Here is a column by Ms. Phyllis Schlafly, which refers to an instance of the judicial activism I constantly talk about.
It is not about abortion or gay marriage, it is about immigration, and, as such may provide the leeway necessary to allow a calmer debate than some of my other efforts.
Discussion, as usual, to follow:
The Judge And The President vs. The People
by Phyllis Schlafly Dec. 22, 2004
Another activist judge strikes again! Federal Judge David C. Bury overturned the will of the people and enjoined enforcement of Arizona's Proposition 200, which would require Arizonans to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote and require a valid ID to be presented when applying for benefits paid for by Arizona taxpayers.
It's clear that Prop 200 represents the people's demand that our government enforce our laws against illegal aliens. It passed by 56-44 percent even though it was opposed by Big Government (all public officials of both parties), Big Business (the Chamber of Commerce), Big Labor (the Service Employees International Union), and Big Church (the Catholic Bishops).
Even 47 percent of Arizona Hispanics voted in favor of Prop 200. The immigrants who had stood in long lines to come here legally see no reason to allow their tax dollars to go to the 4,000 aliens who illegally come across Arizona's border every night.
Judge Bury was appointed by President George W. Bush. That prompts the question: Has a Bush judge already turned into a supremacist judge who ignores the will of the people in favor of his own, or Bush's, policy preferences?
Bush's plan to give illegal aliens "guest-worker" status, which forgoes punishment for their law violations and therefore meets the definition of amnesty, was shot down by Congress earlier this year. Then, just a couple of weeks after November 2nd, Bush went down to Santiago, Chile and insulted those who voted for him by announcing that he would expend the "political capital" earned in his reelection to grant guest-worker status to millions of illegal aliens.
Two dozen congressmen wrote a letter to the President opposing his plan, primarily for national security reasons, but Bush brushed them off with elitist disdain. "I get letters all the time from people who are trying to steer me one way or the other," he said; "I'm going to move forward."
Bush made his commitment during a half-hour meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox. Bush said, "I made it very clear my position that we need to make sure that where there's a willing worker and a willing employer, that that job ought to be filled legally in cases where Americans will not fill that job."
With Bush's mantra, repeated ad nauseam, it's no wonder that Bernard Kerik didn't think it important to reveal to the White House vetting process that he was a "willing employer" who employed a housekeeper/nanny who was an alien "willing worker" illegally living in the underground economy. Of course, he wasn't paying Social Security taxes for her.
Maybe he expected President Bush's attitude to be: "No problem, Kerik. Since the nanny has a job, I'll just give her a guest-worker permit, and in three years she can get it renewed and then have permanent residency."
When Bush speaks of a "willing employer" and a "willing worker," he never talks about the wage the employer is willing to pay or the wage the worker is willing to accept. There are billions of non-Americans who are willing to work for Third World wages and, as the Bernard Kerik case proves, there are U.S. multimillionaires who would rather enjoy the cheap labor provided by aliens than pay the wages Americans expect.
The way President Bush steamrollered the Intelligence bill through Congress this December, demanding that the House abandon its sensible provisions for border security, indicates that he may be willing to split the Republican Party in order to carry out his promise to Vicente Fox. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) emerged a hero in the legislative battle because he fought all the way to include strong border security and a prohibition against granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens, finally saying that the failure to include this "will keep Americans unnecessarily at risk."
It was dishonest of the media and the pro-open-borders Senators to try to pit Sensenbrenner against the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. In fact, the final report of the 9/11 Commission came out strongly for the necessity of clamping down on border security and driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
The 9/11 Commission report stated: "It is elemental to border security to know who is coming into the country.... At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists."
Even though the 9/11 hijackers' driver's licenses enabled them to freely travel throughout our country like American citizens with easy access to vehicles and buildings, all the time concealing their terrorist designs, the Senators and the White House irrationally maintained that driver's licenses should not be denied to illegal aliens. Since Rep. Sensenbrenner's courageous stand forced these issues onto the national news, we hope Congress will deal with the problem of illegal aliens in January.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
Bookmarks