CALIFORNIA YANKEE

This Is Reform?

At RedState, here and here, my esteemed colleague Rob Bluey reports that once again a so-called immigration "reform" deal is imminent.

Little is publicly known about the latest "reform" effort. What is known suggests that it will do little to discourage illegal aliens from crossing the Mexican border.

The Washington Times reports the administration, trying to win an immigration agreement with Democrats, is backing away from safeguards designed to target businesses that hire illegal aliens and to prevent a repeat of the rampant fraud that resulted from the 1986 amnesty.

According to the Associated Press and the NewYork Times, the current proposal adopts a point system to reduce the number of family members of illegal aliens that would otherwise be permitted after the illegal aliens are legalized.

The Washington Post reports the tentative deal, allows illegal aliens, who crossed into the country before January 1 would be offered a temporary-residency permit while they await a new "Z Visa" that would allow them to live and work lawfully here:

The head of an illegal-immigrant household would have eight years to return to his or her home country to apply for permanent legal residence for members of the household, but each Z Visa itself would be renewable indefinitely, as long as the holder passes a criminal background check, remains fully employed and pays a $5,000 fine, plus a paperwork-processing fee.

A separate, temporary-worker program would be established for 400,000 migrants a year. Each temporary work visa would be good for two years and could be renewed up to three times, as long as the worker leaves the country for a year between renewals.

Those provisions would be effective only after the federal government implements tough new border controls and a crackdown on employers that hire illegal immigrants, including 18,000 new Border Patrol agents, 370 miles of additional border fencing and an effective, electronic employee-verification system for the workplace.

From the Wall Street Journal we learn it will take about 13 years for illegal aliens, who qualify and have survive the screening process, to become a citizens. The Journal also warns that tougher employer verification rules that will very well impact American citizens when we change jobs.

You are sure to recall that last year a great immigration reform compromise was announced only to fall victim to New York Senator Charles (Chuck) Schumer's belief that the failure to get an immigration reform bill would help the Democrats regain power in the midterm elections.

That compromise dealt with the 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. by proposing to treat illegal aliens differently based upon the length of time they have been in the U.S.:

Those who have lived in the country at least five years would be put on a path toward guaranteed citizenship, provided that they remained employed, paid fines and back taxes, and learned English, a senior Republican aide said. The aide said this group accounted for about 7 million of the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants believed to be living here.

Those who have lived here for two to five years, said to number about three million, would have to leave the country briefly before reporting to an American port of entry, where they would be classified as temporary workers. They would be allowed to apply for citizenship but would have no guarantee of obtaining it. Those who did not would have to leave after participating in the temporary worker program for six years.

The remaining one million or so, those who have lived in the country less than two years, would be required to leave. They could apply for temporary worker status but would not be guaranteed it.

I supported last year's compromise. My main objection to all previous proposals to give legal status to illegal aliens was that it would just encourage more illegal aliens as did the amnesty authorized by the 1986 Immigration Reform Act.

The new proposal doesn't seem to contain anything to discourage the ongoing flood of illegals crossing the border. To the contrary, If enacted into law this proposal will ensure that an ever greater number of illegal aliens will continue to sneak across the border. And why not, we continue to encourage the tidal wave of illegal aliens flooding the country. By allowing those that disregard the nation's immigration laws to remain here and pursue citizenship. This latest proposal sends a simple message - get into the United States anyway you can because eventually you will legalized.

That message will be heard loud and clear just as it was with the adoption of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"). That "immigration reform" legalized 4 million illegal aliens. IRCA has been a monumental failure. Twenty years later there 12 million illegal aliens to legalize. If amnesty is now given to these millions, then we should only expect that twenty years from now we will have to consider granting amnesty to 36 million more illegal aliens.

I have commended President Bush and his willingness to try and reform immigration since he announced his initiative in January 2004. True reform might well include some path to citizenship, but it must be seen to discourage the flood tide of illegals constantly crossing the border.

Also posted at Examining Presidential Politics.

Rebirth Of "The Fairness Doctrine"

Legislation is being drafted in the House, which would require the government to police the radio airwaves to ensure broadcasters present what the government decides are balanced viewpoints.

According to MSNBC's Howard Fineman, this is part of the Democrats drive against the Right's perceived success on talk radio. The Democrats’ goal is to reinstate the so-called “fairness doctrine,” abolished by the Federal Communications Commission in 1987 because it inhibited debate and the free flow of information.

The Democrats, unable to compete in the free market of ideas where citizens now have a choice as to which commentators deserve attention, want to revert to a government-imposed mandate that extremist left wing views be forced upon us. Unbelievable, in the land of the free, where we cherish freedom of speech and thought, the Democrats want the government to require us to be exposed to ideas which the liberals progressives couldn't sell with that failed free market outlet for extreme left-wing views - Air America.

Speaker Pelosi is unwilling to stop this unwarranted diminishment of our freedom. Unlike Pelosi, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is opposed to the Democrats' efforts to establish federal speech police:

Our Founding Fathers understood free speech is fundamental to our nation and sought to protect it with the First Amendment. As a strong supporter of First Amendment freedoms for all Americans, I will continue to work to prevent government limitations on speech.

The latest attempt by House Democrats to revive the misnamed ‘fairness doctrine’ will silence active political voices and limit the free flow of information. Government is not the speech police and I will not support these efforts to restrict free speech.

Political debate is among the most important democratic traditions of our nation and a hallmark of free society. We must continue to preserve the right of all Americans to express their views.

Radio should remain a "free market" of ideas not a medium where ideas are government controlled.

Edwards Rebuked

Edwards, the self-proclaimed multimillionaire champion of the middle class who lives in a humongous mansion and requires his campaign pay for his $400 haircuts as well as spa treatments, leads a crass attempt to "politicize" Memorial Day. The Democratic presidential wannabee, who stars in the popular YouTube video "I feel Pretty," and who four years ago earned the nickname "Breck girl," asks his supporters to use the holiday to denounce the war.

"REVOLTING," that's what the leader of the American Legion calls John Edwards' efforts to dishonor Memorial Day by attempting to make the holiday an antiwar statement:

"Revolting is a kind word for it. It's as inappropriate as a political bumper sticker on an Arlington headstone," Morin wrote on the Legion's Web site. "Edwards is hardly the first politician from either political party to exploit this day, a holiday that was consecrated with the blood of American heroes. But the e-mail makes me sick nonetheless."

[. . .]

"It's not about picnics or trips to the beach. It's not about making pro- or anti-war statements. It's not about supporting political candidates," Morin wrote.

The special website Edwards setup to support this despicable perversion of the day this nation set aside to honor and recognize the ultimate sacrifice made by so many, suggests this activity:

Get vocal. Buy a bunch of poster-board and markers. At a picnic or with family and friends, make signs that say “SUPPORT THE TROOPS - END THE WAR.” Bring them to your local Memorial Day parade. Then take a digital photo of yourself and your family or friends holding up the poster and tell us about it. We’ll include it in a “Democracy Photo Album” on our site.

Edwards' attempt to seek a personal political advantage by dishonoring the sacrifice of our heros is a sad departure from the way Memorial Day is usually celebrated in this country.

U.S. Army soldiers of the 3rd U.S. Infantry, The Old Guard, place American flags in front of grave markers during the "Flags In" ceremony in Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Va., May 25, 2006. Photos courtesy of the Defense Dept. by William D. Moss.

A flag waves in front of the Tomb of the Unknowns also known as the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier for the "Flag's In" ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Va. May 25, 2006.

Chris Wallace On Bill Clinton's Temper Tantrum

Betsy Rothstein, of 20 Questions, interviewed Chris Wallace, host of “Fox News Sunday,” about tonight’s GOP debate.

During the interview, Rothstein asked about former President Clinton's temper tantrum:

After your testy exchange with former President Clinton, do you think you can get along with the presidential hopefuls and not make them angry?

Well, I don’t think it was a testy exchange. I think he was testy; I was polite.

[. . .]

Did you have any hint that that was going to happen with Clinton?

No, and I don’t think he did either. I know the Clinton team likes to make it seem that this was pre-planned on their part, but the fact that the president’s press secretary tried to get the cameras turned off as soon as the president erupted convinces me that it was as pre-planned as a car wreck.

How do you feel about it now?

I’m delighted, and I think [Clinton] is delighted as well. We ran into each other at party a couple of months ago and there were no hard feelings. It clearly attracted a lot of viewers to our show, and I think [Clinton] feels that it had the effect of energizing the Democratic base.

You will recall, former President Clinton lost it when Chris Wallace asked him whether he'd done to hunt for Osama bin Laden.

VoteVets Target McCain

VoteVets will target Senator John McCain, by broadcasting the organization's newest antiwar ad on Fox News Channel after tonight's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina.

The ad, which can be seen here, is a slightly edited version of the ad that caused CBS News to fire retired U.S. Army Major General John Batiste as a consultant

The antiwar organization doesn't like McCain's steadfast support of our revised war strategy.

Also posted at Presidential Politics.

Taking Heat Over Mother Teresa

A Catholic advocacy group is urging New York Senator Hillary Clinton to remove an image of Mother Teresa from a campaign video narrated by former President Bill Clinton:

"It is wholly inappropriate, disrespectful and disturbing that Hillary Clinton is using an image of Blessed Mother Teresa as a political tool, especially given their radically different views on abortion," said Fidelis President Joseph Cella.

He noted that Mother Teresa fought to protect unborn children, while Hillary Clinton "staunchly supports abortion on demand in all nine months of pregnancy, including partial birth abortion and taxpayer funding of abortion."

A shot of Mother Teresa standing with then-First Lady Hillary Clinton appears in the five-minute campaign video. The video then cuts to a clip of Mrs. Clinton's address at the 1995 Beijing Conference, in which she says, "It is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights." The Beijing Conference tried to declare abortion a fundamental human right, something the video fails to mention. The video of Hillary's campaign video is available here.

Mother Teresa sent a letter to the 1995 Beijing Conference in which she condemned abortion:

That special power of loving that belongs to a woman is seen most clearly when she becomes a mother. Motherhood is the gift of God to women....Yet we can destroy this gift of motherhood, especially by the evil of abortion .... No job, no plans, no possessions, no idea of 'freedom' can take the place of love.

It was a huge mistake on the part of Hillary to allow the video to cut from the picture of Hillary and Mother Teresa to the Beijing Conference. Inappropriate, disrespectful and misleading.

Also posted at Examining Presidential Politics.

Michael Moore Challenges Fred Thompson To Debate

In a publicity stunt for his new project, Michael challenged Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson to a debate:

Our debate would provide you an opportunity to appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party by continuing to attack me; it would give me a chance to discuss health care and tell you exactly what happened in Cuba, given your apparent inters; and it would provide the American people an opportunity to see just how serious Hollywood can be, with a purported conservative and an avowed progressive Hollywood personality on stage.

Thomson replied to Moore in a video, which you can watch below.

If Fred campaigns like that for president, he will be a formidable candidate.

Fred Waiting Until July

Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson will wait a little longer to decide whether to run for president.

Last week, Thompson said he is "ready to run," but not decided:

He told Cate he’s “ready to run” personally, and that opening an exploratory campaign committee would be the logical first step.

He wouldn’t commit to any timetable, but suggested that he thinks voters need to know before fall what their choices in the race will be.

Thompson also implied he would make a decision by September:

He wouldn’t commit to any timetable, but suggested that he thinks voters need to know before fall what their choices in the race will be.

His decision may come sooner. According to Chuck Raasch, political editor for Gannett News Service, there are several reasons why Thompson may announce whether he's running around July 1:

First, July is the start of the next three-month fundraising reporting schedule. If Thompson were to announce in June, the fundraising clock would start ticking and an unimpressive quarterly fundraising report released in July could dampen the enthusiasm his teasing candidacy has enjoyed this spring.

Second, Thompson already is on TV more than his potential rivals. His campaign tease is getting more publicity than many of the announced presidential candidates are getting. Should Thompson announce he's running, the broadcasting fairness doctrine would place Thompson's acting career on hiatus.

Third, Thompson needs time to deal with his multiple acting and business obligations, including his radio commentary for ABC.

Though he’s not a declared candidate, and hasn’t even formed an exploratory committee, Thompson still registers third in polls, behind the two Republican leaders, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, and ahead declared candidates, former Governors Romney, Huckabee, and Tommy Thompson.

Waiting until September, like the strategy adopted by former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, is a mistake. It is now less likely that a successful campaign can be announced just weeks before the Iowa caucuses as Bill Clinton did in 1992. The front loading of the 2008 primaries, and 20 candidates, requires an earlier commitment.

Hillary vs. Obama

A new strategy for Rudy courtesy of LisaNova and MadTV

Richardson's Job Interview

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's Presidential campaign has released two new television ads in hopes of breaking away from the rest of the also rans.

I think the ads are the best of the 2008 campaign., but that isn't saying much. The first ad, entitled "Job Interview," summarizes Richardson's public service. The second, "Tell Me," continues the series by touching on a number of his achievements as governor. You can watch the ads below: