaps the fruit of their labor in dignity and with full rights in this society.” “Thus, to restore order to God’s household, we must ensure that all are welcome to the table.” And thus “the question becomes whether those who reside outside the law have the same claim to a seat at the table as those who are not outside.” To that question, “church leaders say yes.” If I understand him correctly, the distinction between the outlaw and the law-abiding is, at least with respect to immigration policy, morally irrelevant.

Cardinal Mahony’s concern for the well-being of illegal immigrants is laudable—and unavoidable in view of the population mix of Los Angeles and southern California. It is a concern we all must share. The difficulties many of these people encounter are severe but not, in their own judgment, as severe as the difficulties they encounter south of the border, or else presumably they would not be here. It is a pity that the cardinal’s comprehensive address on these questions does not touch on ways to encourage the economic and social development of Mexico. Such ways are persuasively suggested in, for instance, the 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, which is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

A greater difficulty with the cardinal’s lecture, however, is the facile move from Bible quoting to public-policy prescription. That move is less characteristic of Catholic social thought than of the habits of biblical fundamentalists. The cardinal’s position is devoid of respect for what Pope Benedict repeatedly stresses as the role of reason in rightly ordering the sphere of the “authentically secular.”

But most striking and, I believe, unfortunate is the cardinal’s conceptually confused but unmistakable attack on the nation-state, both in its domestic responsibilities and in the international order. Such an attack has no warrant in Catholic social doctrine. The cardinal correctly says that the question is “who precisely is the we in we the people?” To which, as the current immigration debate has underscored, most Americans respond, in accord with the preamble to the Constitution, We the people of the United States. Cardinal Mahony says that he speaks for the Church. Fortunately, and while he is undoubtedly an important voice in the Church, that is not true.

There’s much more there, just click the link.

SteynOnline - ‘UNDOCUMENTED AMERICANS’

…[A]bout five years or so back, I started making references in columns to “fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community.” But from the lame Steyn joke of yesteryear to the reality of tomorrow is a mere hop and a skip. A few days ago, Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, declared:

“This week we will vote on cloture and final passage of a comprehensive bill that will strengthen border security, bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows, and keep our economy strong.”

Talk about “a fast track to citizenship”! Never mind probationary visas, Z-visas and Green Cards, in the eyes of the Democrat steering “comprehensive immigration reform” through Congress these guys are already “undocumented Americans”. Was it simply a slip of the tongue? (Speaking of which, I thought thanks to George W Bush we had “the worst economy since Herbert Hoover”. When did it get “strong”?) Or did Senator Reid mean it?

If he did, the very concept of citizenship is dead, and the Senate might as well opt for “really comprehensive immigration reform” and declare everyone on the planet a US citizen with backdated Social Security entitlements. As Le Monde’s famous headline of September 12th 2001 put it, “Nous sommes tous Americains.” Literally.

I wouldn’t presume to speak for the millions of Americans who oppose this bill, but it’s because I’m an immigrant myself that I object to the most patent absurdity peddled by the pro-amnesty crowd. The bill is fundamentally a fraud. Its “comprehensive solution” to illegal immigration is simply to flip all the illegals overnight into the legal category. Voila! Problem solved! There can be no more illegal immigrants because the Senate has simply abolished the category. Ingenious! For their next bipartisan trick, Congress will reduce the murder rate by recategorizing murderers as jaywalkers.

Steyn goes on to wonder about the ability of the federal government to perform 12 million background checks on our “illegal amigos,” given the level of competence displayed by issuing a visa to Mohammed Atta “on March 11th 2002, six months to the day after famously flying his first and last commercial airliner.”

Also in the news this week:

Illegal day laborers win big settlement in N.Y.

A New York town will pay six illegal day laborers $550,000 and forbid its police department from checking suspects’ immigration status to settle a discrimination lawsuit that claims the men were harassed because they are Hispanic.

The case stems from a much-needed police crackdown on disruptive and violent loitering in a public park in Mamaroneck, a town of about 20,000 residents located some two dozen miles from New York City. Multiple complaints of hundreds of drunken men fighting, littering, urinating and defecating at the park’s makeshift day laborer hiring site led to police to shut it down.

A Latino rights group sued the town alleging that the illegal immigrants’ constitutional rights to assemble and exercise free speech were violated. The suit also accuses village officials of discriminating against the day laborers—all admitted illegal aliens who didn’t use their real name in court documents for fear of deportation—simply because they are Hispanic.

I guess being angry at this makes me a bigot.  How about if I’m angry at Mamaroneck for settling the case?

Really, though, am I trying too hard to make sense of President Bush’s immigration fixation?  He could simply feel that it’s the correct moral choice.  (Many, if not most, Catholic bishops would agree with him.)  If that’s the case, then Bush wouldn’t care if it’s the smart thing to do.  It’s not like he hasn’t been accused of a “consequences be damned” attitude before.  (As a matter of fact, that’s something I admire about him.  As a person, if not always as a president.)

Of course, if it is a moral calculation, why is it only Latinos who should benefit?  Shouldn’t we just throw open our borders to every person in the world?

On the other hand, if this is an effort to prop up Social Security, would it work–at least in the short term?  I’ve skimmed the Rector study (a cost/benefit analysis of illegal immigration on taxpayers) over at the Heritage Foundation, and this is the only analysis I found of the impact of immigrants on Social Security:

Do Low-Skill Immigrants Contribute to the Solvency of Social Security?

It is often argued that low-skill immigrants have a positive impact on U.S. taxpayers because they pay taxes into the Social Security trust fund. It is true that low-skill immigrant households pay, on average, around $2,900 per year in Social Security (FICA) taxes; however, the average Social Security and Medicare benefits they receive actually exceed the FICA taxes paid. [ME: That's true of most people, not just immigrants.  That's the problem with Social Security.]  Of course, low-skill immigrant households receive many other government benefits as well, receiving ten dollars in total government benefits for each dollar they pay in Social Security taxes.  [ME: That's not really fair--if you're going to talk about total government benefits, contrast them to total taxes paid, not just FICA.  That's what he does in the rest of the paper, of course, but here he's specifically talking about Social Security.]

Even if low-skill immigrants were net contributors to the Social Security trust fund, it would be a serious mistake to look at Social Security in isolation from other government taxes and expenditures. A household that pays a small amount in Social Security taxes but consumes many times that amount in benefits funded by other tax sources does not contribute to the fiscal health of government. In the final analysis, taxpayers, including many Social Security recipients, will face higher taxes in order to subsidize low-skill immigrant households.  [ME: other government benefits are more easily cut than Social Security, though.  Welfare reform WAS accomplished, and many other entitlement programs could be altered in the same way, if our politicians could summon the will.]

Earlier in the paper, Rector said: “The present analysis adjusts the estimated income and FICA taxes paid by low-skill immigrant households downward slightly to adjust for the “off the books” labor of low-skill illegal immigrants.”  Under the Bush plan the immigrants wouldn’t be working off the books anymore.  At least in theory.  Would this make enough difference to Social Security’s solvency?

Even if it would, I still worry about the cultural consequences.  The same thing’s been tried in Europe, and we’ve seen the results…

In defending his immigration reform bill, President Bush is fighting back against conservatives with a fervor that he doesn’t usually display when liberals criticize him on, oh, just about anything.  He claims that people who oppose the bill “don’t want to do what’s right for America.”  That is, the bill is unquestionably right for America, and opposition to it displays a desire to harm America.

It’s not just the President, of course.  His first pick for Labor Secretary, Linda Chavez, tells us what this debate is really about:

Some people just don’t like Mexicans — or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.

No amount of hard, empirical evidence to the contrary, and no amount of reasoned argument or appeals to decency and fairness, will convince this small group of Americans — fewer than 10 percent of the general population, at most — otherwise. Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors — most prominently, Lou Dobbs — and a handful of public policy “experts” at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe groups like the Minuteman Project.

Stripped bare, this is what the current debate on immigration reform is all about.

Granted, she claims that no more than 10% of Americans are racist.  But then she seems to say that every public figure who opposes the bill falls within this small group of people.  So I guess she’s not calling me a racist.  Just easily influenced by racists.

Peggy Noonan, in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, lists some of President Bush’s allies on the bill, and their opinions of those who question its wisdom:

Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, “We’re gonna tell the bigots to shut up.” On Fox last weekend he vowed to “push back.” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want “mass deportation.” Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are “anti-immigrant” and suggested they suffer from “rage” and “national chauvinism.”

Noonan then tries to figure out why President Bush & Co. are pushing so hard for the bill:

They are trying to lay down markers for history. Having lost the support of most of the country, they are looking to another horizon. The story they would like written in the future is this: Faced with the gathering forces of ethnocentric darkness, a hardy and heroic crew stood firm and held high a candle in the wind. It will make a good chapter. Would that it were true!

I have a different theory, and it may be completely nuts, but here it is.

Read the rest of this entry »

Joe Kennedy’s friend Hugo Chavez is planning to shut down a television station that inconveniently opposes his totalitarian regime.  Come to think of it, it’s been a while since I’ve seen those television ads that salute our “friends in Venezuela.”  Maybe they’re Kennedy’s friends during the winter, but the rest of the time I suppose their cheap oil is a major contributor to “global warming.”  [UPDATE: Looks like it's a fait accompli.]

——————–

I missed Earth Day!  In all the hustle and bustle of preparing for May Day and Cinco de Mayo, it completely slipped my mind.  Eminent ecologist Bill Maher remembered, though:

Here’s a quote from Albert Einstein: “if the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would have only four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man.” Well, guess what? The bees are disappearing. In massive numbers. All around the world. And if you think I’m being alarmist and that, “Oh, they’ll figure out some way to pollinate the plants…” No, they’ve tried. For a lot of what we eat, only bees work. And they’re not working. They’re gone. It’s called Colony Collapse Disorder, when the hive’s inhabitants suddenly disappear, and all that’s left are a few queens and some immature workers — like when a party winds down at Elton John’s house.

That last line’s actually funny.  I forgot Bill Maher used to consider himself a comedian.  Unfortunately–for Maher, not for us–the whole thing’s untrue.  First, Einstein never said anything about bees.  Second, “Colony Collapse Disorder” is a theory concocted by European beekeepers in order to justify their massive subsidies.  Third, we’ve got plenty of bees.  Maybe too many!  Here’s some more!  Someone’s playing a joke on environmentalist doomsayers.  It’s just like those “marches against global warming” that always take place during blizzards and cold snaps.

Here’s a suggestion to environmentalists who really want the average person to give a crap.  Stop lying.  When you make up figures to create a sense of urgency, rational people suspect that there might not actually be a problem.  If the real data is alarming, why not stick with that?  If it isn’t, maybe you should take up a different hobby.

————————-

Poll: American Muslims reject extremes

How comforting.  Only 26% of American Muslims aged 18-29 believe suicide bombing is justified.  If it were 49%, the headline would be the same.  I wonder what the story would be if an equivalent percentage of American Christians aged 18-29 supported the bombing of empty abortion clinics?  Only the “religion of peace” gets a free pass on random murder.  (I’m arguing that Islam shouldn’t get a free pass, not that anyone else should, in case I need to spell that out.)

—————————

Anyone who thinks Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay exemplify man’s inhumanity to man should check out the Smoking Gun’s publication of Al Qaeda torture manuals recently declassified by the Defense Department.  (Obviously, click at your own risk.  The depictions are color illustrations, not photographs, but they are still disturbing.)  Some of the methods are “blowtorch to the skin,” “eyeball removing,” and “loud music.” Actually, no.  Al Qaeda is not barbaric enough to recommend loud music.

Now, I’m not suggesting we treat our captives like this.  We are more humane than they are.  As a matter of fact, Al Qaeda could even earn the right to be treated according to the Geneva conventions if they upheld them themselves.  Until that happens, loud music and excessive air conditioning don’t bother me one bit.

————————-

Google’s goal: to organize your daily life

I’d be a little more concerned about this if Google’s motto wasn’t “Don’t be evil”:

“The goal is to enable Google users to be able to ask the question such as ‘What shall I do tomorrow?’ and ‘What job shall I take?’ ”

The race to accumulate the most comprehensive database of individual information has become the new battleground for search engines as it will allow the industry to offer far more personalised advertisements. These are the holy grail for the search industry, as such advertising would command higher rates.

Mr Schmidt told journalists in London: “We cannot even answer the most basic questions because we don’t know enough about you. That is the most important aspect of Google’s expansion.”

I’m sure this is nothing.  “Don’t be evil” is admirably clear.  It’s not like Google would ever give this information to bad guys.  (NYT - reg. req.)

———————

Canadian media needle “Sicko”

Michael Moore’s upcoming film “Sicko” compares US health care unfavorably to the Canadian system.  Canadian journalists who viewed the film in Cannes, however, were puzzled by the rosy picture Moore painted of their country’s health care situation.  Moore responded to their criticisms this way:

“You Canadians! You used to be so funny!” an exasperated Moore said at a press conference in the Palais des Festivals.

So, when pressed, he relies on the “it’s a joke, you morons!” defense.  Then he goes on the offensive:

“The Canadian system, if you look on that list of the World Health Organization, is not that far above us. It’s not like the French system. The French system is the best in the world.”

Maybe he should have figured that out before he made the film.  Now we have to find the flaws in the film Moore didn’t actually make in order to refute his arguments.  That’s not really fair.  Although it is typical.

————————

House votes to make energy price-gouging illegal

I suppose I should get used to linking to this essay every couple of months.  The same author (Ian Murray) elsewhere makes this point more succinctly by way of rhyme:

You’re gouging on your prices if
You charge more than the rest.
But it’s unfair competition
If you think you can charge less!
A second point that we would make
To help avoid confusion:
Don’t try to charge the same amount!
That would be collusion!

——————————

Judge: Spector’s expert hid victim’s fingernail

That expert would be Dr. Henry Lee.  The judge in the Phil Spector trial found that Lee tampered with evidence at the crime scene.  The evidence, a fragment of a fingernail belonging to the victim, would have served to incriminate Mr. Spector by demonstrating that she had been struggling when the gun was fired.

You may recall that Dr. Lee was the most respected witness presented in O. J. Simpson’s defense.  “Something wrong,” was the famous sound bite from Lee’s testimony regarding the police’s handling and testing of the evidence.  Well, there’s also something wrong with a man of Lee’s stature exchanging his honor for money…

…again?

———————–

Good opinion piece here by Bob Kerrey, former Democratic senator from Nebraska and member of the 9/11 Commission.  A couple of chunks:

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn’t you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

It’s all worth a read.

—————————-

And finally, this post by Andy McCarthy sums up my feelings on illegal immigration and the proposed “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” better than anything else I’ve read on the subject.  Maybe better than anything I’ve written on the subject, too.  I’d have to excerpt the whole thing, so just click on over and read it if you want to.

The Coleman Amendment to the Immigration Reform Act was defeated on Thursday in a close 49-48 vote.  It would have addressed the problem of “sanctuary cities.”

From Senator Coleman’s website:

Currently, a number of cities throughout the nation are using a loophole to get around Sec. 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 by instituting ordinances forbidding local law enforcement to even ask the question as to whether a person is in the U.S. lawfully, thereby evading their legal responsibility to report their suspicions to the federal government.

Senator Coleman’s legislation will not require local law enforcement to use their own resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Moreover, it does not require local law enforcement to conduct immigration raids or act as federal agents. Senator Coleman’s bill will simply give law enforcement officers the ability to inquiry about a person’s immigration status during their routine investigations, and in turn report their findings to the appropriate Federal authorities though already-established channels, as they are currently required to do by law.

Both of my senators voted against this amendment.  Here’s the e-mail I sent them:

Dear Senator:

I’m writing to express my disappointment in your vote against the Coleman Amendment to the Immigration Reform Act.

I can understand that state and local law enforcement may not have the resources to enforce federal laws against illegal immigrants.  But the Coleman amendment required nothing of the sort.  When state and local officials bar police officers from inquiring about the immigration status of people they are ticketing or arresting, who is served?

I have read once too often about terrorists living in the United States illegally being detained on more than one occasion and no inquiry into their immigration status being made.  This must stop.

If the amendment as offered had been incorporated into the Immigration Reform Act you support, and that Act were to become law, then the only people who would have any reason to fear would be immigrants who refuse to apply for legal status.  And aren’t they the people we should be most concerned about?

By the way, I would be interested to know which other federal laws you encourage state and local officials to not only ignore, but to actively undermine.  If this is a unique case, please explain why it should be.  If there are others, perhaps you might consider upholding the Constitution in the future.

Thank you for your time,

Blah, blah, blah…

—————————

UPDATED: 5/30:  I received a reply from Senator Lieberman’s office.  It spoke generally about the immigration reform bill, but did not address my concern about the specific amendment Senator Lieberman opposed.

UPDATED: 6/14: Senator Dodd’s office replied today.  You can tell he’s running for president, because reading his response you couldn’t even tell if he was for or against the immigration bill, never mind the Coleman amendment.  But he’s very concerned, and grateful for my input.