Politics and Culture

A distinction between somebody stealing somebody's ID on purpose to steal something further from them and those who just want to have an ID is appropriate. I think the illegal alien would prefer a completely made up number.

I'd like for illegal aliens to consider that they may be taking somebody else's identity, however.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out an illegal immigrant's conviction for identity theft, saying the government had not proven the defendant knew the documents and Social Security numbers he was given belonged to someone else.
The Supreme Court unanimously sides with a Mexican arrested in a government raid on a Midwest work site.

The Supreme Court unanimously sides with a Mexican arrested in a government raid on a Midwest work site.

The justices unanimously sided with a Mexican national arrested in a government raid on a Midwest work site. He was sentenced to an extra two years in federal prison for "aggravated identity theft."

"In the classic case of identity theft, intent is generally not difficult to prove," wrote Justice Stephen Breyer, speaking for the unanimous court. "We conclude that [federal law] requires the government to show that the defendant knew that the means of identification at issue belonged to another person."

The appeal turned on whether those who use fake IDs to obtain work in the United States -- but do not know the documents have information from a real person -- can be treated differently from those who possess phony numbers. The federal government had begun an aggressive crackdown on undocumented workers, most of whom must rely on fake IDs to obtain employment.

One of the topics around the conservative water cooler, talk radio, has been the arrest, release, and then granting of a work permit to 28 illegal aliens caught in an ICE raid in Washington state.

Conservatives have accused the Obama government of another Bizarro moment, this time of rewarding people who have broken the law while law-abiders await entry into the nation. Conservatives are both wrong and right to be angry. The permit is only temporary and issued for a higher purpose, to gain the illegal workers' testimony against the illegal employer. It makes sense.

The problem is the deep level of cynicism many Americans have concerning immigration: Nobody believes the government when they say that the permits are only temporary. Our experiences with Salvadorean and other supposedly temporary immigrants and now, Obama's aunt, have lost immigration enforcement its credibility.

People who want immigration rules enforced also suspect that the Obama administration is preparing to cease work raids and begin an amnesty process.

The perception of injustice engenders anger. In this case the anger is on both sides of the issue: Pro-illegal immigration activists consider the raids to be unjust and pro-enforcement types feel that people are taking advantage of the system. In order to decrease anger, the United States should follow through on the rules as written.

Drug crime.

Needless to say, this has to be stopped now. I don't expect too much help from Obama, but conservative states like Alabama can really make a difference. States with a lot of gun owners can better protect themselves as well, although it seems like the Mexican mafia types mostly target their distributors.

My experience.

I also feel great sadness that Mexico is currently suffering from some of the most horrible violence in the hemisphere.

My wife is from Mexico. Aside from a speeding ticket that I refused to "take care of" on the spot and a theft that resulted in a broken car window and the taking of some Celia Cruz cds, I've never had any crime problems while visiting there.

My mother in law, a woman for whom I have the greatest respect and whom my wife adores, opened a little store that sold candies and other small items. Somebody robbed her and, unable to defend herself, had to close the store. It's a sad example of how crime decreases economic activity.

Gun control.

My point in bringing this up is that Mexico has very strict gun control laws. Practically, Mexicans aren't allowed to have guns. My mother in law and all of her children are simply unable to defend themselves. The police being semi-useless, ordinary citizens in Mexico are at the criminals' mercy.

Mexico has over three times the murder rate of the United States. Why don't gun control advocates like Eric Holder ever quote that statistic?

The truth of the matter is that the presence of guns don't increase murder and lead to less crime overall. The difference is culture and people. Every ethno-cultural group has a lower crime rate in the United States than they do in their native countries, e.g., Japanese-Americans have a lower murder rate than Japanese in Japan.

What are the qualifications to write for CNN? Ruben Navarrette proves that even the most banal PC drivel can make it onto a major network.

His ten points:

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- In a recent commentary, I wrote that, as a Mexican-American, the ugliness of the immigration debate offends me -- not as a Mexican, but as an American.

The topic: the immigration debate and what she called a wave I of hate sweeping the land -- one that isn't limited to illegal immigrants, but which is now affecting all Hispanics regardless of where they were born, what language they speak or what flag they salute.

Hispanics sometimes say this, but when I ask for examples, they more often can't come up with one- it's more like a theoretical oppression like, "Considering the history of the United States, Americans are probably oppressing us somewhere." Let's not lower the bar for problematic "hatred" so much that it includes legitimate policy discussions.

The way Murguia sees it, immigration is "on the verge of becoming one of the largest civil rights issues of our generation." And, Hispanics are playing the piñata.

Securing the border isn't a "civil rights" issue. Nobody has a "right" to enter the United States or stay illegally. You might want more or less immigration, but let's be clear: If immigration is a civil rights issue, what isn't?

Murguia was right on the button. To borrow a phrase, it's getting ugly out there. And U.S.-born Hispanics see it as plain as day. Here are 10 things they find distasteful about this debate:

Lay it on me:

• The hypocrisy. We have two signs on the U.S.-Mexican border: "Keep Out" and "Help Wanted."

I think the sign should say: "Help wanted from legal immigrants." Employers hire illegal immigrants because of their greed, their need to compete with the more greedy, and the current chaos in some employment sectors like construction and care-giving, where verification and alternatives to illegal labor are difficult. Once we set up an orderly system, employers won't feel the need to hire illegal immigrants.

• The racism. With lightning speed, the debate went from anti-illegal immigrant to anti-immigrant to anti-Mexican.

Most people opposed to illegal immigration make a point that it isn't just Mexicans, but Mexico happens to be the country with the most illegal immigrants. What do you want people to do: Allow illegal immigration because illegal aliens aren't proportionally represented?

Besides: Do Mexicans or Hispanics bear any responsibility for their collective reputation? (Uncharitable readers may think what you like, but I've made my feelings known before and, besides, somebody sane has to say it.) Without being specific, if Mexicans didn't have social problems at a greater rate than the general population, would people still have the same kind of negative reaction towards them (Navarrette doesn't help people to think Hispanics especially deep, either.).

Why is it OK for Navarrette to generalize on non-Hispanic hatred based on Nazi video games (below) and 100 interviews and not for anybody else to generalize about Mexicans?

Hypocrisy. (Although generalization is the major problem in immigration today.).

• The opportunism. Too many politicians are trying too hard to portray themselves as tough on illegal immigration.

Yes, politicians should be less opportunistic. I never thought of that.

• The simple solutions. "Build A Wall." "Deport All Illegals." A quick rule of thumb: If it fits on a bumper sticker, it's not a workable policy.

How about this bumper sticker: "If it fits on a bumper sticker, it's not a workable policy."

• The naiveté. People ask why Mexico won't help stop illegal immigration. Hint: Last year, Mexicans in the United States sent home $25 billion.

Yes.

• The profiling. Dark skin and Spanish surnames shouldn't be proxies for undocumented status. Been to Arizona lately?

No, it shouldn't. Examples? Is this a huge problem that should prevent us from enforcing immigration rules?

• The meanness. Nazi-produced Internet video games let players shoot illegal immigrants crossing the border. Fun stuff.

Let's not have a sound immigration policy because Nazis make video games. Another good one and not at all stereotypical.

• The amnesia. Americans think grandpa was welcomed with open arms and that he plunged into the melting pot. Whatever.

Most people did OK, or they would have joined the third of immigrants who went back. That being said, we should treat legal residents as the national assets they are. The best way to do this is to stop illegal immigration. Most of the anger comes from a sense that people are taking advantage of the system. Eliminate that feeling and the only problems Mexicans will have with Americans is being constantly hugged by them.

• The buck-passing. Americans love to blame Mexico for their choices, yelling across the border: "Stop us before we hire again."

This is a rephrasing of point one. It's really nine points, then.

• The double standard. The same folks who have zero tolerance for illegal immigrants easily tolerate those who hire them.

Does Navarrette have a stutter problem. Similar to points one and nine. We really only have eight points, then.

Some of this is painfully familiar, recalling earlier versions of this debate as it played out a hundred or two hundred years ago. Hispanics are the new Germans, the new Irish, the new Italians. But it's also ugly. It was then. It is now.

I hope they're the new Germans, Irish, and Italians. That would be great! Let's have the same policies as the turn of the century?

Tags: candidates on illegal immigration, illegal immigration and the election, mainstream immigration opinion

It's funny that one can agree with somebody most of the time and still consider them foolish. Bill O'Reilly is one of those guys (although he's great to make fun of). He reminds me of somebody who reads one book and thinks he's "figured it all out." Let's get the easy one out of the way. O'Reilly used "lynching" and "Michelle Obama" in the same sentence. Mrs. Obama is black. Now, it's impossible to know what's inside of O'Reilly's head, and frankly, I don''t care to probe. It was an insensitive comment and a stupid one considering the times in which we live. People mis-speak, they apologize, and, that's enough for me.

The second one is different because he, like, ironically, Michelle Obama did with her "really proud" statement, actually formed a thought.

The bait that McCain, to his credit, didn't take, was that Mexicans are trying to upset the "white Christian male order." This is an unthinking and even stupid statement. Let me explain:

What is the difference between the American and Mexican cultures?

1. Music? Not really. It's mostly American-derivative pop with it's own regional "country" (some of which is from Germany [banda]!) music mixed in.
2. Religion? Mostly Catholic, but enthusiastic converts to Evangelicalism, often. In any case, Christian, right?
3. Socialism? Not as much as in Europe.
4. Morality and traditional values? Again, miles away from European "advancements."

In almost every world-view relevant way, Hispanics, including Mexicans, are closer to conservative Americans than, say, the average German.

So, what is O'Reilly talking about? He's talking about poverty, race (most Hispanics identify with whites to some extent or another, Mr. O'Reilly.), crime and their interaction with each other which are issues that I'll discuss at a later time.

Given everything I've said: are there individuals or groups that want to upset the white man's apple cart? Yes, and most of them are either white like Frank Rich or imbibe big gulps worth of Marxist (Marx was a German!) cool aid like MECHA or Black Panthers.

So, does Bill O'Reilly know what he's talking about, or does he just hate Germans?

Hat tip to this post.

Tags: bill o'reilly and racism, o'reilly and immigration, o'reilly comment obama, racism and bill o'reilly

Next year, the best case scenario is a McCain presidency and a slim Republican majority in the congress. That means some sort of "comprehensive" immigration reform. A conservative strategy for dealing with the inevitable:

The first thing we should do is insist that McCain keep his campaign promise to close down the border. Period. Americans need to decide the fate of our own nation.

The next thing we should do is figure out a way to make peace with some form of amnesty. The Asymmetric contribution: It's our fault!

My reasoning:

I'm assuming that I'm the average conservative. I'm not a Ruby Ridge nut and I've never darkened the door of a country club (as a patron). Projecting my feelings to the rest of my conservative brothers and sisters, then: The main reason we don't want amnesty is because of the inherent unfairness of allowing people who broke the law to stay while others, around the world in countries not fortunate enough to border the United States, are literally waiting in line to be a part of our great nation.

However, for twenty years, through both Republican and Democratic administrations, did we do anything to stop it? No. Nothing. We have to, therefore, accept part, nay, most (if not all), of the responsibility for the current state of affairs.

Is it fair, then, to, after practically sending an engraved invitation to our pre-undocumented brothers and sisters, tell them to skedaddle? Not entirely. Hence:

World,

The United States has learned its lesson. Starting today, the United States will have a fair, wholly legal, immigration policy that invites good people from around the world to join native Americans in helping to maintain and even improve the greatest civilization in history.

Those who entered our nation in our chaotic period will not suffer for our neglect. We have made the following provisions for them...

Consider my rationalization. With it, we can maintain some sort of dignity while accepting the inevitable.

I love illegal aliens.

I work in Huntington Park Ca. and a good percentage of my students are here illegally. I help my students as much as I can. I've attended their quinceneras and weddings.

Some of Pico Rivera's (where I live) denizens are sans papiers. I've pushed my neighbors' cars when they've run out of gas and reformatted their computers after they upgraded to Windows ME.

Teaching English to this population is the best job I've had.

Only part of the reason I feel this way is because I'm commanded by my religion to love neighbors. My students have great senses of humor and healthy outlooks on life. In thirteen years of teaching, I've had a couple of things stolen from me and those weren't the illegal kids.

As for their parents: it's not just a stereotype that most people here illegally are decent, hard-workers. I don't want to get all Huckabee on you guys, but I still tear up when I think of the party my adult ESL class threw for me when the Army sent me to Iraq. Ahh, a beautiful time.

Speaking of Iraq, you should meet the fine individuals from around the world I've served with. Not to over-generalize a diverse population or praise something that can be a double-edged sword, but immigrants bring with them a toughness not always present in every American nook and cranny. That's my experience.

Yet, the same God who commands me to love gave me a brain. As we decide how to move forward with immigration matters, let our minds, not our emotions or "compassion," guide our policy. Frankly, it's degrading to both pro and anti-enforcement people that so much of the immigration discussion is based or focused on how people "feel" (angry or sympathetic [either side]) about the issue.

To me, the questions are: "What would be the best way to conduct business?" and "If you could design an immigration policy, what would it look like?" Only the most extreme wouldn't include "orderly," "beneficial," "legal," and "fair" in the answer. We should aim for that.