Not Just Clueless But Lawless Too

The Supreme Court has denied a request for a stay pending appeal of the injunction requiring the Xiden Administration to reimplement the remain-in-Mexico requirement for asylum seekers entering the country at the southern border. A U.S. District Court found that the Xiden Administration broke law in promulgating its preferred policy. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s finding.

Not the Suit You Were Expecting

The Department of Justice has filed suit against Facebook. It’s not some sort of antitrust action. It’s not about illegal in-kind campaign donations. It’s about illegal employment practices. Specifically, Facebook is accused of illegally discrimination in hiring against qualified American and of hiring temporary immigrants with H1B visas instead.

Commenting on the suit, Eric S Dreiband, the assistant attorney general for the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division said, “Our message to all employers—including those in the technology sector—is clear: You cannot illegally prefer to recruit, consider, or hire temporary visa holders over US workers.”

It’s rarely an obvious fault that finally trips up the self-important. The Gentle Reader may remember that Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion.

An Immigrant Writes About Immigration

Sarah Hoyt is a legal immigrant from Portugal and has an essay comparing immigration to marriage over at According to Hoyt.

It is the right of everyone who is already an American and whose futures will essentially be “married” to those of the new immigrants to ask “how will your contribution or lack thereof affect my descendants/the descendants of the people I care about?”

This is neither racism, nor discrimination, but self-preservation.  Anyone who says otherwise is trying to push you into a forced marriage.

Read the whole thing.

Bitterly Clinging to Their …

… false narrative. The Left in Germany is having trouble dealing with the fallout from the New Year’s Eve sex crimes in Cologne and other cities. John Hinderaker has a post about the elite’s resistance to the unraveling of their narrative about recent immigrants.

Europe’s leftists are clinging bitterly to their illusions, in some instances actually trying to excuse the sex criminals. Some city officials have issued recommendations for how young women should act to avoid “provoking” rapists from “other cultures.” Will non-elite Europeans put up with such nonsense? I doubt it. In Europe, even more than in the U.S., fundamental transformation through mass immigration is a policy that the elites just can’t sell.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE—There’s something to be said for General Charles Napier‘s method of dealing with “other cultures” and their treatment of women.

UPDATE 2—Broken link fixed.

Columbus Brought Immigrants

He didn’t on his first voyage, but beginning with his second voyage, he left colonists in the New World. Of course, it’s now politically incorrect to celebrate Columbus and his voyages of discovery. “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” is now more proper, or so I’m told. The funny thing is that the same people who seem to celebrate Indigenous Peoples’ Day also support current immigration who, for the most part, are Hispanic and at least partially descended from the colonists Columbus and the early explorers brought.

Oh, one more thing … the Siberian-Americans who are the descendants of the people who came into North America at the end of the last ice age may not have been the first folks here. There’s now evidence that they were preceded by roughly a thousand years by Europeans who navigates along the edge of the North Atlantic ice shelf. If that’s the case, then the real indigenous people were Europeans.

The Rule of Lawless

That’s the title of an excellent short essay by Kevin Williamson over at NRO.

The relevant facts are these: 1) Very powerful political interests in Washington insist upon the scrupulous enforcement of environmental laws, and if that diminishes the interests of private property owners, so much the better, in their view. 2) Very powerful political interests in Washington do not wish to see the scrupulous enforcement of immigration laws, and if that undercuts the bottom end of the labor market or boosts Democrats’ long-term chances in Texas, so much the better, in their view.

Read the whole thing.

When you’re finished, take a look at this by George Will. His post deals with a fundamental disconnect between Conservatives and Progressives as described in a new book by Timothy Sandefur.

Progressives, who consider democracy the source of liberty, reverse the Founders’ premise, which was: Liberty preexists governments, which, the Declaration says, are legitimate when “instituted” to “secure” natural rights.

Progressives consider, for example, the rights to property and free speech as, in Sandefur’s formulation, “spaces of privacy” that government chooses “to carve out and protect” to the extent that these rights serve democracy.

Read all of this one too.

We’re From the Government, and We’re Here to Help

And more and more Americans are beginning to say, “No, thank you.” Why? Peggy Noonan suggests this answer in a post at WSJ.

A major problem for those who want an immigration bill is lack of faith in government to do all the jobs it’s set itself well. People don’t trust it to be able to execute—to do, adequately, the thing it’s set itself to do in its big new laws. We always look at the motives and politics behind a big bill, and talk about that. But simple noncrisis execution—the ability to track and deal with a Tamerlan Tsarnaeu, or to patrol and control a huge border—is a big reason why which people lack faith. Because, you know, they read the papers.

Most of us have to work pretty hard to get things right. Babe Ruth had a lifetime batting average of .342—which means he failed to make it to first base almost 2/3 of the time. Government doesn’t seem to be doing nearly as well as the Sultan of Swat, and as it has become more unsuccessful in many of its basic functions, it has tried to meddle in area outside its rightful sphere. Managing public safety is one thing. Regulating Big Gulps is another.

Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism outlines the history of what I call “nannystateism,” a form of socialism with a smiley face. The control freak forms of socialism split into two main streams a bit over a hundred years ago. In Europe, they wound up with totalitarian forms such as Italian Fascism, German National Socialism, and Russian Communism. They were police states. In America, we flirted with police state socialism during the Wilson Administration, but returned to normalcy during the ’20s. When the Progressives returned to power during the Great Depression and the Second World War, the horrors of the gulag and the holocaust kept Americans away from that kind of state brutality. Instead of control through fear, our politicians have tried to practice control through gift giving.

And so we have a kind and gentle form of control freak meddling by the government. The path we’re on doesn’t lead to Orwell’s Room 101, but it seems headed to a place very like Huxley’s Brave New World. The problem is that there isn’t enough soma to go around, and there probably never will be. Most of us will have to work to support ourselves and our families. So when folks see that a couple of immigrants who never had jobs were supported well enough that they had cell phones and nice clothes and leisure time to party and guns and explosives with which to attack us, they naturally begin to wonder about what’s going on. Some will ask, “Where’s my share of the goodies?” Others will ask, “Why are we supporting these creeps?”

I hope that the second group is larger.

Immigration, Arizona, and the President

Say, isn’t the Supreme Court about to rule in the Arizona immigration law case? You know, the one about the law requiring Arizona cops to verify whether someone has the right to be in the country.

Let’s say that Arizona wins. Wouldn’t “legalizing” a whole bunch of illegal immigrants “protect” them? Is that part of what’s going on? Is Barack Obama thumbing his nose at Arizona (and possibly the Court)?

I’m Confused

I thought that the President had taught constitutional law. If he had, he would surely know that Article II, Section 3 says of the President that

… he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed …

Doesn’t that mean enforcing the laws that Congress has put on the books as they are rather than as he’d like them to be?

Mr. President, the DREAM Act isn’t the law, and blanket “prosecutorial discretion” is not faithful execution of the law as it stands. One would almost think you’re pandering for votes–votes from non-citizens who’ve taken jobs from the 23,000,000 American still out of work because of your “stimulating” economic recovery.

UPDATE—Victor Davis Hanson is given to clear thinking and clear writing. He begins a post titled Are We in Revolutionary Times? at The Corner with these words:

Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.

He ends with these words:

Give the president credit. He has thrown down the gauntlet and essentially boasted: This is my vision of the way the new America should work — and if you don’t like it, try stopping me in November, if you dare.

Go read the words in between.

Is it November yet?

Your Argument Is “Not Selling Very Well”

When the Solicitor General gets that feedback from a liberal Justice (Sotomayor), you know he’s having a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. Arizona v. United States did not seem to go well for the Obama Administration today.

Ed Morrissey concludes

If the White House loses their challenge to the most controversial part of the law, expect the Left to go after Verrilli again as they did after his difficult day defending ObamaCare.  He may have performed better this time, though, at least on the secondary issues.  And once again, the problem was less with Verrilli and more with the administration’s positions that Verrilli had to defend.