Category: Current Affairs

The Washington Times makes some interesting points in an editorial today (EXCERPTS):

Put plainly, when Mr. Bush talks tough on border security and enforcement, conservatives don’t believe him, and they have the facts to back them up. Last week’s address to the nation, during which Mr. Bush proposed adding 6,000 Border Patrol agents by 2007, wasn’t the first time he’s made such a promise. When one considers that it was just a couple of years ago when Mr. Bush promised to add 2,000 agents every year for the next five years, only to submit a 2006 budget calling for only 210, it’s no wonder why conservatives remain wary.

Here’s one instance where the administration can reverse its abysmal
record on employer sanctions, which dropped from 417 who had been fined
for hiring illegal aliens in 1999 to just three in 2004.

Also, the administration should stop advertising how many illegal
aliens it has apprehended and start telling Americans how many it has
deported. Mr. Bush’s trumpeting of his administration’s arrest and
deportation of 6 million illegal aliens is actually a decline compared
to any five-year period under Mr. Clinton.

GET THE STORY.

These points can play a potentially useful role in getting the Bush administration to get serious about border security. A "Bush weaker than Clinton on border security" meme would do a lot of good right now. Hopefully the blogosphere will start percolating the idea.

The points that the Washington Times raises illustrate why I simply do not trust President Bush on the subject of the border. All his tough talk about putting the national guard on the border (in a neutered form that won’t let them do hardly anything) and beefing up border patrol agents means nothing. It’s just empty show.

The same goes for his declarations about ending "catch and release." It’s easy for politicians to talk tough about what they’re going to do with personnel, but personnel can fall through the cracks at budget time or get de-funded later on or get reassigned or be forbidden by policy to do their jobs or simply be unable to respond to the magnitude of the problem they’re facing given limited resources. Personnel is too variable and too easy to reassign or neuter by policies of inaction.

That’s why I’m not going to be satisfied with anything less than a fence that completely seals the border. Fences can’t be reassigned or used as part of a shell game nearly as easily as personnel can. They stay there and do their job until structural damage is done to them. They’re not perfect, but they are effective and less susceptible to political subversion than personnel is.

THEY’RE ALSO THE COMPASSIONATE SOLUTION.

Thomas Sowell is not impressed with the current immigration bill or the arguments used to support it. He writes:

The immigration bill before Congress has some of the most serious consequences for the future of this country. Yet it is not being discussed seriously by most politicians or most of the media. Instead, it is being discussed in a series of glib talking points that insult our intelligence.

He should know, because he’s got a lot of intelligence to insult. For the rest of us mortals, though, it can be handy to have a scorecard listing the ways our intelligence is being insulted, and Sowell provides a particularly good one.

HOW IS YOUR INTELLIGENCE BEING INSULTED IN THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE?

A reader writes:

I recently came across your blog and had a couple questions about China and Catholicism. Before coming to China (I just arrived recently), I tried to go to Mass a few times each week. I wonder what sacraments are valid and what Masses are actually available to me in Beijing. Do you know whether the Chinese Patriotic Church Mass is valid, or how to find those "underground" Masses?

Okay, first things first: Your name (which I withhold per my usual policy of anonymity) indicates that you are clearly of European background.

As a result, whatever you do do not attempt to go to Masses of the undreground Church in China.

DO NOT MAKE INQUIRIES ABOUT THE UNDERGROUND CHURCH. DO NOT GO TO THEIR MASSES. DO NOT HAVE ANY DEALINGS WHATSOEVER WITH THE UNDERGROUND CHURCH.

The fact that you have white skin means that you will draw the attention of the Communist authorities to any members of the underground Church that you attempt to contact, so stay away for the sake of your fellow Chinese Catholics. If you draw attention to them, they could land in prison or worse.

As a result of the foregoing considerations, you are excused from your Sunday obligation as long as you are in China. You do not have to go to Mass on Sundays or any other holy days of obligation.

This does not mean that you cannot go to Mass. You can, but it will need to be with the Patriotic Church or (if you can find one) a state-approved Easter Orthodox Church.

The Code of Canon Law provides:

Canon 844

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the [Catholic] Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

There is some ambiguity about the canonical status of ministers of the Chinese Patriotic Church, but no matter what this canon would allow you to attend Masses (and go to confession and receive the anointing of the sick) in their churches, since they have valid sacraments (as the Vatican acknowledges).

Therefore, you can go to Patriotic Church Masses–even several times a week if you wish–just DO NOT attempt to make contact with the underground church while you are there.

I have this on good authority from underground evangelists in China. As a white person, it simply is not safe for our brothers who are members of the underground church for you to attempt to contact their communities!

20

Well, I was underwhelmed with the president’s speech last night.

One of the most appropriate headlines for the speech might be "President Attempts To Deceive Base With Tough Talk On Border Enforcement & Miscellaneous Canards."

Much of what he said was fine, but what he didn’t say was the problem. The main thing that he didn’t say was that we would build a wall to prevent future illegal immigration. Instead, he said:

Tonight I am calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we will increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we will have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my Presidency.

At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We will employ motion sensors … infrared cameras … and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings. America has the best technology in the world – and we will ensure that the Border Patrol has the technology they need to do their job and secure our border.

Here the president calls for SOME new fences and "barriers" (what are those? trenches that you have to climb down one side of and up the other? mounds that you have to climb up one side of and down the other?) but not enough to actually seal the border.

Then there are the widgets that the president wants to use. I’m sorry, but high-tech gadgets aren’t going to secure our borders as well as a fence. They may help (and would be needed even with a wall), but they’re not enough. Even if a motion detector or an infrared camera sees someone coming across the border, that doesn’t physically stop the person from doing so and doesn’t magically transport border patrol agents to the site so that they can do the job. They’ll still let people into the country in a way that a wall would not.

These methods also are susceptible to policy changes and covertly looking the other way ways that a wall is not.

And adding 6000 border patrol agents only adds one person per shift per mile of the border. That’s not as effective as a wall, either.

THE MOST COMPASSIONATE SOLUTION TO STOPPING ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSING STILL SEEMS TO BE BUILDING A WALL.

I also wasn’t impressed with the president’s shift from the mantra about "Jobs Americans won’t do" to "Jobs Americans aren’t doing." His spinmeisters have apparently caught on to the fact that the first of these is in-your-face offensive, but the second isn’t much of an improvement.

It still insults our intelligence, since the only reason that Americans aren’t doing these jobs is that they are currently occupied by illegal aliens who have depressed the wages that would be paid for these jobs if the illegal aliens weren’t here.

There was more linguistic smoke and mirrors with the president’s equation of "amnesty" with "an automatic path to citizenship" and then denying that he’s for amnesty on this basis.

I’m sorry, but "automatic path to citizenship" is not the meaning of the word "amnesty," and even if we adopt this test then it will turn out that there has never been an amnesty for illegal aliens in American history, not even in 1986, when the word was being openly used.

Incidentally, the meaning of "amnesty" (in English, not Latin, folks) is:

the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals [SOURCE].

Seems to me that’s what’s being talked about: the granting of pardon (instead of deportation or prosecution) to individuals who have broken the law, even if they are made to jump through certain hoops in order to obtain this.

THE "BACK OF THE LINE" ARGUMENT IS ALSO A SCAM.

And then there were the bits of the speech aimed directly at El Presidente Vicente Fox about not "militarizing" the U.S. border.

Seeing the U.S. president pandering to a malefactor like Fox, who is openly contemptuous of the U.S.’s rights to enforce its borders and who is a prime facilitator of illegal immigration so that he can export his country’s poverty problem rather than clean up the corrupt system that prevents economic development in Mexico was postively disgusting.

There was also the canard about illegal aliens wanting to "build a better life" by coming to America. Yes, and while that is an understandable human desire, it is not a sufficient reason to let a person into this country. If it were then there would be about 5 billion people who would be entitled to enter America, many of whom would be even more impoverished and thus even more entitled than those who happen to conveniently share a border with us.

The president did get points from me for saying that

We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say.

That is absolutely, 100% true, and must never be forgotten.

Illegal aliens must be treated with dignity, even if that dignity does not entitle them to residency in the United States.

BTW, before going nuts in the combox, please note that I haven’t said one word about what should be done about the 11 million aliens who are illegally present in this country at the moment. The only opinions I have expressed in this post are that a wall seems to be a crucial and compassionate way to stop the flow and that I am unimpressed with various things the president said.

Word is that

PRESIDENT BUSH IS GOING TO BE GIVING A MAJOR SPEECH ON IMMIGRATION POLICY ON MONDAY.

Word also is that he will be laying out a "comprehensive" policy proposal for dealing with immigration and that it will include tougher border-securing measures.

Talk includes putting the national guard on the border.

That ain’t enough.

#1: The national guard can’t cover every single foot of the border the way that a wall can.

#2: The national guard won’t stay on the border permanently the way a will will. Eventually, units will be pulled back and reassigned elsewhere, when the public and the MSM isn’t looking.

The bottom line is that no solution involving just putting people on the border will serve as the kind of permanent fix for the torrent of illegal immigration that the nation is currently experiencing.

We’ve been down that road before, and it’s led us to the situation we’re in now.

After all the bridges that Pres. Bush has burned with conservatives, any solution that doesn’t involve a wall is likely to be perceived as another piece of insincere lip service from the president.

To put it bluntly: Conservatives no longer trust Bush, to the extent that they ever did. After debacles like the Harriet Miers nomination, the out-of-control spending while giving lip service to conservative principles, the gay marriage amendment that has gone nowhere, the president is simply no longer trusted by his base.

As a result, if the president comes out touting tough new border enforcement ideas and these do not include the building of a physical barrier that will permanently remain and that can’t simply be recalled and reassigned when the public isn’t looking then it may well be viewed as more insincere lip service on the part of the president.

In other words: It may look like another attempt from a phony-conservative president to deceive his political base.

If so, the proposals he trots out Monday will badly burn him.

It may be Harriet Miers all over again.

I’m looking for the best word or words to express a concept. Maybe y’all can help me out.

Y’know that argument we’ve been hearing from President Bush and numerous others that there are "jobs Americans won’t do" or "aren’t eager to do" and that’s why we need a permissive immigration policy?

Yeah, you know the one. . . . the false and insulting argument.

It’s false because there aren’t any jobs Americans won’t do if you pay them enough (same as people anywhere).

But it’s also insulting, both to Americans and non-Americans.

It’s insulting to non-Americans because it implies that Americans are so high and mighty that they can’t deign to lower themselves to perform certain jobs, so we need lowly foreigners to come here and do them for us.

It’s insulting to Americans because it portrays them as . . . what exactly?

Stuck up immature babies?

Snobs?

I’m looking for the best term of contempt to apply to persons who consider themselves too high and mighty to do certain jobs.

The term or phrase should have as much emotional punch as possible (while being within the bounds of polite discourse; no cuss words!) and being short and pithy ("stuck up immature babies" may be too long).

Adjectives that describe the attitude of such a person could also be useful.

Any help would be appreciated.

Muchas gracias, mis amigos!

I am not very familiar with the situation that has developed around Fr. Altier of the diocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis–in significant measure because many of the details have not been publicly announced, and I can’t vouch for the information that is currently being reported, but a reader writes:

Father Altier from St. Agnes in Saint Paul and the parish priest,  Father Weizbacher are being moved out of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul- Mpls as of June 17.

It was announced today at morning mass.

You heard it here first.

Unless you heard it elsewhere.

How deaf is deaf? What kind of a question is that? you ask. Shouldn’t such a question matter only to the medical community when designating degrees of hearing loss? Why should it matter to anyone else the degree to which a particular person suffers hearing loss? Ah, but when you seek to be the president of a university for deaf students, a question like that matters, you see.

"The newly chosen president for the nation’s only liberal arts college for the deaf is drawing protests from faculty and students, some of whom question whether she is ‘deaf enough’ to lead their school.

"Last week, Jane K. Fernandes [pictured at right] was named to succeed I. King Jordan as president of Gallaudet University. She isn’t scheduled to take over until January, but already the school’s faculty has called a meeting for Monday afternoon to consider for a no-confidence vote against her and students have carried out a weeklong protest.

[…]

"She was born deaf but grew up speaking, and she didn’t learn American Sign Language until she was 23. She now characterizes herself as a ‘fluent signer’ who can understand and be understood by everyone on campus.

"’There’s a kind of perfect deaf person,’ said Fernandes, who described that as someone who is born deaf to deaf parents, who learns ASL at home, attends deaf schools, marries a deaf person and has deaf children. ‘People like that will remain the core of the university.’"

GET THE STORY.

Apparently, according to the story, the "need" for a deaf university president at Gallaudet was "created" by student activists in the late 1980s, leading to the appointment of Fernandes’s predecessor as Gallaudet’s first deaf president. Now this created need is to become a litmus test against which all future presidents of the university will be judged.

Never mind the qualifications the candidate has in the education of the hearing-disabled. Never mind whether the candidate can be understood by students because he or she is fluent in ASL. Never mind whether the candidate might have deaf relatives of his or her own, which may have sparked the candidate’s interest in the education of the hearing-disabled. Either the candidate is One Of Us, or Need Not Apply.

A mere five months ago postal rates rose from 37 cents to 39 cents. Unsatisfied, the Post Office is seeking to raise them yet again — to 42 cents. Fearing reprisals from an angry mob of customers waving around packages they need to mail, the Post Office has hit upon a plan: Create a Forever Stamp that can be used "forever," no matter the current rate of postage.

"Here’s how it would work. If the 3-cent increase takes effect next year, the forever stamp would be made available for 42 cents, the same as other first-class stamps. If the first-class rate were to rise to 45 cents in a few years, the 42-cent forever stamp would still be honored for postage on letters. Once the new price took effect, forever stamps would then sell for 45 cents."

GET THE STORY.

I remember when first-class rates were 15 cents and, dagnabit, I’m not that old! Looks to me like I should consider Internet bill-paying after all.

While I was away on my trip, and thus out of touch with the news, a friend of mine told me that there were going to be massive shut-down attempt demonstrations on Cinco de Mayo (May 5th) and wanted to make sure that I knew about it in case it would affect my travel plans.

She later called back and said that the demonstrations were going to be on May 1st.

"That’s interesting," I thought.

If the demonstrations were on May 5th then that would make sense, as it’s a distinctive Mexican holiday, but if they’re on May 1st that says something else: It suggests that there may be radical leftist/Communist/socialist influence behind the demonstrations (whether most of the demonstrators know it or not), because May 1st is a traditional day for radical leftist/Communist/socialist demonstrations.

AND THAT’S WHAT’S HAPPENING HERE.

One of the organizing groups behind the May 1st demonstration is ANSWER.

I have to say that, for the purposes of the demonstrators, the May 1st events seem to have gone spectacularly badly. Not only did they seem not to pull the number of protestors the organizers were hoping forboasting about in advance, but they also continued the turning off of the American people toward illegal immigrants.

Take the young lady pictured above. Notice anything about her?

Well, she’s scowling, of course, but that could just be because she’d outside and there’s a lot of bright light, so we won’t hold that against her. Notice anything else?

Oh, yeah! She’s got a Mexican flag wrapped around her face!

Now why do people hide their faces in public?

ACTUALLY, THERE CAN BE SEVERAL REASONS.

None of them, however, will win friends in the United States or make people want to pressure their politicians to vote amnesty for illegal aliens.

Then there are folks who are just silly. Like this guy:
I mean, what on earth is he thinking?

First of all, it simply isn’t true that no illegal aliens would mean no burritos. We had burritos in this country long before we had massive numbers of illegal aliens, and we’ll have them long afterwards as well. The last I knew, "burrito chef" was not one of the ficitonal "jobs Americans won’t do."

But even if it were . . . so what?

Living without burritos would be a small price to pay if it meant ending the illegal immigration problem and restoring respect for the law and sealing the nation’s borders to terrorists and stopping illegal aliens from depressing the wages of U.S. workers and taking jobs away from Americans who would do them if the labor market weren’t being undercut by people who are in this country illegally.

In fact, I’m living without burritos now (they’re terribly high-carb unless you make them with low-carb burrito wrappers, which I’m not motivated to do), so this guy gets absolutely no sympathy from me.

But this photo of him is just another sign of how asinine (that means "dull as a donkey"–or in Spanish a burro, or even a burrito) these demonstrations have been.

The demonstrators are really, really hurting the the pro-lawlessness cause.

AS HAS BEEN NOTICED BY SOME.

AND BY OTHERS.

AND EVEN BY SOME BISHOPS.