Tag: U.S. Immigration

Women’s rights are universal, not political – the left kidnapped the cause, making it exclusive, not “inclusive”

“The march in Washington took on the feel of a political rally when US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and US Representative Nancy Pelosi, both Democrats, urged women to run for office and vote to oppose Trump and the Republicans’ agenda.”  Washington Post, 1/21/18 (Celebrities join march for women’s rights, encourage voting)

I agree with most of the principles of women’s rights, especially equality on all levels. Most people in the U.S. do abide by those principles, even the President.

By turning the women’s movement into a leftist movement of the Democratic Party, it becomes not “inclusive”, but in fact “exclusive”. The idea that emerges is that women who do not support the “Party” (the Democratic Party) are not deserving of the same rights (in fact, the idea floated is that if you support the President, as a woman you definitely do not deserve any rights at all). This is the legacy of President Obama, the Great Divider. He championed the concept of “us or them”, either his disastrous ultra-leftist views or extremism on the right. As it turned out, there were 60 million people who voted otherwise, and an enormous legion of people who eschewed both the left and the right. But women’s rights should not be political.

Women’s rights are universal, not political. Yesterday, in Los Angeles, the marches for women were replete with political speeches against the current administration and any policies the Democratic Party does not support. Those issues have nothing to do with Women’s Rights.

In fact, and most importantly, many of the men who have been caught up in sexual harrassment cases (like Harvey Weinstein, a very high level high roller in the Democratic Party, and also Michael Oreskes, Chief of the news division of National Public Radio (who actually managed NPR’s coverage of the sexual harrassment narrative at NPR in recent months), and other TV and Screen stars) were high level members of, or supporters of the Democratic Party and extreme liberal views, proving that women’s rights transcend party lines. By co-opting the movement, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has isolated at least half the women in the world. Now how is that “inclusive”?

The “women’s movement” as defined by the Democratic Party, has been designed to include many issues irrelevant to the woman’s movement itself, such as BLM, anti-Trumpism, and illegal immigration. By swelling the ranks with many people with other axes to grind, it makes it appear the movement is bigger than it might be, and also part of the Democratic Party’s platform, but also in doing so it robs the women’s movement of its absolute purity and righteousness, and obscures the universality of women’s rights. Actually, the women’s movement needs to reach all women, not just liberals. Women’s right’s advocates have said that already, only the Democrats, so worried about economic success of the administration, have sought to piggyback on the opportunity of opening Pandora’s box of sexual harassment (and much to its chagrin, many of the casualties have been their very own male “treasures”).

Hypocrisy has come to reside in the left, to infect it really, and it is very scary and tragic. It is one of the chief reasons I abandoned the Party some years ago, because when I saw the ideological table, I was shocked to find the Obama wing of the Democratic Party sitting right next to the most extreme right wing acolytes, both adamant that their own speech is the only permissible speech, that only their own ideas were worthy of protection, and that everyone and everything else had to be suppressed, stopped, destroyed, even questioning the wisdom of free speech, and seeming to support China’s totalitarian system and Palestinian terrorism.  College campuses have become infected with this rot, and Obama’s political correctness has produced calls for many unconstitutional restrictions on speech. There is a name for that – fascism.

Senator Kamala Harris misunderstands the genesis of DACA dreamers’ problems – the answer to every question is “President Obama’s illegal DACA order”

Today, Kamala Harris, Senator from California, made a fine speech about what she called “Dreamers”, people who were brought to the United States illegally as children. She promised she would not vote to fund the US Government at the end of the year unless Congress resolved the Dreamer’s status.

The trouble with this is, the US Congress has resolved this issue for 16 years already by refusing to enact legislation that would allow Dreamers to remain in the United States. Let’s be very very clear about how the current situation arose. There are over 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States (President Obama preferred to call them “undocumented”, a euphemism intended to divert attention away from their illegal status in the United States. The euphemism does not change the fact they are illegal immigrants.

After the Congress refused to enact President Obama’s pet project the Dream Act in the 112th Congress, to grant permanent residency to Dreamers, the President decided to go around Congress and avert the immigration law himself, not by Executive Order, but rather by instructing the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano (now the head of the State Univesity in California which has allowed thousands of illegal aliens to apply to and attend California state universities) to apply prosecutorial discretion, and refuse to enforce the U.S. immigration law regarding Dreamers. This basically illegal program was called DACA (Deferred Action for Childhod Arrivals). Note the part that says “deferred”. Well time and again the Congress considered this “deferral” and rejected it, but President Obama persisted in his illegal program, and so many years later here we are again.

Kamala Harris complained in her lengthy speech, that the U.S. Congress has abandoned these “Dreamers” and they are terrified. She said “They relied on us.” I disagree. They relied on President Obama’s illegal actions, not on the actions of the U.S. Government. He invited them to come out from the shadows, promising he would not treat them as illegal. But he did not have that power beyond his administration. That also applies to the Iran deal, which President Obama also entered into outside the law because he knew he did not have the votes to pass it, and many other actions he took outside his authority.

I listened to public radio the other day, and one of the pieces I listened to was an interview with a couple living in New York City who were from Mexico. The piece examined their nervousness about their status, having been in the U.S. for more than six months, and having to take care of their 2 month old child. The piece was intended to present a sympathetic, warm and fuzzy view of the tribulations for immigrants.

However, the couple entered the US on tourist visas, which clearly provide that the holders can not work. But their intention was to “sneak” into the US on tourist visas, have a baby, get an apartment and jobs, make as much money as possible, and then try to get into Canada, which is far looser about immigration, considering the size of the country and the fact they have less people than California.

The piece did not go into the fact that the woman was pregnant when she entered the U.S., that their plan was to give birth to a U.S. citizen while in the U.S., to work against the terms of their tourist visa, save money and sneak into Canada. The point of the piece was to highlight the difficulty these travelers faced, who risked the journey to find a better life. There was no mention that the tourist visa disallowed working, or that they violated the terms of their visa by intending to give birth in the U.S., thus establishing some connection to the United States with an anchor baby. To be perfectly honest, in any other country on the planet, if a couple overstayed their tourist visa and got an apartment, had a child and got jobs, they would be found by Immigration, and deported forthwith. Not in the U.S. under Obama.

This, in a nutshell, is the argument made by those on the left, such as Senator Kamala Harris, who think this story is about immigration, when it is in fact about violating immigration law. There is existing law about refugees, and immigration levels from all countries. We already have 330 million people, and our social service lifeline is hundreds of billions each year. The Congress has the right to determine the extent to which our doors are thrown open to immigration, and the laws are there. If the law is to be changed, it must be changed by Congress, not President Obama, or Senator Harris or President Trump.

Harris and her colleagues in the Congress have argued that the US should take more refugees from Syria. The real question is why are there so many refugees from Syria? The answer to every single question like this is the same. President Obama. He is the author of every single such problem with his refusal to follow the law, and his foreign policy of Oppeasement, which allowed Russia and China and Iran and North Korea, and many others to have a field day while he sat in a circle and sang Kumbaya. Allowing Assad to survive in Syria with Russia’s help after promising to help, and then abandoning the rebels created a huge vacuum in Syria, leading to millions of refugees.

So here is my question to Kamala Harris – she said in her speech “And let me be clear. I will not vote for an end-of-year spending bill until we are clear about what we are going to do to protect and take care of our DACA young people in this country.” So, when the Congress rejects the DACA legislation again, will she accept this as the law of the land? Or does she believe that she, like Obama, can do what she likes because what she does is the right thing, and any other point of view is hateful? That seems to be the platform of the party these days. But that is not democracy. It is hubris.

I don’t disagree that some children of illegal immigrants in the US for many years have no connection to their home country, and deporting them there is cruel. I think they cannot acquire citizenship in the U.S. beause they are in the US illegally, nor can they become citizens as the parents of citizens, since they may have children who are citizens because they were born in the US (anchor babies). They can never acquire the right to vote. They are subject to the laws of the US. If there is an exception that can be created it should only apply to those that arrived prior to President Obama’s administration since his policies encouraged so many hundreds of thousands or millions to cross the border into the U.S.

Over a hundred years ago, the borders were flung open for mass migration, mostly from Europe, and those immigrants helped build this country. Times have changed, and we are a nation of laws that should be enforced. Every country on Earth enforces its immigration laws, except the U.S. I see no problem building a wall, I see no difference between a wall and a fence with cameras and thousands of border patrols, except a wall is more effective. The stream of illegal (forget “undocumented”) aliens needs to stop, and a wall will pretty much stop that flow.

America is a land of diversity, opportunity and freedom. It was built by immigrants. Legal immigrants.