Illegals and amnesty: loopholes, schmoopholes
If there anyone on earth who is surprised at this news?:
President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty will make it easier for illegal immigrants to improperly register and vote in elections, state elections officials testified to Congress on Thursday, saying that the driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers they will be granted create a major voting loophole.
While stressing that it remains illegal for noncitizens to vote, secretaries of state from Ohio and Kansas said they won’t have the tools to sniff out illegal immigrants who register anyway, ignoring stiff penalties to fill out the registration forms that are easily available at shopping malls, motor vehicle bureaus and in curbside registration drives.
The article contains quotes from various Democrats with the usual “no one will actually do this so there’s nothing to worry about” as well as the “oh, they could already do it anyway” routine. Yes, of course, people who’ve been here illegally for years with all that implies wouldn’t risk breaking the law! And certainly no one would ever offer them money to do this, either! Not to mention those who might actually think that their new status confers on them the bona fide right to vote.
Is this really an unintended “loophole” through which the purpose of the law can be evaded? No, no, a thousand times no. It is a feature rather than a bug as far as Obama and the Democrats are concerned. There was and will be no effort to make it difficult for illegals to vote, although this could have been easily done. The fact that the secretaries of state “don’t have the tools to sniff out illegal immigrants who register” is no accident whatsoever; they have been purposely kept from having them by Democrats.
Not sure, though, whether the following are unintentional loopholes or not. But I doubt they are anything that Obama is upset about. They are things that would probably have been ironed out if these laws had been passed by Congress, but of course that was never going to happen, and so Obama took up his pen and phone and didn’t bother with all those pesky details (or was actually pleased with those details):
…[There is] a perverse incentive created by Obamacare that would make newly legalized workers more attractive to some businesses than American workers and complications with the tax code.
The newly legalized workers can apply for back refunds from the IRS even for years when they didn’t file their taxes, agency Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress on Wednesday.
Mr. Koskinen [of the IRS] said the White House never spoke with him about potential consequences before Mr. Obama announced his policy changes. The secretaries of state who testified to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Thursday said they too never heard from Mr. Obama ahead of time.
The MSM (and his party, of course) lets Obama get away with this sort of thing, so it reinforces the behavior because there have been no serious consequences.
The last paragraph of the article is of some interest, too:
Only four states require proof of citizenship before someone registers to vote, Mr. Kobach said. And even in those states, the federal government offers voter registration cards that don’t require proof of citizenship, giving determined illegal immigrants a way to circumvent checks.
Wonderful.
The comments section of the article features a lot of angry conservatives demanding that the newly-elected GOP DO SOMETHING!!! My response is that, even if the Republicans were united on what to do (which they are not), their options without a 2/3 majority in the Senate to override a veto (or to convict if impeached) are limited, and involve government shutdowns or defunding Homeland Security or similar moves that remain highly unpopular with the American public although popular with conservatives. Obama was always highly confident that not only did the Republicans lack the will to stop him, but that even if they could muster the will the majority of the American people would back him in any sort of standoff.
You or I may think the GOP should do it anyway, but you can’t pretend it’s not a very real and very difficult dilemma for them, even for those who want to stop Obama’s amnesty.
[NOTE: One thing Republicans can do that’s not directly related but is somewhat related is to pass a strong border security bill. Of course, Obama would either veto it or make sure it’s not enforced. But they need to do it anyway.]
You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows was the title of a position paper they distributed at an SDS convention in Chicago on June 18, 1969. This founding document called for a “white fighting force” to be allied with the “Black Liberation Movement” and other radical movements to achieve “the destruction of US imperialism and achieve a classless world”: world communism….
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/no-longer-merely-on-the-way-the-revolution-is-here
Next question?
all according to plan.
”Of course, Obama would either veto it [border security legislation] or make sure it’s not enforced. But they need to do it anyway.]
How, significantly, does that aspiration differ from the other — impeachment? Why is conviction so all fired important. Isn’t it enough they ought, strike that, need to do it anyway.
J’accuse, bring the evidence, damn the convictions. Make of his treachery a public record that the MSM would not even hint at.
And on the fed tax refund thingie to illegals who never paid taxes in the first place, they also get to make those claims retroactively as well up to 3 years, getting up to $25,000 each in total.
George Pal:
The Clinton impeachment proved how important conviction is.
There is absolutely no chance of convicting Obama, as has been discussed before on this blog. To impeach him would enhance his status with the American people and make it seem as though Republicans were wasting their time in order to be cruel to the first black president. Racists!!
Impeachment would be worse than a waste of time; it would be counterproductive. Many conservatives would cheer, but I believe they are being shortsighted, and are more interested in getting a nice dose of Obama-blaming theater to enjoy, without understanding how damaging it would be to the conservative cause.
Bank on it that they know exactly which voting precincts need a little help tipping in the right direction.
Welcome to Los Estados Unidos de America, bitches*. RIP Nov 4, 2008.
* as the left would say.
I half suspect it’s more than a feature, it’s the whole point of open borders. Dilute those pesky conservative voters to ensure a near permanent Democrat majority.
The fall back position is watering the tree of liberty.
neo-neocon,
How could it enhance his status? Those lines have been pretty much demarcated, those camps pretty much set.
The low information voter who is in neither Party’s pocket, nor in either ideological camp, may be induced, at least swayed to see the treachery. And it is never counterproductive, in the long run, to resort to the truth — and the law. Furthermore, it would put the Obamanistas on the defensive. They would have to explain how he had said one thing then and another now. They would have to torque the Constitution into explaining O’s actions, mal/misfeasance, treachery. The MSM would have no trouble doing just that, along with randomly discharged epithets of RACISS. But in the dock, in the well, justification for Obama’s treachery would have to be made legally, not hyperbolically.
Finally, there is no cause, conservative or otherwise, if it is not caused, i.e., acted upon. A cause for which little or no action is forthcoming is not a cause — it’s a pretense.
Apparently we in the USA who have been living under the rule of law are now reduced to really really living way under the rule of law. So far under that the life is being squeezed out of us.
Revolt? Never. The toughness to do that was sucked out of us a long time ago.
Don Carlos,
I will admit that I am restricted to my knowledge of my extended family, close friends, and most of my neighbors; but I believe 10% of us are tough enough and 10% is more than enough. We’re just keeping the powder dry until the first shot is fired by the kevlar ninja death squads. All they can do is kill you, and if they want to kill you they will kill everyone you care for. In the final analysis you have nothing left to lose.
The entire and sole purpose of Obama’s ‘executive’ amnesty is to increase democrat ‘votes’ and to subvert constitutional governance. Once they have enough votes, the left can change the constitution to say whatever they wish it to state.
“But in the dock, in the well, justification for Obama’s treachery would have to be made legally, not hyperbolically.” George Pal
Democrat Senators and traitorous RINOs do NOT have to legally justify their vote, all they have to do is state that for them, there was ‘reasonable doubt’. Impeachment is NOT about legalities but politics, i.e. whatever the public demands or will accept. You may be sure that anyone who voted for Obama’s impeachment would be repeatedly and passionately labeled a racist. In the future, voting republican would be de facto proof of being a racist with the GOP the equivalent of a modern John Birch Society.
GB: not sure I agree about them trying to get enough votes to change the constitution. It’s not slowing them down now and they feel free to ignore it. The Democrats want to keep enlarging the welfare state and their share of the voters. As best I can tell, the Republicans only care about getting cheap labor.
Geoffrey,
You say, ”Impeachment is NOT about legalities but politics, i.e. whatever the public demands or will accept.”
You have set the cart ahead of the horse. Impeachment is most assuredly NOT about politics. It is an indictment, with counts – of malfeasance, and/or criminal behavior, and/or treachery. These counts have to be argued in formal legal adjudication. What is political, is conviction/acquittal. My entire argument for impeachment is I don’t give a hang about the political outcome but I do believe the indictment ought be made, argued, for the sake of making the case – for what is or is not so; for what had been said, done; a list of particulars of infringements, contraventions, breaches. Should the drama’s denouement turn into melodramatic bathos, i.e., at the end of the proceedings, should ninety-nine senators yell, in stentorian voice, “ALL HAIL CAESAR!” we would still be better off – and would know more than we had known.
Alexander the Great said :I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.”
Alexander never lost a battle, and his army was badly outnumbered more often than not.
It’s no secret there are no lions in the Republican party leadership, just sheep, and if they can manage to elect a sheep for President, they will do that too.
Furthermore, if a lion were to emerge from the ranks, I tend to believe he would be declawed by his own party before he could lead them in a different direction; which is why I am forced to conclude this is the direction – a strong, intrusive central government, that the party is content to follow.
KLSmith,
One approach does not obviate the other. While the Constitution remains, they are indeed happy to ignore it or to tout it, as it serves their purpose. And the purpose of he Democrats enlarging the welfare state is to increase their share of the voters. Short term, to win elections, long term to fundamentally transform the country, which cannot be completed without fundamentally transforming the Constitution, which can only be done legally by acquiring enough votes. It’s all of a piece.
As for the GOP leadership, its a bit more complex than them just wanting cheap labor. The GOP leadership’s behavior is motivated by two factors; personal aggrandizement and keeping their big donors happy, which means serving their interests. 62% of Romney’s 2012 donations came from big donors. The big donors want to maintain the financial status quo and increase their political leverage. Cheap labor assists them in doing so, as their financial resources grow, so too does their political influence.
It’s incredibly short sighted because when the left grows strong enough, most of their wealth will be ‘appropriated’ for the needs of the State. After all, “they didn’t build that”. That the GOP leadership and their big donors support amnesty is proof positive that they are so focused (greed) upon the trees, as to not see the forest. They are living proof of Lenin’s assertion that, “”The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
“The newly legalized workers can apply for back refunds from the IRS even for years when they didn’t file their taxes, agency Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress on Wednesday.”
Well I just did my taxes and was thinking!
How many “dependents” should I be able to claim?
47% of “LEGAL” citizens don’t pay any taxes. Now how many millions of “illegally” will get tax refunds from the 53% that do pay taxes?
Being part of the 53% that do pay taxes and let’s be perfectly clear the 47% that don’t and now millions of the illegals are “DEPENDENT” on myself and others that do pay taxes are really getting screwed.
Just thing out of the box … kinda like Obama and the liberals do all the time.
George Pal,
Your idealism interferes with your perception of reality. In principle, impeachment is indeed about the validity of the indictment’s legal charges. In reality, the politics of the circumstances greatly supersedes any legalities. And politics at its deepest level is about beliefs, which are determined by the individual’s degree of perception and mental ‘filters’ (upbringing, culture, etc).
We both agree as to the ‘horse’ and ‘cart’. Technically, I do have the cart before the horse but in your dismissal of the situation’s circumstances (damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!), it is you who have them reversed.
Your argument that Obama should be impeached regardless of outcome, so as to set the record straight is another example of idealism divorced from the reality of the situation. That is because the ‘winners’ write the history books and control the information that future generations learn. The reality of the situation is that Obama cannot be found guilty and that the technical charges against him in an impeachment trial in the Senate would, after it was over, be buried deeply by the winners. So your ‘setting the record strait’ would be exceedingly transitory and worse, counterproductive, given the permanence of the racism label.
Geoffrey Britain:
Agreed.
George Pal is of the Don Quixote sort. I wrote about the phenomenon here.
neo,
A world without idealism isn’t worth living in, a world without practicality, a nightmare. I suspect the Pal’s and Quixote’s of the world perceive practical considerations to be a betrayal of principle, instead of the ‘leavening’ that, combined with principle… creates wisdom.
Off topic; I and my parents watched Groundhog Day last night. My parents had never seen it and I hadn’t watched it in so many years that I’d forgotten all but the general theme and a vaguely happy ending. We all enjoyed it but at the end, I ‘got’ what I believe to be the story’s deepest message; our lives cannot meaningfully change, until we change those parts of ourselves that block a deeper fulfillment from manifesting.
The ‘twilight zone’ style repetition of just one day, ad infinitum… is I believe, a metaphor for how our lives remain on a relatively fixed path, (we can move, change jobs, etc. but there we are regardless of outer circumstance) unless our inner self changes.
Geoffrey Britain,
Idealism! I’ll have no truck with that in others, let alone myself. My ideal is that things would not be as they are but the gods have never consulted me as to what I would like. Since I take, with equanimity, things as they are, I find it perplexing when others will not take advantage of all there, is no matter how meager. If A through H are not available, but I is, why not make use of it?
If all that comes of an impeachment is exceedingly transitory and counterproductive then so be it. The salutary effect is in the long run — and it will be a long run. If all that may be done must be done only with immediate impact in mind, than we know not how dire the situation is. Quick fixes are for Liberals. Long marches for those committed to the long run.
… and neo-neocon.
Geoffrey Britain:
Yes, idealism and practicality must balance, somehow. Can be a difficult thing to calibrate, though.
Glad you liked “Groundhog Day”—again.
GB: still say that when there are more people in the wagon than there are pulling it – the country has been transformed. Formally changing the constitution isn’t necessary. The character of the people becomes more important than an old piece of parchment. Obama undid Clinton’s welfare reforms during his first few days in office. That is how important it was. If he never did another thing, that first push of the boulder over the cliff would be enough to ensure there would be no going back. The constitution hasn’t really mattered in this country for a long time. There is a reason cable companies offer free HBO. They know that most people won’t give it up after having it. Even half of the tea party didn’t want changes to Social Security.
George Pal,
To state that, “I take, with equanimity, things as they are” while simultaneously insisting that the political reality of how things are must be changed regardless of outcome… is an inherent contradiction in logic.
“If A through H are not available, but I is, why not make use of it?”
Several of us have explained why and simple dismissal does not invalidate the explanation.
“The salutary effect is in the long run — and it will be a long run.”
That MAY be so but is at least as likely to not be so. And if in the long run it is not salutary, you’ll have destroyed any possibility of a rebirth of conservatism among the LIVs. Long marches are indeed for those committed to the long run. Commitment however, does not in and of itself ensure success. Success demands a workable strategy.
neo,
That mix can indeed be difficult to calibrate, as the discussions on this blog demonstrate.
KLSmith,
There is no doubt that the country has already been transformed. Obama’s elections alone are proof of it. But that transformation is, if growing, still fundamentally limited in certain critical aspects. Aspects that cannot be changed without transformation of the Constitution.
So I disagree, formal revision of the Constitution is necessary because it is the only means to make lasting that fundamental transformation.
The character of the people is more important than “an old piece of parchment” but as the left has proven, the character of a people can change. Fortunately, it can change in both directions. We however will not create the conditions conducive to a change for the better, reality and the left shall.
Serious and highly unpleasant consequences await us on the path the left has America embarked upon. Reality is the one thing that invariably determines denials’ date of expiration.
Also, eventually ‘wolves’ must throw off their ‘skins of sheep’, some of those sheep are already beginning to awaken, like Alan Dershowitz and noted liberal Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley.
Remember that Obama’s undoing of Clinton’s welfare reforms can as easily be rescinded by another President.
Full fidelity to the Constitution hasn’t really been practiced in this country for a long time but… if it didn’t still matter, you and I and everyone else on this blog would either be in a reeducation camp or “pushing up daisy’s”.
The degree to which people don’t readily give up what they already have is determined by the risk/reward. Tea Party members who are reluctant to change Social Security are troubled by the prospect of finding an acceptable substitute. My 92 yr old father, who retired at 85, can’t replace it or do without it and survive.
In evaluating the reality of future prospects, a clear perspective is essential.