The Quiet Conservative May 2, 2010
From Arizona to Puerto Rico
Part 1. Arizona
Arizona kicked off a firestorm of Progressive outrage when it passed its immigration law this week.
The mainstream press gasped in indignation and the professional race hustlers all booked airline tickets
for another potential money making opportunity. Saturday rallies were staged across the country to
protest this racist policy of making a federal crime a state crime. There were the typical Nazi signs with
the picture of the Arizona governor and hyperbolic statements in the press. But Arizona did not
commit an act of racism or xenophobia. Arizona is thirty percent Hispanic to begin with. Arizona
acted in self defense to deal with an issue of law enforcement, fiscal necessity, and obligation as a state
government. Their border with Mexico is wide open and the federal government isn't doing squat.
“I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby
people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation.” was
the statement by Cardinal Roger Mahoney of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles- thereby showing that
two knuckle deep nose pickers were not exclusive to the media. This leader of the Church hasn't a
clue to what he is talking about. There is nothing in the law that differs significantly from our national
laws on immigration, other than now the state authorities are allowed to enforce the federal statutes on
a local level. For a cleric who believes in fidelity to divine law, the advocating of disobedience to a just
secular law is the definition of hypocrisy.
The lies are too numerous to document about Arizona's action. But this is a quick and direct way of
knowing the lie when you hear it. Any officer at any level has to have "reasonable suspicion" that he
must be able to articulate when requesting identification or stopping someone. That is the standard set
by the courts. The Arizona law originally passed with "lawful contact" and has been amended to
appease the vapor locked to more specifically this standard.
So what? The Liberal speaks. All Arizonans and all Arizonan cops are racist liars. They will just do it
anyway. The answer to that bit of what passes for thinking is civil litigation. That is the remedy also
specified by the courts. It's why cops nationwide don't chase bad guys anymore. They are more
afraid of law suits than of getting shot. If an officer or department engages in conduct that is unlawful
or a violation of someone's civil rights, any one of a number of ambulance chasers will be more than
happy to file a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the department and the officer. That puts a damper
on the whole concentration camp shtick from the ignorant Cardinal. No, while cries of racism are
rampant by the perpetually outraged, they are simply knee jerk reactions from people that haven't taken
the time to look at the Arizona Law- and how it is really the federal law that can now be enforced by
the state in the absence of any federal help.
Speaking of federal statutes and someone who should be familiar with them, President Obama, not
learning a thing from the beer summit, directed the Justice Department to look into Arizona's possible
civil rights violations: “You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona…suddenly, if you
don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”
Federal law requires that legal immigrants to this country carry documents with you at all times. The
statement shows that the President is either unfamiliar with federal law, or is unwilling to enforce it in
any way. The very hostility the President shows to Arizona's attempt to handle its illegal alien problem
is indicative that the President doesn't want the border enforced at all, which is in line with the rest of
the Marxist Progressive crowd.
Now, the funniest thing about the whole controversy is that American immigration laws, and Arizona's
immigration law which is the same thing, is far more lenient than Mexico's. None of the professional
agitators this weekend have ever been hustled and bussed to an event to protest Mexico's treatment of
Guatemalans or Hondurans. As for the illegal aliens themselves, they are illegally here. When a
politically correct liberal starts spouting about their civil rights, the correct response is that they
shouldn't have any, they aren't American citizens. They are Mexican nationals that sneak across the
border because the money is good. They don't want to be American citizens, they just want American
money.
This is the biggest blind spot in the vast desert of liberal thinking. When Arizona entered the recession
just like everywhere else, illegal immigrants in the state dropped by 18%. Those people weren't finding
a better way of life by coming to the states, they were finding a better paycheck to send back home.
When the money wasn't so good, they went home. They weren't American wannabes, they were
Mexicans who wanted to be wealthy Mexicans. The flip side to that, of course, is that by having a
permanent underclass of labor, the wages for everyone else here becomes depressed too. In 2007
when the feds raided Swift company meat plants, the same Progressives were shouting then too. It
seems wages were $9 an hour at the time of the raids. With the sudden loss of illegal labor to fill the
slots, wages went up to $20 an hour, and there was a line around the block for the new jobs. Strange
thing too, the wages were that high before the illegals took over the jobs in the first place. Mexicans
aren't doing the jobs Americans won't do, they are doing the jobs Americans will do but at less than
half the price.
The Left on all levels have portrayed support for Arizona's efforts as racist. The President implied it.
The Cardinal implied it. The entire corrupt media cabal promotes the idea. The quick throw down of
the race card is made to trump any consideration of the actual impact of an invasion from across the
border. But it won't wash.
70% of Arizona supports the law. They live at the border and suffer a disproportionate burden from
illegal immigration. Should the state law be repealed tomorrow, much to the ballyhoo of Liberals, the
illegal immigrants would still be illegal under federal law. They would still be a burden on the state of
Arizona. They still would be using services, depressing the wages, and greatly increasing the crime
rate. The only thing the Arizona law did was to empower the state of Arizona to do the job the
federals refused to do in enforcing the border. It isn't racism, it is justice and the proper role of
government.
Part 2. Puerto Rico
Meanwhile, almost lost in the frenzy feeding over Arizona, was the bill passed by Congress (223-169)
concerning Puerto Rico. This island is a US territory and the people of Puerto Rico are US citizens.
The vote in Congress was to have Puerto Rico vote on whether they want to remain a territory, or
become something else. The motive behind the bill and the timing of the bill isn't just suspect, it is a
mark of fear on the behalf of the national Democratic Party that the raging anger across the nation will
sweep them from office this November. Puerto Rico could potentially add two senators, six
congressmen, and four million voters to the Democratic tally. Anyone who still belongs to the national
Democratic Party should, by now, understand that whatever their party does, they do so in an effort to
harm the nation, tear it down, and remake it into something less than it was. The motive behind
presenting the bill is not noble, moral, or with the best interests of the nation or the territory of Puerto
Rico at heart.
I desperately hope that despite the reasons behind it, the Puerto Rican people get the chance to vote in
favor of the motion and become the 51st State. I think it is the best thing that could happen to our
country and to the island. If the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico want to stand equally with the rest of the
country, they should. There are enough people here that are not proud (and are taught to not be
proud) of America. To have four million people suddenly say that this country is the greatest on Earth
and that they want to be a part of it fully is fantastic. It means they believe in America. They believe
in the idea of America. They want to be fully a part of American exceptionalism.
Here is the section of the House bill that defined the choices:
SEC. 2. FEDERALLY SANCTIONED PROCESS FOR PUERTO RICO'S SELF-
DETERMINATION.
(a) First Plebiscite- The Government of Puerto Rico is authorized to conduct a plebiscite in Puerto
Rico. The 2 options set forth on the ballot shall be preceded by the following statement: `Instructions:
Mark one of the following 2 options:
`(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here
XX.
`(2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.'.
(b) Procedure if Majority in First Plebiscite Favors Option 1- If a majority of the ballots in the
plebiscite are cast in favor of Option 1, the Government of Puerto Rico is authorized to conduct
additional plebiscites under subsection (a) at intervals of every 8 years from the date that the results of
the prior plebiscite are certified under section 3(d).
(c) Procedure if Majority in First Plebiscite Favors Option 2- If a majority of the ballots in a plebiscite
conducted pursuant to subsection (a) or (b) are cast in favor of Option 2, the Government of Puerto
Rico is authorized to conduct a plebiscite on the following 4 options:
(1) Independence: Puerto Rico should become fully independent from the United States. If you agree,
mark here XX.
(2) Sovereignty in Association with the United States: Puerto Rico and the United States should form a
political association between sovereign nations that will not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the
United States Constitution. If you agree, mark here XX.
(3) Statehood: Puerto Rico should be admitted as a State of the Union. If you agree, mark here XX.
(4) Commonwealth: Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you
agree, mark here XXX.
The steps were to be simple. In the first vote the people of Puerto Rico can choose to remain a
territory or become something else. If they choose something else, the original bill stated they had
three choices: become independent, a sovereign nation in association with the US, or a state.
In an amendment to the bill the fourth choice, remain a commonwealth, was added back in. This was
done to split the vote and keep the status quo. It was done to dilute the push for statehood. It wasn't
done by Democrats, it was proposed by Republican Virginia Foxx of North Carolina. It passed 223-
179. The reason behind the bill was no more moral or honorable than the reason behind presenting the
bill. But this time, it is not doing the right thing for the wrong reason, it is doing the wrong thing for
the wrong reason. Republicans do not want two more Democratic senators, six more Democratic
congressmen, and potentially four million Democratic voters voting in the national election. So instead
the push is to deny Americans full representation.
In the 1998 non binding plebiscite results, roughly 2.5% favored independence, 46% wanted statehood,
50% went to none of the above, and only .06% wanted to keep Puerto Rico as it was. The "none of
the above" cannot be determined in that many forces were at work to split the vote. That was why
that option was on the ballot. By putting "none of the above" as a choice anyone with an agenda could
convince a section of the population that this was a lesser of the evils to choose from. This same
mentality occurred with adding the fourth choice on the new ballot now through the Foxx amendment.
Though conservative pundits described the first form of the ballot as "rigged" or a "trick" by excluding
the choice of remaining a commonwealth on the second part of the vote, it was no such thing.
Everyone who votes knows it will be a two part vote. The first is to determine whether to remain a
commonwealth or not. Since that vote got .06% in the 1998 plebiscite, there is every indication the
people of Puerto Rico are not happy with their status. The second vote, among the three choices, was
statehood, independence, or a sovereign nation in association with the US. What those on the right
objected to was the fact that of the three choices, statehood was the most popular and most likely.
This is why they claimed the ballot was fixed towards statehood. The people would want it. Like that
is a bad thing?
The amendment adding the fourth choice is an attempt to divide up the vote once again, until there is
no majority. It should fail. Unlike the nebulous "none of the above" which could be sold any way you
wanted it, the likelihood of splitting among clear choices is far less predetermined. Those voting for the
amendment and against the bill have done a dishonorable thing. They are trying to deny the people of
Puerto Rico a chance to make their island a state.
This doesn't fall along party lines either. Louis Gutierrez (D Ill) is against the measure and tried to
introduce the nebulous "none of the above" amendment. At the same time he is a strong supporter of
"immigration reform." That is a misnomer for amnesty for illegal aliens already in the states, and
throwing the border open to any drug smuggler or MS-13 member who cares to set up shop north of
the Rio Grande. Yet the same person who was for "reform" didn't want 4 million Spanish speaking
Puerto Ricans able to vote in the National elections. Why? Why would Representative Gutierrez want
ten million plus illegal Mexicans nationalized, and prevent four million plus Puerto Ricans from voting
in national elections? Is this more truly racism than that which the Right is perennially accused of? Or
do you think Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are the same?
The roll call for the vote showed thirty nine Republicans voted for the resolution and forty Democrats
voted against the resolution. Almost everyone had an angle and none of the angles dealt with
principles. At least none have come forward with them. What was disappointing to see was that the
three Republicans from Kansas: Jenkins, Tiahart, and Moran voted no, while Moore (whose name will
always live in infamy for the health care vote) voted yes. The people of Puerto Rico are as much
United States citizens as you or I. But, because they live in a territory and not a state, they cannot vote
in national elections. Three out of four Kansas congressmen voted to deny those American citizens a
chance to vote on their status.
Will this make it through the Senate and be signed by President Obama? With all the flack on other
issues it might well likely die. It shouldn't, but moral people are not in power. The people of Puerto
Rico need to be heard. They need to keep pushing for full representation and a chance to stand equal
with the other fifty states.
In the end, the difference between Arizona and Puerto Rico is that Arizona decided that half a million
illegal aliens in their state is an invasion that isn't being stopped by the feds so they will have to protect
themselves. Puerto Rico is a US territory with four million Americans being kept in a territorial status
because of the politics of people that do not want the status quo disturbed, regardless of the wish of the
people there.
Conservatives believe in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Americans
have the right to have their government be accountable to them. Puerto Rico is America. They have
the right to decide. Arizona is a state. They have a right to protect themselves from invasion. From
Arizona to Puerto Rico, the status quo isn't going to stay that way. Nor should it. People are going to
act in the absence of moral government.