The Stupid 365 Project, Day 11: AlieNation
October 11th, 2010
This is one of California’s remarkably unattractive gubernatorial candidates, Meg Whitman, making her popular horror-movie claw gesture.
Such a choice we’ve got. Whitman’s opponent, former governor, Jerry Brown, is an old political gasbag long lampooned by Garry Trudeau as “Governor Moonbeam.” Whitman is the Executive from Hell who terrorized her workforce at eBay and refuses to take a coherent stand on illegal immigration, which is a matter of some concern in this state. (She says one thing in English and another in Spanish.) It is of no consequence whatsoever to me which one wins, but the illegal immigration issue has grown surreal.
“Meg,” as her campaign insists on calling her, apparently employed a nanny for nine years who, it turns out, is in the country illegally. Prodded, or perhaps bribed, into action by Brown’s state worker’s union flunkies, a local attorney/alligator named Gloria Allred — the same Gloria Allred who introduced us to all those tragic women who were so horrifically victimized by Tiger Woods — called a news conference to say, in essence, shame on Meg Whitman. Bad Meg! Imagine. Employing an illegal for nine years and then firing her when the truth about her status came out.
In her defense, Meg pointed out that the nanny came from an agency that was supposed to have verified her legality and that she arrived in Meg’s home clutching a driver’s license and a social security card, and that it was reasonable for Meg and her husband, Dr. Harsh (I’m not making this up — but it’s easy to see why Meg kept her own last name. Harsh for Governor? Elect Harsh? California Needs Harsh Leadership?) – where was I? Oh, it was reasonable for the Harshes to assume that the nanny was all square with the INS.
But she wasn’t, and therefore we have here in California the idiotic situation that some exhausted newspaper scribbler inevitably dubbed Nannygate.
Look, I don’t care if the Harshes provide electricity for their home by having two hundred illegals run eight-hour shifts on giant hamster wheels. Here’s what I care about.
First, it’s perfectly okay with the Federal government if 300,000 undocumented aliens walk into the country every year.
Second, the Federal government signals its approval of this mass migration by actively not enforcing a whole bunch of laws passed by Congress, signed by presidents, and upheld in the courts. Okay, maybe the laws were only passed to give Congress something to do and maybe the presidents who signed them just wanted to try out a new pen, but they’re the law.
Third, in the face of all these unenforced laws, it’s a crime for Meg to have employed her illegal nanny. It’s a crime for any individual or business to employ illegal workers even though their presence in America is sanctioned by the Federal government’s refusal to enforce existing laws.
So, what that means, in a nutshell (and if ever a nutshell were called for, it”s called for here), it is up to the individual to enforce the law of the land by not employing the people whom the government has allowed to come here and stay here. It’s a crime if the individual gives employment to, and thereby put food on the table of, an illegal immigrant.
Excuse me, but didn’t we used to look down on the taking of the law into one’s own hands? Wasn’t it called vigilante behavior or something like that? I mean, didn’t it used to be, like, illegal?
It’s down to Meg to enforce the law? Down to me? You? We know it’s not down to the states, because the Federal government is presently attempting to protect illegal immigrants by suing to prevent Arizona from enacting as state laws exactly the same laws the Federal government passed but won’t enforce. Is this confusing, or is it just me?
And, of course, the Federal government (currently headed by the most disappointing political figure of my lifetime) doesn’t come out and say to Arizona, “We want you to leave these people alone,” because it would be an unpopular stand. Most American citizens, including a very high percentage of Hispanics who are here legally, disapprove of unregulated, wholesale illegal immigration. And, of course, there’s an election coming up, and leadership and principle go out the window when votes are at stake. Instead, the Feds sue Arizona on a constitutional point — essentially, “All immigration law belongs to us, not to the states.” In other words, only the Federal government is allowed to pass dozens — hundreds — of laws restricting illegal immigration and then decline to enforce them.
By the way, I’m not fulminating against illegal immigrants, nor is this a slap at Obama. The country’s agricultural economy is predicated on inexpensive transient labor, and God knows Bush was as bad on this issue as Obama. What upsets me is the total absence of logic and coherent policy that’s been created by a bunch of vote-sucking professional politicians from both parties who have created a situation in which there are whole books of legally enacted statutes that go unenforced – that, in fact, everyone is forbidden to enforce. Except, apparently, Meg Whitman and small-business owners, who are instructed not to pay these immigrants wages so they can feed their children.
The sight of the American government transferring its legal responsibilities to the shoulders of individuals is not an encouraging one.
More about professional politicians — the bane of the 20th and 21st centuries — later.
|
This entry was posted on Monday, October 11th, 2010 at 8:43 am and is filed under All Blogs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
14 Responses to “The Stupid 365 Project, Day 11: AlieNation” -
EverettK Says:
October 11th, 2010 at 11:41 am
You want LOGIC where politics is involved??? Sheesh! What universe do YOU live in??? 
I will, however, give you props and acknowledge the size of your cojones for bringing up politics in your blog and inviting a firestorm. There’s no better kindling than politics for starting one (other than maybe religion… )
-
Timothy Hallinan Says:
October 11th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Ahh, well, Everett, I think about politics all the time, so I’m going to wind up writing about them. I’m even thinking of forming a political non-party that would have as its goal the elimination of professional politicians from American government. I’m only about 25% kidding. Let’s see what the reception to this post is.
And, yes, I want to explore doing a piece on Captcha – let me thing about it; I might interview you about it.
-
Laren Bright Says:
October 11th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Hey — The reCAPTCHA words today were Jermeg Whitbrown. Do you think that’s significant?
-
Gary Says:
October 11th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Fret and strive no more, my child. Fundamental cosmic laws ensure that we always get the government we deserve.
-
David Jenkins Says:
October 11th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
I take some comfort in knowing that, no matter who wins the governorship, things will remain just as f***ed up as they are now. If you have a car that’s a complete lemon, you don’t just replace this part, that part… you get rid of it and start over. That’s what it would take with our broken political system, but it’ll never happen.
-
Timothy Hallinan Says:
October 11th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Laren, I think it means that Whitman, who has put $114,000,000 into her campaign, bought CAPTCHA. Plain as day. Subliminal messages all day long. If I get “megalopolis,” I’ll know it’s true.
Gary, I guess that’s true. But what I want is bread and circuses, and what I get is “American Idol” and war. And boneheaded vote whores selling the country to get an edge in a primary. This country is in trouble, and I have no problem at all pointing to the spineless hypocrites in charge of our decline.
-
EverettK Says:
October 11th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Tim said, “I’m even thinking of forming a political non-party that would have as its goal the elimination of professional politicians from American government. I’m only about 25% kidding.”
I was just thinking today, as I was talking to my buddy on our way to play disc golf, that the American experiment in Democracy has been quite wonderful, but seems perched on the precipice of disaster, and that there needs to be some serious house-cleaning (in terms of the basic constitutional structure, not just “throwing the bums out” which a change in the basic structure would achieve as a side-effect). I’m not sure what form would work better, and I fear that ANY form would be a temporary fix. Money and power will ALWAYS find a way, a loophole. Maybe I’m just being my inner old-fart today. 
Lawrence Lessig has been organizing a movement to try to “change congress” (see http://action.change-congress.org/page/s/amendpetition), to come up with an amendment to allow for the limitation of big-money in elections, so that the Supreme Court can’t declare such laws as being First Amendment issues. Interesting stuff, but I fear they’ll never get anywhere with it. Too much apathy and too many people trying to hang on to what they’ve got. Big changes require big desperation, and I don’t yet think the American people are nearly desperate enough.
Okay, Tim, if this keeps up, I may go over to the dark side. reCaptcha this time, looks SOMETHING like “nææ gondak.” Sigh.
-
Timothy Hallinan Says:
October 11th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
David, there’s no question that both these candidates will ride California even farther down the long slope. We’ve got some of the highest taxes in America and we’re one of the most deeply indebted states; our school system is a parody of what public education should be; the asshole Democrats in the Assembly have gerrymanded the state so effectively that their perpetual re-election is assured (the Republicans would have done the same thing); and we’ve locked ourselves, thanks to Gray Davis, into a suicidal state workers’ pension system that will bankrupt the state entirely unless something is done about it. Pant, pant. And I’m just getting started. Neither of these earwigs will do anything about anything that matters. I’m voting Libertarian, just as a gesture.
Everett, exactly right. When George Washington stepped down peaceably and was replaced peaceably by John Adams, it was a first in the world. The country was founded on a great ideal (which has been corrupted), and was given the gift of a great reserve of untapped resources (which have been squandered), and offered its citizens previously unparalleled freedoms (which have been leached away). I don’t know about changing the constitution, which seems to me to be the one thing we’ve got left– if those in power would observe it — but the lockstep between big money and big government needs to be broken (thanks for nothing, Barack) and the educational system needs to be revamped beginning (literally) with Kindergarten and first grade because an increasingly stupid electorate will elect increasingly venal politicians. And I’m serious about getting rid of professional politicians. I’m going to found the Ixnaycrats non-party with the slogan, “Just Say Ixnay” and the intention to vote out all incumbents, to vote in those with the least political experience, and a bunch of other things. I’ll blog about it later, along with my ideas for fixing the schools. (I’m serious about that.)
-
Eric Stone Says:
October 12th, 2010 at 10:36 am
In reality our country thrives on the status quo with regard to illegal immigrants. Our economy benefits from having a large pool of workers without legal protections who we can exploit. Our politicians benefit from having them to kick around during elections. Any number of political action and advocacy groups raise millions of dollars to support their cause on behalf of or against illegal immigrants. What no one ever owns up to is that we like the way things currently stand and that as much as we rant and rave and carry on about wanting to change it, we don’t really want it to change. At least most of us don’t. We’re as addicted to illegal immigrants as any junkie is to their fix.
-
Timothy Hallinan Says:
October 12th, 2010 at 11:26 am
I agree that we need an inexpensive and essentially transient labor force, and pretty much all that goes with that — and that’s always included occasional exploitation. What I have trouble with is that the government refuses to enforce its own laws. We have the largest unsecured border in the world and the highest rate of illegal immigration in the world, and the government’s proposal to solve the problem is amnesty, without making even a peremptory attempt to control the border. So on the one hand, you’ve got people having their baggage searched and their papers scrutinized as they land in America’s international airports, and in the other hand, you’ve got 300,000 people a year just walking in. I know men who have been married for years to women from the Philippines or Thailand who can’t get their wives into America. In the meantime, absolutely ANYONE can walk in from Mexico. Insane from a public policy perspective.
-
Kevin Says:
October 14th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
I am amazed that JB is the best the dems came up with. I have a bet with a co-worker in NorCal (A dozen bagels) that Whitman will win.
-
Timothy Hallinan Says:
October 14th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
I wouldn’t give a stale bagel, covered in tainted cream cheese, for either of them. I don’t know who’ll win and really seriously couldn’t care less. They’re both train wrecks waiting to happen.
Hard to believe this was once a great state.
-
Jaden Says:
October 18th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Great post, Tim. And so timely.
I think our constitution is the best in the world, so I’m not throwing in my lot with those who want to scrap it, but I do agree with those who want to say goodbye to career politicians. Back in the early days of our republic, politicians served for awhile and then went back home to work in their communities.
Too many politicians have forgotten what the words “to serve” mean.
-
Timothy Hallinan Says:
October 18th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Well, Jaden, I have the answer to all the nation’s problems. I just need a platform from which to lecture and a fast-flowing stream donations coming in. And I could do without the donations.
|
Share with your friends: |
