A question for the Right:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I wonder why, if the Health Care bill could be willingly defied because it's a "Bad law" and people can pick or choose what law they wish to follow the rhetoric suddenly does a 180 when it comes to the immigration bill? Why is Immigration so special an issue that it must be absolutely enforced, where the Health Care Bill, passed as it was by both Houses of Congress by all legal means (and with the added bonus of fitting right square into the 9th Amendment where the Arizona bill violates both the 14th Amendments and the Guarantee Clause) can be willfully disregarded?

Wasn't it not so long ago that people like Congresswoman Bachmann were suggesting that the Health Care law could be ignored? My feeling on this is that the Right Wing cares not one whit if the government extends its power into the lives of individuals but will scream bloody murder the very instant the government attempts to regulate corporations with anything approaching equal severity. For that matter, why does this bill receive support when it puts the onus on individuals, as opposed to things like the CEOs who hire mass illegal workforces so they can make money on the cheap and behave like Gilded Age Fat Cats? Surely if people were serious about the problem ensuring that corporations find no profit in lawbreaking and instead in hiring people who are here legally and citizens, however that is defined would be a help, no? Or would that be the bloody red hordes of Yekatirenberg ravening for the blood of the John Galts of the world?

Another simple, simple step to actually dealing with immigration that would be more than something directly out of the playbooks of totalitarian societies such as the Confederate States of America would be something as basic as simplifying the extremely cumbersome legal immigration process so it doesn't take 4 years and exhaustive work to become a naturalized citizen while simply walking over the border becomes the cheaper and more affordable option.

But alas, that doesn't send a tingle down the leg of El Rushbo and the "let's overthrow the guy who wants to ensure people don't die in emergency rooms because they lack insurance because he's TOTALLY EQUAL TO UNCLE JOE" crowd.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) The concept didn't even exist until 50 years ago. If we start rejecting rights for illegals, what stops that from starting to snowball into American citizens? Bueller?

2) Healthcare is not a specific right enumerated under the Constitution, but as one of the human rights recognized in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it certainly qualifies.

The whole due process of law bit.

"The United States shall guarantee to each of the several states a republican form of government". This is not a republican government any more than the Jim Crow South was.

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

Since there are immigration laws and these laws are being violated by the illegals isn't it in fact a violation of our Republic form of government? We are a nation of laws.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Legalizing the kind of things Joe Arpaio does is only republican if we adhere to the ideas of the *Roman* Republic. And even in its Republican days Rome was nothing to admire.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Um, the only value of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is to wipe your ass with it.

If there is a document in existence written by any governing or quasi governing body which is more of a threat to human rights I am not aware of it. The entire essence of the document is "Everyone has the right to be slaves to the ruling elites of their national governments under the control of the UN"

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The UN is hardly a threat to any human rights, I mean, even with the USSR as one of its founding members it was a lot more effective than the League of Nations ever was.....

Re 1)

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Are you saying there was no concept of illegal immigration 50 years ago?

I'd have to check, but it seems that I remember talking about immigration LAWS in high school.

Re: Re 1)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

They were there, yes, but they were not defining some immigration as legal and others as illegal. Rather they set quotas on how many people could immigrate from certain areas, with Northern Europe favored most and Africa and Asia favored least. Ironically, when they were initially passed they received a very fervent embrace from a certain Bohemian Corporal.

Re: Re 1)

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

OK. (remember I am going from memory and experience)(thus only So Cal knowledge)
There are some differences between then and now, with the enforcement of illegal immigraion. 2 things off the top of my head 1) No welfare state, like it is today. 2) Pre Ceasar Chavez (slave wages). Both things have contributed mightily to the sheer numbers.

I'm going to suggest that the Reagan Amnesty policy also had a great deal to do with the major influx of illegals that is such a major problem here in So Cal and also Az.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

You give the guarantee clause a lot of weight. Might I ask why? It hasn't exactly weighed heavily on constitutional law, seeing as how "republican form of government" is not terribly well-defined. In fact, you make explicit reference to Jim Crow, which was only struck down by way of the 14th Amendment.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because it's one of the most effective ways to challenge this and put the other side on the defensive.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

*shrug* It's like citing the 9th Amendment, or the Necessary and Proper clause. They've never been given much force, because nobody knows what the hell it means and it's easier to just ignore it. I just don't see it being all that effective in any argument, considering that the definitions are so fluid.