With malice toward none, Liberty Dispatch thinks Republican Representative Tom McClintock' s opinion on immigration is correct and fair and one the United States can be proud of. Most Democrat Party lawmakers disagree. Rep. Tom McClintock gave the speech below in response to President Calderon's lecture to Congress. Given in the House Chamber, Washington, D.C. May 20, 2010.
M. Speaker:
I rise to take strong exception to the speech of the President of Mexico while in this chamber today.
The Mexican government has made it very clear for many years that it holds American sovereignty in contempt and President Calderon’s behavior as a guest of the Congress confirms and underscores this attitude.
It is highly inappropriate for the President of Mexico to lecture Americans on American immigration policy, just as it would be for Americans to lecture Mexico on its laws.
It is obvious that President Calderon does not understand the nature of America or the purpose of our immigration law.
Unlike Mexico’s immigration law -- which is brutally exclusionary -- the purpose of America’s law is not to keep people out. It is to assure that as people come to the United States, they do so with the intention of becoming Americans and of raising their children as Americans.
Unlike Mexico, our nation embraces immigration and what makes that possible is assimilation.
A century ago President Teddy Roosevelt put it this way. He said:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
That is how we have built one great nation from the people of all the nations of the world.
The largest group of immigrants now comes from Mexico. A recent RAND study discovered that during most of the 20th Century, while our immigration laws were actually enforced, assimilation worked and made possible the swift attainment of the American dream for millions of immigrants seeking to escape conditions in Mexico.
That is the broader meaning of our nation’s motto, “E Pluribus Unum” – from many people, one people, the American people.
But there is now an element in our political structure that seeks to undermine that concept of “E Pluribus Unum.” It seeks to hyphenate Americans, to develop linguistic divisions, to assign rights and preferences based on race and ethnicity, and to elevate devotion to foreign ideologies and traditions, while at the same time denigrating American culture, American values and American founding principles.
In order to do so, they know that they have to stop the process of assimilation. In order to do that, they must undermine our immigration laws.
It is an outrage that a foreign head of state would appear in this chamber and actively seek to do so. And it is a disgrace that he would be cheered on from the left wing of the White House and by many Democrats in this Congress.
Arizona has not adopted a new immigration law. All it has done is to enforce existing law that President Obama refuses to enforce. It is hardly a radical policy to suggest that if an officer on a routine traffic stop encounters a driver with no driver’s license, no passport, and who doesn’t speak English, that maybe that individual might be here illegally.
And to those who say we must reform our immigration laws – I reply that we don’t need to reform them – we need to enforce them. Just as every other government does. Just as Mexico does.
Above all, this is a debate of, by and for the American people. If President Calderon wishes to participate in that debate, I invite him to obey our immigration laws, apply for citizenship, do what 600,000 LEGAL immigrants to our nation are doing right now, learn our history and our customs, and become an American. And then he will have every right to participate in that debate.
Until then, I would politely invite him to have the courtesy while a guest of this Congress to abide by the fundamental rules of diplomacy between civilized nations not to meddle in each other’s domestic debates.
COUNTY JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR SUPPORT
Whether you were for or against its purchase, drive by the old Wal-Mart building in Liberty today and it is difficult not to consider the possibilities that such a large well located building could have. Continue on in to the city and drive by the courthouse and one is reminded of how messy the politics have become since County Judge Phil Fitzgerald, Commissioner Norman Brown and others decided to pursue purchasing the building and possibly consolidating county offices and the local hospital.
Ray Akins, along with others, stated publicly that the best use of this property could be county offices and an advanced trauma care facility for the county. He also went on to say, "If the taxpayers are going to be stuck with the Hospital District Taxing entity, we should use the money for the highest tech 21st century trauma care available." Akins went on to say, "The price paid for this property was not proportionate to the current real property market values, someone made off like a bandit."
All of that said, it is time to compartmentalize and to again move forward. Let the people that are unscrambling what has gone on in the courthouse do their work while we encourage public officials to do the best job they can possibly do for Liberty County. With that in mind, even Judge Fitzgerald's toughest critic must admit he is a good horse trader and may be the best county judge we have had in a long time to plan and negotiate what we ultimately do with the Wal-Mart building.
Those of us who critique public officials may ought to back off and give the County Judge some encouragement to finish what he started. His business experience and his ability to negotiate, coupled with the original vision for where the county could benefit by this building, makes for a good rationale to ask our leaders to make a priority of this project. Rather than let the building sit there unused and off of the tax rolls, go forward and see what happens.
As a taxpayer, we can't let the politics of the time limit the progress we can make for future generations. Norman Brown and Lee Groce are running for reelection as commissioners and we need to encourage them to deal with the reality of the fact that we, as a county, own this building and we want them to make the best use of it that is available.
In this area we might not be able to count on Groce if he is going to be a sourpuss because he voted against it. But Commissioner Brown has been dealing with trying to be creative and make the best use of resources since the first time he was elected seven years ago. Taxpayers should encourage Brown and Fitzgerald and the rest of the commissioners to explore the possibilities and to move forward.
This project is not necessarily a white elephant. It has great possibilities. In fact, years from now citizens may look back at this time and these men and be thankful for their forward thinking and their creative effort. Let's not waste this summer like the November election has some magical spell over progress, let's move forward...
News Staff
Ray Akins, along with others, stated publicly that the best use of this property could be county offices and an advanced trauma care facility for the county. He also went on to say, "If the taxpayers are going to be stuck with the Hospital District Taxing entity, we should use the money for the highest tech 21st century trauma care available." Akins went on to say, "The price paid for this property was not proportionate to the current real property market values, someone made off like a bandit."
All of that said, it is time to compartmentalize and to again move forward. Let the people that are unscrambling what has gone on in the courthouse do their work while we encourage public officials to do the best job they can possibly do for Liberty County. With that in mind, even Judge Fitzgerald's toughest critic must admit he is a good horse trader and may be the best county judge we have had in a long time to plan and negotiate what we ultimately do with the Wal-Mart building.
Those of us who critique public officials may ought to back off and give the County Judge some encouragement to finish what he started. His business experience and his ability to negotiate, coupled with the original vision for where the county could benefit by this building, makes for a good rationale to ask our leaders to make a priority of this project. Rather than let the building sit there unused and off of the tax rolls, go forward and see what happens.
As a taxpayer, we can't let the politics of the time limit the progress we can make for future generations. Norman Brown and Lee Groce are running for reelection as commissioners and we need to encourage them to deal with the reality of the fact that we, as a county, own this building and we want them to make the best use of it that is available.
In this area we might not be able to count on Groce if he is going to be a sourpuss because he voted against it. But Commissioner Brown has been dealing with trying to be creative and make the best use of resources since the first time he was elected seven years ago. Taxpayers should encourage Brown and Fitzgerald and the rest of the commissioners to explore the possibilities and to move forward.
This project is not necessarily a white elephant. It has great possibilities. In fact, years from now citizens may look back at this time and these men and be thankful for their forward thinking and their creative effort. Let's not waste this summer like the November election has some magical spell over progress, let's move forward...
News Staff
Study shows broad support for Arizona migrant law
The controversial Arizona law passed last month requires state and local police, after making "lawful contact," to check the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect is in the country illegally, and arrest those who cannot prove it.
The report by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (www.people-press.org) found that 59 percent of adults polled in a national survey gave their overall approval to the law, which opponents charge is unconstitutional and a mandate for racial profiling.
Seventy-three percent said they backed a measure requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them, while 67 percent approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify that they are in the country legally.
The new law has pushed a debate over immigration to the fore in U.S. politics, and rebooted a drive by Obama and Senate Democrats to overhaul federal immigration laws -- although it is seen as a longshot before November congressional elections.
Obama supports a system allowing undocumented immigrants in good standing to pay a fine, learn English and become citizens. He also backs tightening border security and clamping down on employers that hire undocumented workers.
The survey, carried out among 994 adults -- found that only 25 percent supported Obama's handling of immigration policy, while more than twice as many -- 54 percent -- said they disapproved.
It found that Democrats are evenly split over the Arizona law -- which is set to come into effect at the end of July -- with 45 percent backing it and 46 percent saying they disapprove of it.
The measure, signed into law by Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, has triggered an international furor and unleashed legal challenges and calls for an economic boycott of the Grand Canyon state.
On Tuesday, United Nations human rights experts added their voices to criticism of the law, saying it may lead to police targeting people on the basis of ethnic origin, in violation of international law.
(Reuters)
Liberty Dispatch supports the State of Arizona's legal right to control it's immigration issues.
The report by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (www.people-press.org) found that 59 percent of adults polled in a national survey gave their overall approval to the law, which opponents charge is unconstitutional and a mandate for racial profiling.
Seventy-three percent said they backed a measure requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them, while 67 percent approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify that they are in the country legally.
The new law has pushed a debate over immigration to the fore in U.S. politics, and rebooted a drive by Obama and Senate Democrats to overhaul federal immigration laws -- although it is seen as a longshot before November congressional elections.
Obama supports a system allowing undocumented immigrants in good standing to pay a fine, learn English and become citizens. He also backs tightening border security and clamping down on employers that hire undocumented workers.
The survey, carried out among 994 adults -- found that only 25 percent supported Obama's handling of immigration policy, while more than twice as many -- 54 percent -- said they disapproved.
It found that Democrats are evenly split over the Arizona law -- which is set to come into effect at the end of July -- with 45 percent backing it and 46 percent saying they disapprove of it.
The measure, signed into law by Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, has triggered an international furor and unleashed legal challenges and calls for an economic boycott of the Grand Canyon state.
On Tuesday, United Nations human rights experts added their voices to criticism of the law, saying it may lead to police targeting people on the basis of ethnic origin, in violation of international law.
(Reuters)
Liberty Dispatch supports the State of Arizona's legal right to control it's immigration issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
