Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald want to know more about Elena Kagan. For my purposes, I think I've got most of what I need. I'll wait for the hearings, of course, and there's no telling what the opposition researchers, tabloid gold diggers and data miners will turn up, but what we already know about Kagan suggests to me she has what it takes to be a fine Supreme Court Justice.
Because the process is at its political zenith, the discussion right now is political. But the glaringly obvious fact very few among the commentariat bring up is that the most important characteristic of a judge - and particularly a Supreme Court justice - is their judgment. And chief among the issues they must exercise judgment upon is the question of what is a political issue and what is a constitutional one.
That distinction has become so muddied in recent decades - by politics - that it is hard to recognize any line at all.
But in my opinion, Kagan has done a fine job of understanding the difference with respect to DADT. At Harvard, she was required to obey the law, which in this case included the Solomon amendment withholding federal funds from any college that tried to frustrate the anti-gay policy of DADT. When an appeals court ruled that the amendment was invalid, Harvard followed the law as it was then interpreted, and when that opinion was appealed, Kagan signed an amicus brief challenging the law's validity - which was well within her rights, along with those of every American on any issue. And when the Supreme Court ruled the amendment was valid, she enforced the law as it was finally adjuged. She stated her personal opinion that it was an unfair and unjust law (which it is), but she implemented it.
It is easy to characterize this as flip-flopping, or in any number of other politically unpalatable ways, and it will be. But it shows that Kagan respects the rule of law while also holding her own moral opinions about laws she views as unjust - and knows the difference. In this, she has shown an understanding of politics that is rare among the political classes who will be judging her.
As a Supreme Court justice, of course, she will have the ability to decide which laws should be subject to the ordinary rules of politics and which to the constitution's more rigorous limitations set out to manage politics. That is an eternal question judges must face, and even the most rigidly conservative among them do enforce the constitution's limits on politics when, in their judgment, that is necessary.
But every constitutional question comes up in a specific case with its own unique facts. That is where judgment comes in, and where nominated judges should not be required to put themselves on the political record in advance. Kagan may or may not know how she would rule on the constitutionality of DADT or DOMA, just as Clarence Thomas may or may not have known how he would rule on the continuing validity of Roe v. Wade. But those questions do not come to the court without complicating facts, and those facts may make all the difference. Nor is "the law" - especially constitutional law -- something that is always self-evident. There is an absolute constitutional right to free speech that Congress may not abridge. Except in some cases. . .
Kagan's sexual orientation - or lack of one - may or may not be important in her thinking. But then, as IGF demonstrates, I hope, even being openly gay doesn't lead inevitably to any particular way of thinking, much less some specific result. The same is true of religion, which the high court illustrates for us every day. If anyone can find any commonality in reasoning among the court's six Catholic justices, I'd love to hear about it. So, in answer to Dale's question below, I'd say her sexual orientation doesn't matter a lot. He may disagree with me -- but wouldn't that make my point?
Judgment is not something that is objectively identifiable. And no biography can predict its presence or isolate it. But I think Kagan has already given us a record of sound and prudent judgment in a hard political case. That's what good judges need, and we need as many people who have it as we can possibly get.
44 Comments for “Judgment Call”
posted by Bobby on
Kagan defended censorship
http://townhall.com/columnists/TerryJeffrey/2010/05/12/kagans_defense_of_censorship
posted by Jimmy on
Bobby-
For clarity’s sake, Kagan was serving as Solicitor General, arguing the administration’s position (which was correct) in Citizens United.
posted by Jorge on
Too bad she lost.
In fact she seems to have a remarkable record of losing, losing badly, and losing sloppy as Soliciter General, even with her thin experience.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/15/kagan_as_solictor_general
It is also said that Kagan has little experience in litigation and spent most of her years as a law professor. That might be relevant. At least Harriet Miers (also a non-judge) was a practicing attorney, reviewing major thorny government issues as an advisor for the President and the governor of Texas for many years before her nomination.
Speaking to David Link’s point, there’s the ability to make tough judgment calls, and there’s the propensity to make very absurd judgment calls against longstanding American values and virtues. Elena Kagan’s refusal to let military recruiters on campus is being cast in that light: as an attack on our military and by extension, an attack on America and what it stands for. I think conservatives are right to fear that such an easy refusal to take the patriotic side will lead to far-reaching decisions against American values such as the decisions banning school prayer and permitting flag-burning. Liberals, of course, see a common thread of preserving individual liberties, of the Constitution being more important than tradition. At least, that’s what I hope they see.
posted by Jimmy on
“I think conservatives are right to fear that such an easy refusal to take the patriotic side will lead to far-reaching decisions against American values such as the decisions banning school prayer and permitting flag-burning.”
Fear, fear, and more fear, again, is all conservatives have to rely on. If American values don’t jibe with the founding documents of America, which actually do speak to what values Americans should hold, then we should just go with what feels good, jingo all the way.
Why do conservatives like speech that equates to bribery, but detest speech that allows the unconnected, non-influential person to express displeasure with his or her government? Guess what, there’s a hell of a lot more bribery going on than flag burning.
posted by Bobby on
“Why do conservatives like speech that equates to bribery, but detest speech that allows the unconnected, non-influential person to express displeasure with his or her government? Guess what, there’s a hell of a lot more bribery going on than flag burning.”
—The founding fathers did not make distinctions between free speech. All speech is equal, the marketplace of ideas should allow all voices to speak. Even if you can’t afford advertising, you can put your views on youtube. Of course, the left doesn’t get that which is why they want the FCC to regulate the Internet like a public utility. Why? Because regulation can lead to censorship.
Tell me, why do liberals only like speech under certain conditions? Campaign-Finance was an assault on the constitution, it prohibited speech 30/60 days depending on what type of election it was. The NRA and the ACLU fought against this law because it would have prevented them from running commercials against candidates they don’t like.
Kagan defended an evil law, maybe that was her job, but do we not judge people by the job they do? By the way, did you know that the Obama administration is hiding Kagan and her brother from the media? Apparently the brother is a leftwinger and The New York Times was gonna interview him, but the Obama gestapo called the school and now the man refuses to talk to the times. Can you imagine if Bush had done the same?
I’m sick of this, Obama doesn’t like free speech, in his Michigan commencement speech he basically said that there’s too much information out there. No other president in the history of the country has complained about that in public. So, if Obama doesn’t like free speech it makes sense he would try to appoint another progressive to SCOTUS. In other words, we’re fucked.
posted by Jimmy on
“… in his Michigan commencement speech he basically said that there’s too much information out there.”
I believe he was speaking to the fact that there is too much MISinformation out there – and he is right.
One of the gravest mistakes we as a nation have made was when we allowed the quality and nature of individual citizenship to be watered down by granting personhood to corporations, unions, et al. Bribery is a crime if I do it, but not when a corporation, which may be composed by numerous foreign nationals, does it. What in the hell is patriotic about that scenario?
posted by Bobby on
“I believe he was speaking to the fact that there is too much MISinformation out there – and he is right.”
—I disagree, thanks to youtube the antics of ACORN have been exposed as well as those schools where kids were made to sing pro-Obama songs. With all the information out there, it’s easy to find the truth, or at least look at several sources and decide for yourself what is the truth. Obama fears that because he’s a control freak, he wants everyone watching MSNBC and reading The Huffington Post. He doesn’t want you to think, he wants you to agree. The basic premise of a progressive is this: “You’re stupid. We’re smart. Do what we say.”
“One of the gravest mistakes we as a nation have made was when we allowed the quality and nature of individual citizenship to be watered down by granting personhood to corporations, unions, et al. Bribery is a crime if I do it, but not when a corporation, which may be composed by numerous foreign nationals, does it. What in the hell is patriotic about that scenario?”
—There are laws against corporate crimes, there are fines, there is prison time for those directly involved. Besides, what is foreign and what is American? If Toyota has more auto plants in America than GM, which company do you think is more American?
I’d rather have those “foreigners” here instead of the wetbacks that march with Mexican flags and can’t even shout in English when they protest! At least Toyota waves the American flag instead of attacking American kids for wearing old glory on Cinco de Mayo which is not even celebrated in all of Mexico nor should it be celebrated in America nor should it be offensive to wear an American flag any day of the week.
I hope you become more skeptical about Obama and his liberal friends. Yesterday Chris Mathews said he wants to nationalize the oil industry, I’m telling you, the communists are coming out of the closet.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Jimmy, would you mind explaining to us slowpokes how Hillary: The Movie “equated to bribery”? Or do you think it’s not the movie itself, but the 10-second paid TV ads that the filmmaker wanted to promote the movie with that “equated to bribery”?
posted by Jimmy on
“Jimmy, would you mind explaining to us slowpokes how Hillary: The Movie ‘equated to bribery’?”
When did I say it did? I believe you know what I’m talking about.
posted by Jimmy on
Justice Stevens, in his decent, said it best:
“At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”
posted by Jorge on
Fear, fear, and more fear, again, is all conservatives have to rely on.
No, sir. They have the Obama White House and his shadow government of radical, socialist, tone-deaf, or otherwise unqualified czars. Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they really aren’t all out to get you.
Why do conservatives like speech that equates to bribery, but detest speech that allows the unconnected, non-influential person to express displeasure with his or her government?
I will not permit you to ignore the element of direct attack and insult (to put it mildly) that I have raised while at the same time suggesting that only your example carries it.
Campaign finance reform is not an issue that strikes to the heart of this country’s moral character nor does it have any social justice ramifications–being that it’s part of capitalism, money in politics is an equal opportunity stink bomb. It is nothing more than a pragmatic political question. I do respect how Justice Stevens can paint an exceptionally eloquent argument to the contrary.
posted by Jorge on
I’d rather have those “foreigners” here instead of the wetbacks that march with Mexican flags and can’t even shout in English when they protest!
You know, I’ve been having that word wetback repeating in my mind all month.
I am highly embarassed to be sharing the same cyberspace as someone who actually gave into the temptation of saying it.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Jorge —
I can understand why “wetback” rankles, since it has at times been unfairly and hatefully applied to anyone who talks with a con-spic-uous accent in English; or who has mestizo features; or merely has a “Mexican-sounding” name — even if they’re here legally with visas and green-cards, and sometimes even if they’re naturalized citizens. Heck, I’m willing to bet there are Puerto Ricans who’ve been called “wetbacks” even though they’re the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of U.S. citizens, in addition to being native-born citizens in their own right!
But that said, I don’t see a problem with using “wetback” as a disparaging term for illegal immigrants, so long as it’s applied equally to cheaters from China, Africa, the Middle East, or the former USSR, rather than only to people from Latin America; and so long as it’s never used for legal immigrants who happen to be Hispanic.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Just to be clear, I’ve worked as a volunteer and paid ESL teacher and I object in the strongest possible terms when people who speak English with a foreign accent (even a very heavy one) are accused of being lazy or stupid or unwilling to assimilate, etc.
posted by Jimmy on
“I don’t see a problem with using “wetback” as a disparaging term for illegal immigrants, so long as it’s applied equally to cheaters from China, Africa, the Middle East, or the former USSR, rather than only to people from Latin America; and so long as it’s never used for legal immigrants who happen to be Hispanic.”
And, when the fu*k does that ever happen, Throbert? Perhaps in the parallel universe some posters here seem to live in?
posted by Throbert McGee on
It happened right here on this thread, Easy Reader:
I’m pretty sure that Bobby was primarily talking about illegal immigrants, here — though possibly he was also including immigrants who are in the U.S. legally (and perhaps even citizens) but who are so radically anti-assimilation that they can’t be bothered to learn the most elementary English phrases.
posted by Jimmy on
When is “wetback” ever applied to anyone who is anything other than hispanic?
Never.
posted by Bobby on
“I’m pretty sure that Bobby was primarily talking about illegal immigrants, here — though possibly he was also including immigrants who are in the U.S. legally (and perhaps even citizens) but who are so radically anti-assimilation that they can’t be bothered to learn the most elementary English phrases.”
—Yes, I have no problem with legal immigrants who follow the law, put up with the red tape, pay their filing fees and do things the way my grandparents did when they came to this country. By the way, immigration laws in Mexico are a lot more strict than in the US, an illegal in Mexico doesn’t have freedom of speech for example, just complaining about the Mexican government can get you deported.
“When is “wetback” ever applied to anyone who is anything other than hispanic?”
—Perhaps because other illegals don’t get wet crossing the Rio Grande. However, terms like micks, pollacks, kraunts, canucks, chinks, gooks, and others have been applied to legal and illegal immigrants from all over the world. Besides, Mexicans refer to people like us as “gringos” which is a word taht dates from the Mexican-American war (the mexicans used to yell “green go!” as in “yankee go home” and thus “green go” became “gringo.”).
Anyway, I’m glad Throbert opposes the free speech restrictions of campaign finance reform. I saw “Hillary the movie” and while it wasn’t a fun film to watch, it’s perfectly valid free speech. Can anyone explain to me why is it ok for Hillary Clinton to enjoy access to the media but not for her critics?
It takes more than TV commercials and movies to win elections, eventually people are gonna have to like your ideas. Maybe the reason progressives fear free speech is because their ideas can’t win in the free market, so they need to censor those ideas that not only survive but thrive.
Conservatives, libertarians, independents and honest liberals don’t fear free speech. We are not afraid of the SEIU making a commercial, or the NRA doing the same because each of us is free to belong to a corporation, union, political group, etc, than can make more commercials. Our free market embraces good ideas and ridicules the bad ones.
Our founding fathers wanted a free press, they did not want so-called “net neutrality” or for the FCC to get their ugly hands in the Internet which works perfectly fine without their help.
People who say that political advertising is ugly should look at articles comparing Abraham Lincoln to a monkey and saying that he was a negroe. Ugliness in politics is timeless, and it’s insulting to assume that the American people need to be protected from it.
posted by Jorge on
I can understand why “wetback” rankles, since it has at times been unfairly and hatefully applied to anyone who talks with a con-spic-uous accent in English
***
But that said, I don’t see a problem with using “wetback” as a disparaging term for illegal immigrants, so long as it’s applied equally to cheaters from China, Africa, the Middle East, or the former USSR, rather than only to people from Latin America; and so long as it’s never used for legal immigrants who happen to be Hispanic.
In plain English, Throbert, you believe it is perfectly acceptable to call an illegal alien Mexican a wetback–a word that by definition means an illegal Mexican alien.
I am twice as embarassed.
It’s precisely because of these thuggish, bigoted attitudes that we need the government and the police to take matters into their own hands by enforcing immigration and hate crime laws. Too many uppity people think they’re holier than some imaginary class of people just because they violated some accountant’s commandment.
posted by Jorge on
Just to be clear, I’ve worked as a volunteer and paid ESL teacher and I object in the strongest possible terms when people who speak English with a foreign accent (even a very heavy one) are accused of being lazy or stupid or unwilling to assimilate, etc.
And I once gave money to Rick Santorum. Will wonders never cease? Wait, actually, no, press conference time: I misspoke. But do not let the impugn my strong support for conservative Catholics.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Because they’re here ILLEGALLY, Jorge, not because they’re Mexican. There should be at least a little bit of stigma and embarrassment attached to being here against the law.
At the same time, there should also be stigma and embarrassment associated with being an ignorant bigot who resents ALL Hispanic immigrants (even the ones who come here through proper legal channels), or who assumes ESL speakers are lazy because their English isn’t perfect. Anyone who’s here legally and is making a good-faith effort to acquire English skills has my respect.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Bobby, I may disagree with you on your approach to dating (because I think you’re selling yourself short), but overall, you are an incredibly cool guy, and I’m proud to know you as a friend!
Mind you, I would never even think of asking you out on a date (assuming we were in the same town), even though I’m very attracted to hairy, stocky men. But I think that (a) you’re way too shallow to love me despite my physical imperfections, and (b) if I gave you a compliment on your looks, you’d be unable to take it as sincere and affectionate. Instead, you’d be like, “Oh, he just has really low standards because he’s not that great looking himself.” Or, “He probably just wants my money, or something, and isn’t interested in me as a person.”
posted by Throbert McGee on
Not just Mexicans — my ex-husband’s Puerto Rican family occasionally used it in a good-humored way, too. (And I occasionally called them bean-eating Mexican spics, in my best Archie Bunker impression.)
But anyway, the explanation I’ve heard is that “gringo” is a corruption of the Spanish adjective griego, meaning “Greek” — as in, “That English/German/Russian/Chinese they’re talking is all Greek to me!”
posted by Throbert McGee on
Hmmm… apparently, Spanish-speakers who are in the U.S. legally sometimes use the terms mojado (“wet one”) and alambrista (“tightrope walker”) as mildly derogatory terms for those who come here illegally.
posted by Debrah on
Dowd’s latest provides more of an indictment of the White House and the gross double standards with regard to gender than anything else on the Kagan issue.
“Kagan has told a friend in the West Wing that she is not gay, just lonely. Even so, that doesnât mean her sherpas in the White House, in their frantic drive to dismiss the gay rumors, should be spinning a narrative around that most hoary of stereotypes: a smart, ambitious woman who threw herself into her work, couldnât find a guy, threw up her hands, and threw herself further into her work â and in the process went from single to unmarried.”
posted by Jorge on
Because they’re here ILLEGALLY, Jorge, not because they’re Mexican.
Yeah, and a big F-you to you, too. Unacceptable. I am simply not going to allow you to stand unchallenged on spreading the socially toxic idea that using xenophobic language in public is in any way acceptable.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, I may disagree with you on your approach to dating (because I think you’re selling yourself short), but overall, you are an incredibly cool guy, and I’m proud to know you as a friend!”
—Thanks Throbert, I’m in Miami by the way.
“Mind you, I would never even think of asking you out on a date (assuming we were in the same town), even though I’m very attracted to hairy, stocky men. But I think that (a) you’re way too shallow to love me despite my physical imperfections, and (b) if I gave you a compliment on your looks, you’d be unable to take it as sincere and affectionate.”
—That’s not true, sometimes being asked on a date turns me on so much that I will agree. Besides, you’re not an ugly guy and your physical imperfections are not that dramatic.
“Yeah, and a big F-you to you, too. Unacceptable. I am simply not going to allow you to stand unchallenged on spreading the socially toxic idea that using xenophobic language in public is in any way acceptable.”
—Oh, come on Jorge, even Carlos Mencia uses the word “beaner” in his comedy. If illegals want to be part of America they have to know that this is a country where everyone gets hosed, the rich, the poor, blacks, whites, rednecks, there are no sacred cows here. I can understand that illegals want to come here because they can’t find jobs in Mexico, I can’t understand why we don’t protect the border and fine people who employ illegals and why even suggesting that is seen as racist. You know, if more progressive Americans studied and worked overseas they would realize that there is no such thing as a global citizen. Go anywhere in the world and you will be expected to have your papers in order, and yes, the police will stop you and ask you to show ID.
posted by Debrah on
“Besides, you’re not an ugly guy and your physical imperfections are not that dramatic.”
******************************************
You two are killing me.
I can just imagine a guy using a paraphrased version of that on a woman.
LOL!!!
posted by Jimmy on
“I can’t understand why we don’t protect the border and fine people who employ illegals and why even suggesting that is seen as racist. You know, if more progressive Americans studied and worked overseas they would realize that there is no such thing as a global citizen.”
You would think that globalization is a progressive phenomenon, Bobby. You really can’t understand why the southern border is so porous? Whose interests are served by the presence of cheap labor? Those same interests are what have fueled globalization, the thirst for cheap labor, aka the poor and exploitable.
Progressives tried to warn everybody about this. We were in favor of NOT rewarding those companies financially for decimating the middle class. No one listened.
posted by Bobby on
“You would think that globalization is a progressive phenomenon, Bobby. You really can’t understand why the southern border is so porous? Whose interests are served by the presence of cheap labor? Those same interests are what have fueled globalization, the thirst for cheap labor, aka the poor and exploitable.”
—I am well aware that The Wall Street Journal and big business loves illegal aliens because they can hire them for low wages. However, I’m also aware that radical leftists, unions, progressives and the like are the first ones to protest whenever we want to enforce immigration laws.
“Progressives tried to warn everybody about this. We were in favor of NOT rewarding those companies financially for decimating the middle class. No one listened.”
—Well, if you listen to George Soros and his progressive friends they’re always speaking about open borders. The great irony of American Progressives is they’re more likely to attack their own country, or have you not heard of that guy who works for Obama under Clinton, the guy who told China that America has human rights problems? I mean, in China there’s no free speech, no religious freedom, forced abortions, and people who cross the border illegally are often shot, yet we’re the ones with human rights problems?
Or why not look at Eric Holder, he’s our AG yet the guy won’t use the term “Islamic terrorists” even when the Times Square bomber was an Islamic terrorists who made 7 trips to Pakistan. However, he will deny Americans of their miranda rights if the government decides you aren’t worthy. Oh, and he won’t prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation in spite of video evidence of BP thugs standing in polling places with clubs.
By the way, where’s the progressive outrage at the EPA promising to give Churches money if they preach the global warming gospel of Gore? Where’s the outrage at Nancy Pelosi telling the Catholic Church to push for immigration reform? What Pelosi did may be protected under the first amendment, but what about the EPA?
Glenn Beck is right, progressives are all about power, that is their only principles. The rules never apply to them.
posted by Jimmy on
And Rightists are not about power, Bobby? In fact, they imagine themselves to be the personification of “real” America, and it’s a mere aberration of the status quo when Democrats actually hold power.
posted by Bobby on
“And Rightists are not about power, Bobby? In fact, they imagine themselves to be the personification of “real” America, and it’s a mere aberration of the status quo when Democrats actually hold power.”
—They are not, they are for limited government and state’s rights.
posted by Jorge on
Oh, come on Jorge, even Carlos Mencia uses the word “beaner” in his comedy. If illegals want to be part of America they have to know that this is a country where everyone gets hosed, the rich, the poor, blacks, whites, rednecks, there are no sacred cows here….I can understand that illegals want to come here because they can’t find jobs in Mexico, I can’t understand why we don’t protect the border and fine people who employ illegals and why even suggesting that is seen as racist.
And I understand that the futility and frustration of trying to get the government to do what it is supposed to do leads to people taking out their anger and frustration against people who they can affect with their words and actions.
Thus, if you are suggesting to me that being the target of hate speech is a normal part of American life, I have little time to argue with you. We are not talking mere social stigma, or even the harsh treatment of the law. Hate crimes against Hispanics have already been increasing for years. The spread and excusing of inflamatory derogatory language against illegal aliens is a serious quality of life issue and one that approaches a matter of public safety. It is born of ignorance and hate, and has no place among civilized society.
Boorish society, sure. But not civilized.
posted by Pat on
Jorge, just curious. Putting all the name calling aside, what is your view on the Arizona law? What do you believe should be done with illegal aliens?
posted by Jorge on
I support it, with reservations. I think that given the problems Arizona is facing (or perceived to be facing) on illegal immigration, especially from the criminal element, that the Arizona law will be helpful in resolving social unrest. As I suggested, I am concerned that without government action, the instability will threaten the lives of illegals and the rest of the general public alike. I would much rather that the police, who swear an oath to defend the Constitution and all it stands for, be dealing with illegal immigrants, than the Minutemen. (And I’d rather have the Minutemen dealing with it than the general public taking the law into its own hands.)
I read the bill shortly after Linda Chavez slammed the bill as expressly permitting race to be taken into account, and as expressly permitting any government official, even a school principal, to do an investigation of a person’s legal status. I agree with her interpretation and until they revised the bill to eliminate any leeway on race, I believed it unconstitutional and something that government officials should not follow. I still think the stated goals and provisions of the bill threaten to drive the illegal immigrant community underground out of distrust for the government. I generally do not think this serves humanitarian interests.
I’ll answer your other question later.
posted by Bobby on
“Thus, if you are suggesting to me that being the target of hate speech is a normal part of American life, I have little time to argue with you. We are not talking mere social stigma, or even the harsh treatment of the law. Hate crimes against Hispanics have already been increasing for years. ”
—How come we never talk about hate crimes against whites, against citizens, against even legal immigrants?
Illegal aliens make more than 20% of the people in our prisons and Hispanics gangs like MS13 have spread like wildfire across our country.
Yet now we have Calderon talking about “migration” and the term “illegal alien” has become politically incorrect.
I don’t like what’s happening to America, I used the term wetback because some of these illegal aliens don’t bother to learn the language and can’t even use our language when protesting our own laws. Have you ever heard of La Raza? How come a group called “The Race” isn’t called racist? How come the mainstream medai doesn’t exposed Mexicans who want “reconquista” or “re-conquering” of our country?
Honestly, America needs to pass a constitutional amendment to make English our official language, if we don’t protect our culture, it will be destroyed. I don’t want America to become Mexico II, Mexico I already sucks.
posted by Jorge on
Okay I’m back.
It’s hard to give my own position on what should be done with illegal aliens because I listen so heavily to what a handful of others say on the issue and I’m very suggestible on the issue. In no particular order, the people who speak for me the most have been Rudy Giuliani, Linda Chavez, George W. Bush, and Lindsey Graham.
I want to see the border sealed. I’m convinced it is necessary for national security reasons following 9/11. We’re paying the price for a weak border with the drug violence spilling across the border, too.
I think registering illegal aliens already in this country and requiring them to face a sanction and/or go to the back of the line is an excellent idea. I would also support rewriting immigration laws to allow enough legal immigration from Mexico to meet our labor needs. Both would also open the door for making aggressive enforcement by ICE (which I’m strictly neutral on) more socially acceptable.
Because the federal government is not acting and ICE is so lax, I think the humane thing to do is to ensure an acceptable quality of life for those illegals who are good neighbhors.
How come we never talk about hate crimes against whites, against citizens, against even legal immigrants?
Wrong. We already talk about hate crimes against Muslims. We already talk about hate speech against whites and citizens, as you’ve pointed out. Indeed, if you’ve been watching the O’Reilly Factor recently you would have seen a video of one such actual hate crime against white citizens. I think you’ve been tuned in to the wrong frequency on Dick Cheney’s pacemaker. Its evil effects have caused you to confuse sweet, desperate, hardworking North Amexican families with the pillaging barbarians of La Raza.
posted by BobN on
enough legal immigration from Mexico to meet our labor needs
Uh… you mean our corporations’ need to keep wages low, no?
posted by Bobby on
“I want to see the border sealed. I’m convinced it is necessary for national security reasons following 9/11. We’re paying the price for a weak border with the drug violence spilling across the border, too.”
–I agree to, that is not to say our immigration system is corrupt. Sometimes the son of an American citizen has to wait YEARS until he gets his greencard, frankly, the Canadians are more organized when it comes to immigration, but then again, Canada is very cold and not everyone wants to live there.
“Wrong. We already talk about hate crimes against Muslims.”
—True, yet we don’t seem to talk about the hate crimes Muslims commit against everyone else, or the special treatment they demand. In Harvard a group of Muslim women was asking that the pool be reserved for women only on a certain day. We need to stand up for our culture, this isn’t Saudi Arabia, we cannot be accommodating the religious beliefs of everyone. I’m not afraid of the moderate Muslims, the Muslim women who don’t wear burqas or hijabs, the Muslim men who adapt to our culture and even drink alcohol. They do not scare me, but the ones who want to turn this country into Saudi Arabia would be better off going there and leaving us alone.
“We already talk about hate speech against whites and citizens, as you’ve pointed out. Indeed, if you’ve been watching the O’Reilly Factor recently you would have seen a video of one such actual hate crime against white citizens.”
—You’re right, I saw the reports of that white San Francisco family who lost a father and son to illegal aliens who killed them, the Bolognas I think is the family name. But while The O Factor is #1, I want to see ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN covering the same story. Instead, those networks are more likely to talk about “violence” at the Tea Party and ignore video evidence of illegal aliens vandalizing stores during their “peaceful” protests.
posted by Jorge on
Well, like I said, I’m not too big on enforcement.
posted by Jorge on
Actually, Bobby, I was thinking about that high school with the flag wars where this group of people snatched an American flag out of a truck passenger’s hand and threw it to the ground.
I’m not afraid of the moderate Muslims, the Muslim women who don’t wear burqas or hijabs, the Muslim men who adapt to our culture and even drink alcohol. They do not scare me, but the ones who want to turn this country into Saudi Arabia would be better off going there and leaving us alone.
That line of thought, I think, is a mistake. There are plenty of highly insular Muslim families who conform quite well to our education, public safety, and other laws. And you don’t see their kids killing their own sisters when they divorce, assaulting police and military when they’re angry at the government, gang-raping lesbians, or drilling holes into gays’ heads. They do the things that don’t let them get caught.
I worry about becoming the next Saudi France. Every time I see a woman covered, I thank God I live in the USA. And I worry about the Muslims who are angry. I think it might help if the Muslim community in the US raised some hell in the streets a little more often. They act too nice for the hotheads to have a voice.
posted by Pat on
Thanks, Jorge. Your views seem reasonable to me. The only possible problem I see with the Arizona law is that it could lead to ethnic profiling. But, law or not, it just seems to make common sense to carry identification that proves one is here legally. But I see Arizona’s motivation in trying to do something. The federal government dropped the ball, and the best they can do is criticize Arizona’s law, and not come up with a real effective plan itself.
As for illegal immigrants, I pretty much agree with you there. I don’t think it’s practical, at this stage, to simply deport every illegal immigrant. But there has to be some accounting of them, by some kind of registration. However, I believe the sanction for not registration, after a grace period, should be deportation. I think we need to be in a position where illegal immigrants are more scared not registering, so that line cannot be used as an excuse.
posted by Bobby on
“Actually, Bobby, I was thinking about that high school with the flag wars where this group of people snatched an American flag out of a truck passenger’s hand and threw it to the ground.”
—That’s a good point, 50% of the school was Hispanic and plenty of them thought it was offensive to wear old glory during cinco de mayo. I’m proud of the American kids who stood up for their culture, including the son of a Hispanic immigrant. In America we should be able to wear old glory everyday without some Latin thug getting angry about it.
“That line of thought, I think, is a mistake. There are plenty of highly insular Muslim families who conform quite well to our education, public safety, and other laws. And you don’t see their kids killing their own sisters when they divorce, assaulting police and military when they’re angry at the government, gang-raping lesbians, or drilling holes into gays’ heads. They do the things that don’t let them get caught.”
—Yes, but it’s the extremists who are making the most noise and changing the culture. You can’t even criticize Islam without being accused of Islamophobia, people like Horowitz and Coulter are constantly being interrupted by Muslim fanatics and their leftwing allies. It’s the death of free speech at the college level.
To me Islamophobia is making fun of a woman for wearing a veil, or harassing someone who’s not bothering you and I’m against that. To the Islamic activists it goes beyond that.
“I worry about becoming the next Saudi France. Every time I see a woman covered, I thank God I live in the USA. And I worry about the Muslims who are angry. I think it might help if the Muslim community in the US raised some hell in the streets a little more often. They act too nice for the hotheads to have a voice.”
—I guess you haven’t seen them raise hell on college campuses, during Israel Apartheid Week, and at their protests. These people are vicious, is this what we want in America?
http://creepingsharia.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/british-muslim-protest4.jpg
I’m glad I live in the USA, but the Muslims must police their own. Look at this Muslim woman for example, and look at how she responded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fSvyv0urTE
posted by Jorge on
“…and you’re wearing a terrorist neckerchef.”
Nooooo!
Although, I suppose she deserved that.
I bitterly hate conceding to you, Bobby.