The Abomination of H.R. 505

First a very important hat tip goes out to Senator Lamar Alexander for bringing this to my attention. H.R. 505 would allow Hawaii to create a sovereign government of their own and not on that it would be a race based government. Here is how the Senator summarized it.

The question the bill poses is thus one that is fundamental to the very existence of our nation. It creates a new government based upon race. Our constitution guarantees just the opposite: equal opportunity without regard to race.

Hawaiians are Americans. They became United States citizens in 1900. They have saluted the American flag, paid American taxes, fought in American wars. In 1959, ninety-four percent of Hawaiians reaffirmed that commitment to become Americans by voting to become a state. Like citizens of every other state, Hawaiians vote in national elections.

...

America is different because, under our constitution, becoming an American can have nothing to do with ancestry. That is because America is an idea, not a race. Ours is a nation based not upon race, not upon ethnicity, not upon national origin, but upon our shared values, enshrined in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, upon our history as a nation, and upon our shared language, English. An American can technically become a citizen of Japan, but would never be considered “Japanese.” But if a Japanese person wants to become a citizen of the United States, he or she must become an American.

This is yet another bill that the Dems have tried to pass under the cover of darkness. This follows a pattern that includes ENDA, the DREAM Act, and the abomination that was the NON BINDING resolution to condemn the genocide from 100 years ago of the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks.

There are two important things to keep in mind with regard to this bill. The first is that in the aftermath of the Revolution our own founding fathers initially set up the nation so that all states had the same power that the House has given to Hawaii. That didn't work and thirteen years later we had the Constitution we have now. Second, the tenth amendment gives power to the states to decide anything not enumerated in the Constitution. Thus, the states by nature, already have a lot of power. Any bill that creates extra powers not only goes against the letter and spirit of the Constitution but it threatens to very fabric of the dynamic of the system we have set up.

This bill tries to follow the same logic of protection that this country gives to the Indian tribes. Of course, the Indian tribes receive special protections because of the sordid history that this country has with them. It is nothing short of terrible policy to start allowing every minority group special sovereignty rights. By doing so, the United States no longer exists and we revert back to the Article of Confederation, our first constitution.

Here is how another blogger viewed it.

What is one to make of that? The whole justification for the Akaka Bill rests on the Indian precedent. There is no doubt that the Akaka Bill provides for a new government in the midst of federal, state, and city & county jurisdictions. And there is no doubt that the Interior Department has a key role (as it does with Indian tribes).

So some people in Hawaii are going to have a new government to report to. This government is going to pass laws because that is what governments do. Then it is going to enforce those laws. Thus members of the new Hawaiian nation will have to obey four governments while others obey three (city & county, state and federal).

What is the advantage for anyone subjected to such a complicated scheme? If we are not to look to the Indian model, where are we to look? And if the Indian model does not apply, why are Indian tribes so much in favor of the Akaka Bill? The people who keep pushing this construct never have any details. Most are from the government, as in, "I am from the government and I am here to help.” Please trust them, they accept responsibility. But they never will be held personally accountable. Not possible. Cheap talk.

There is no doubt that this bill is bad policy. So, how did it pass through the house? The same way all bills pass that make no sense. The folks don't know about them. There is a long way before this bill becomes law so there is time to act. I urge everyone to contact their Senator. So, please go here and find your Senator and let them know how you feel.

DREAM Act Update:

It looks as though the DREAM Act will come up for a vote today. Senator Reid is trying to fast track this bill through the Senate and is looking for a cloture vote later today. He will need sixty votes in order to accomplish that. Now, according to Michelle their side is having trouble with logistics,

it looks like Dick Durbin is worried about senators showing up for the vote: “Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the legislation’s chief sponsor, said Tuesday that his biggest challenge was ensuring that supporters, including five senators — four Democrats and one Republican — running for president, make it to the Capitol for the roll call. Another question mark: Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, who are trying to return to California to review wildfire damage…Durbin needs 60 votes to allow the bill to be debated. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said the DREAM Act amounts to a ‘ratification of illegality’ and could provide an incentive for more illegal immigration. ”

Whatever their problems are, now is not the time to rest. Unlike last summer this bill has flown under the radar a la the Vitter Amendment to end sanctuary cities that failed a couple weeks ago. It is time to give it the attention it deserves. Here are the instructions from Numbers USA

Hi, my name is xmxmxm xmxmxmx. I am calling about S. 2205, the DREAM Act amnesty. I urge the Senator to vote NO on cloture today and kill this amnesty. Thank you." It is going to take a lot of first-timers to pull out a victory when the Senate is expected to vote by mid-day. How about calling and saying something like: "I would like for you to tell Senator xmxmxmxm that giving the DREAM Act amnesty to 2.1 million illegal aliens will send the wrong message to the rest of the world. Ask him to please vote NO on cloture on S. 2205. We don't need to entice a larger wave of illegal immigration." Or this: "There should be no amnesty of any kind until Congress passes laws to stop the hiring of illegal foreign workers. S. 2205 would just invite a lot more illegal aliens to come. Please ask Sen. xmxmxm to vote NO on the DREAM Act amnesty."

Here is the view from the rest of the blogosphere

At one level, it’s understandable that pro-amnesty politicians would be reluctant to invite the press to what was in effect a lobbying session with illegal aliens in the Capitol building. After all, the American people have made it abundantly clear that they disagree with Washington elites on illegal immigration and the in-state tuition. The Dream Act was included in the bipartisan amnesty bill pushed by the White House and Sen. Edward Kennedy that imploded in late June, after Americans deluged their senators with telephone calls, e-mails and faxes protesting the legislation. Last month, Mr. Durbin, with the support of Mr. Hagel and Mr. Lugar, tried to attach the Dream Act as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. But once again, America protested, forcing Mr. Durbin & Co. to shelve the legislation — until today.

and

The DREAM Act positively conveys the benefits and contributions of immigrants to America. Its passage would send a clear message across the country that immigration is a valued American tradition that is badly in need of a makeover. Senate support of the DREAM Act promotes hardworking immigrant students while expressing a commitment to repairing our broken system.If the
DREAM Act Fails to Pass the Senate...

and finally,

2205, which is cosponsored by long-tenured Republicans Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), is, essentially, the same amnesty offered up for consideration by Durbin as an amendment (SA 2919) to H.R. 1585, the Defense Department (DoD) authorization bill for fiscal year 2008. The Senate passed that bill October 1 without ever taking up the DREAM Act amendment or amendments concerning increased worker importation.In this most recent iteration, the DREAM Act authorizes DHS to cancel removal for, or adjust to lawful permanent resident status (in other words, grant amnesty to), an alien who is inadmissible or deportable in cases where the alien demonstrated that he/she: * has maintained continuous presence in the United States for five years and was not yet 16 years old upon initial entry, but is no older than 30 years of age;* is of “good moral character” and is not inadmissible or deportable on certain criminal grounds or on the basis of being a risk to national security;

It really comes down to whether we become compassionate to law breakers or we are people that believe in the rule of law. It is your choice. Here is a way to reach your Senator. Let your voice be heard.

UPDATE:

Here is my email to my Senator Barack Obama

Today there will be a vote on the so called DREAM Act. I suspect, Senator, that you support this bill which would legalize millions of people that came here illegally. Since the illegals in question are children and minors, I suspect that this is a great opportunity for you to flex your compassionate credentials.

When you let emotion interfere with making policy, what we all get is bad policy. Illegal immigration is a cancer on our society and our elected officials must do everything to encourage less of it. This bill would encourage more of it and that is unacceptable. Your record proves that you have more sympathy for people who came to this country illegally than you do for the rule of law.

While it maybe good politics to find a poor helpless teenager and get behind them and their plight, it isn't good policy and we, the American people, are onto all of you. We will hold all of those who perpetuate illegal immigration responsible for their actions.

Last week, you missed a vote to make sanctuary cities, like ours, Chicago, illegal. I am sure you had an important rally or townhall meeting, however your non vote contributed to the amendment failing and now my fair city can continue to ignore criminal illegal aliens in its borders.

I believe that George Soros is the puppet master for your party and he is a strong proponent of open borders which eventually lead to one world government. Your actions and words lead me to conclude that your position is very little different from his. You said you stood with millions of illegal immigrants when they marched for rights they had no business receiving. You voted against an amendment that would have barred all criminals, gang members, and terrorists from entering our nation, and you even voted against an amendment that simply would have committed our government to finally follow the laws already on the books.

You have an opportunity to show me that I am wrong and that you are not a puppet of George Soros by voting against this bill and I hope you take it.

Now, it is your turn, call, fax and email and pass along your own thoughts on the matter and any responses from the powers that be.

ANOTHER UPDATE:

One for two everyone, according to Michelle Malkin the cloture vote has failed, so the forces against illegal immigration have won this round, however all we have now is the status quo. We had a chance last week to outlaw sanctuary cities. Keep in mind all Democratic Senators buy Mary Landrieu either voted against it or didn't vote at all. Contact each and every Senator and tell them that sanctuary cities are unacceptable and that the amendment must be looked at again.

THE LAST UPDATE REALLY!!

Here is the roll call.

There are a few names of note. Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama rushed back to Washington to vote in favor of amnesty. This is important because they didn't even bother to vote on the Vitter Amendment that would have outlawed sanctuary cities, like the one Senator Obama lives in Chicago. They are obviously paying homage to George Soros and his open borders, one world government philosophy and I will leave it up to the folks to decide if that is the vision of America you have.

Time to End Sanctuary Cities

A big hat tip goes to Numbers USA as well as the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. Now, we must act and act quickly because time is running short. Senator David Vitter has proposed an amendment to end federal funding to ALL sanctuary cities. A sanctuary city, as we know, is a city in which the police are prohibited from asking for and identifying the immigration status of suspects and convicted criminals. Furthermore, they are prohibited from reporting illegal aliens to the Feds. My city, Chicago, is unfortunately one of those that is considered a sanctuary city.

Several high profile cases have put the topic of sanctuary cities in the spotlight. For instance in Virginia Beach 17 year old Allison Kunhardt and 16 year old Tessa Tanchant were killed when their car was struck by drunk driver Alfredo Ramos. Ramos was an illegal alien with multiple prior convictions for drunk driving. Had the Virginia Beach authorities reported him to I.C.E. after any of his prior arrests and convictions the two teenagers would still be alive.

In Newark, New Jersey college students, Terrance Aerial, Dashon Harvey and Iofemi Hightower were shot execution style by Jose Lachira Carranza. Carranza was out on bail awaiting trial on two separate felonies. He was also in this country illegally. Had the Newark authorities alerted I.C.E. Carranza could have been picked up and detained and the three college students would still be alive.

Look at what happens in Los Angeles

Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.

Unfortunately, unlike the amnesty bill of this past summer, talk radio has not been leading with this story. We only have a few days. Everyone needs to mobilize and make their voices heard. Here are the talking points as enumerated by Numbers USA

I am calling about H.R. 3093, the CJS spending bill.

I am urging a YES vote on Sen. Vitter's amendment to prohibit "COPS" money to cities that support sanctuary policies. (COPS is a federal grant program to state and local law enforcement agencies to advance community policing.)

THAT IS ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY AND THEN SAY 'THANK YOU.' OR YOU CAN CHOOSE TO PICK ONE TO THREE OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS TO MENTION:

Only Senators who seek to protect illegal aliens and promote illegal immigration would vote against the Vitter amendment. I am counting on Sen. xmxmxmx to vote YES.

Sanctuary policies have been against federal law since the 1996 federal immigration law required local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But many cities have refused to do so, adopting so-called "sanctuary policies." Unfortunately, the Clinton and Bush Justice Departments have refused to bring suit against these cities.

The Vitter amendment would seek to eliminate sanctuary policies in local municipalities, whereby law enforcement officials are barred from asking suspects about their immigration status or reporting them to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The amendment would ensure that existing law is enforced uniformly across the country by withholding COPS federal funding for cities that choose to violate section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA).

It is highly unlikely that any sanctuary cities in our state will lose funding because nearly all of them will end up ending their sanctuary policies once they see they will lose federal funding by keeping them.

here is the link to find your Senator. Please post your emails to each Senator or if you made a phone call please let us know their responses. Here is how the rest of the blogosphere sees it.

UPDATE:

Here is a copy of my email to Senator Obama

Senator Obama,
There is an amendment that may reach the floor of the Senate this week sponsored by Senator David Vitter. This amendment will end so called sanctuary cities. As you should know, Chicago, my fair city, is one of these sanctuary cities. That means criminals that are also here illegally are not reported by local law enforcement to ICE. This is unacceptable and dangerous. These criminals are not merely poor people looking for a better life, but rather murderers, rapists, drunk drivers, and thieves. They are not only criminals by nature, but they are not here in this country legally. This amendment would cut off all federal funding to any city that refuses to report
criminal illegals to the feds. This is proper because any city that refuses to follow our own federal laws does not deserve federal money.

We can all differ on how to handle the 20 million illegals currently in this country,
however there should be no debate about what to do with illegals who are criminals outside of their status. These people absolutely must be rounded up and deported immediately after, of course, they serve their sentence for whatever crime they have committed.

As you should know, tragic tales from such cities as Virginia Beach, Newark, and Los Angeles happen because criminal illegal aliens were not reported to federal authorities. Americans are dead because localities refused to do their part in fighting against illegal immigration.

Senator, your record on illegal immigration is spotty at best. This past summer you voted against an amendment that would bar criminals, gang members and terrorists from entering this country. Only you know why it is acceptable to you to allow these groups to enter this country. You also spoke in front of La Raza, an open borders group, and said you stood shoulder to shoulder with them at their demonstrations. It appears you have more sympathy for illegals than you have for the rule of law. That is unacceptable, and if you upset Hillary, that will haunt you unless of course you show a more firm stance for the rule of law and against law breaking, and you have that opportunity by voting for the Vitter Amendment. I hope you take it.

David Iglesias for Senate in New Mexico?

Red State is just full of rumors and suggestions these days. Yesterday, they put out a rumor about former General Peter Pace running for Senate in Virginia. Now, there is an idea about David Iglesius running for Senate in New Mexico.

Of course, we all know who he is, but a quick glance at his biography shows that he is an eminently qualified, dedicated conservative, who is free from any attachments from an unpopular President because, well, he was fired for not being loyal enough.

...

So let's see, he's a hispanic conservative with considerable name recognition with no ties to President Bush. He's been called extremely qualified by both right and left and even has a bit of celebrity in that he was partly the inspiration for the movie "A Few Good Men." He has a reputation as an independent - a "maverick" if you will, given that he'll go against those above him when he feels it is right to do so.

Being completely independent of Bush's unpopularity alone makes him an attractive candidate, but he's also a dedicated small government conservative. This guy is the perfect candidate, and I would prefer him over Domenici any day.

Here is a quick bio on Iglesias from wikipedia

In 1995 he was a member of the White House
Fellowship program, as a Special Assistant to the Secretary of
Transportation.[8]
He was a state Assistant Attorney General (Special Prosecutions; defending
police officers in civil rights cases) for the state of New Mexico from 1988 to
1991. From 1991-1994, he was an assistant city attorney for the city of
Albuquerque. He went back to the state of New Mexico, first for the State Risk
Management Legal Office (1995 to 1998) as Chief Counsel, and the Taxation and
Revenue Department, General Counsel (1998 to 2001). He ran for New
Mexico Attorney General as a Republican in 1998, but lost 51-49 to Democrat Patricia A. Madrid.[1][4][6][8]

At the time of his appointment to U.S. Attorney, Iglesias was an associate
with the law firm of Walz and Associates in Albuquerque, as well as a Commander
in the U.S.
Naval Reserve JAG Corps.[8]

In his spare time he reviews Native American films,
both fictional and documentary. In 2002, he contributed an article to Native
Peoples Magazine, called "Brothers in Arms: Windtalkers."[9][10]

I personally don't know much about him but since A Few Good Men is in my top ten, I like him already. He was one of the now famous seven attorneys fired in the pseudo scandal the Dems milked that ultimately led to Gonzalez' resignation. Here are his thoughts on that. That said, he appears to be well liked over at Kos. (though that maybe a marriage of convenience vis a vis the scandal)

The Senate Democrats should caucus and advise the president to appoint David Iglesias as Attorney General. He has the conservative credentials to be acceptable to the Republicans. At the same time, he has the integrity to be acceptable to the Democrats.
DavidThi808's diary :: ::

In addition, while Iglesias is just a suggestion, the Democratic Senators should be very clear that they will not accept any candidate that is not as good as or superior to Iglesias. The Senate has the power to insist that the next Attorney General be a person of unquestionable integrity.
The beauty of this approach is by putting up someone who is clearly a staunch Republican and supremely well qualified, they are accepting Bush's right to appoint someone who is a conservative Republican. But by suggesting an individual rather than a generic "someone of integrity", any other candidate can be measured specifically against Iglesias.

I don't have a horse in the race however our Democracy is predicated on get the best people to run for office, and so if anyone out there thinks Iglesias is that candidate I suggest you start a blog, a facebook site, a myspace site, or go here and let your feelings be known.