Slate: Cruz & Rubio called each other soft on illegals, and they're both wrong

Another day, another commentator gets border control and ILLEGAL immigration wrong.

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio both got immigration facts wrong. 
[C]onservative Hispanic leaders met with Cruz’s campaign chairman on Monday to raise precisely this point with him. They were concerned that he was “perhaps worse” than Trump on immigrationafter Cruz’s campaign expressed to them that he believes in "attrition through enforcement”—the idea that if life is miserable enough for immigrants, this will act as a deterrent to other potential immigrants, thus solving the immigration crisis in one easy, inhumane step. This is also known as Mitt Romney’s “self-deportation” immigration position that cost him the Latino vote in 2012, and thus, many argue, the presidency.... 
Cruz and Rubio are the only two Latino candidates on both sides of the race. They are both of Cuban immigrant parents. And neither of them have strayed far from the Republican Party’s hard line against immigration, a fact Latino groups have duly taken note of, calling them “traitors” and “sellouts.” But the truth is that even though Cruz’s claims about Rubio were wrong, and even though Latino groups are angry at them both, Rubio is slightly softer—or as I like to call it, slightly more humaneon immigration. Offering some kind of path to citizenship, however narrow, is something Rubio should be proud of, not trying to hide.

Or, as honest people call that, "ILLEGAL immigration.
" Something that I understand no other country tolerates as much as the U.S. That needs to change. We export plenty of money, missions and other support to lesser developed countries to be required to foster an underclass of uneducated, non-American, non-English-speaking in this country. We are babysitter, foster parent and guardian of other countries as it is.

So, another self-appointed expert on immigration conflates legally entering the United States with the continuing problem of ILLEGAL immigration. Illegal immigration, as in, entering the United States in a fashion that flouts every law regarding immigration, and continuing to evade legal habits while in the country, such as stealing Social Security numbers and utilizing government clinics and other programs meant for destitute and poor citizens and -- should be -- legal visitors to this country. LEGAL immigration is an ENTIRELY different matter. It's taking the legal route to being in the country.

Here's a few facts that this expert, like too many on every side of the debate, forget to include:
First, it is NOT the fault of the illegal immigrants that they are here; it is the fault of our government and political leaders on both sides. Taking a hard line against illegals as people is crude, but as both Rubio and Cruz accept (just ask them), a hard line against ignoring our own laws by the system itself is an honorable thing to do. We -- U.S. citizens, legal immigrants, descendants of immigrants, or Native American -- cannot blame illegals for their being here. We should not make them a target of our rancor, because that is not going to solve the problem. It is our failure as a nation to enforce our laws that have permitted illegals to remain, and it is through the encouragement of businesses that exploit the very cheap labor many of them provide, and Democrat politicians and bureaucrats who use them to draw Hispanic/Latino voters that are to blame. The illegals are overwhelmingly trying to cheat the system to have some sort of better life. There are the gangsters and the problem of "sanctuary cities" that blindly protect illegals, no matter their criminal tendencies that are nothing I sympathize with.
Second, is this idea -- it seems the Slate writer holds it -- that most illegals would want to be American citizens if given the chance. I don't know who exactly that would be, but I do not think it is the low-wage workers from Guatemala or Mexico. I think you will discover that, for the most part, they just want to work here and earn money for their families (here and in their homeland). Many do not have any interest in becoming Americans. I suggest we figure out if they are interested in citizenship or not. Because it is a false and distracting argument promoted by left-leaning activists and shills for Democratic Party campaigns that all these illegals crossing our southern borders are coming here to become citizens eventually. I think that is only likely among a small percentage of them, and a small percentage of those who overstay their student or work visas. They might want to continue to work here, but they want to be expats, not citizens.


 - jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Syrian refugee hypocrisy and the success of Obama's cowardice

Is the United States, are the governors or the majority of US states, isolationist or heartless if we do not want to accept thousands of Syrian refugees? 

The real issue, to me, is WHY bring them here? Why is it our problem, on our land? Why can't the closest nations do more? Why can't we do more through cooperation with those nearby states? Why are we the country (or, internally, the Republican Party) being beat up for "isolationism" when it's not so, and when it is not the a worthy (or legitimate) issue to debate?

We should be debating the problems of the Middle Eastern states. We should be asking why Assad is still in power. We should be asking why Obama's so brashly concerned about bringing in refugees from thousands of miles away, when his Veterans Administration cannot serve our military servicemen and servicewomen effectively. Why should we be guilty or ashamed of not wanting refugees at this moment in time? There are other ways to effectively deal with the refugee situation, and the refugees. 

Monetarily, "Britain has donated more than Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar combined" (look it up). So, where are all the good, non-extremist, modern-oriented Muslim/Arab countries? Where are the Muslim theocracies? The oil-rich empires? Where is their heart? Where is their support? And why is there not more of it? Why aren't they taking in refugees, coordinating help? Taking in more refugees? All the refugees? Why are they not ridding the world of Assad's dictatorship?! Then, the refugees could think about heading back home.

The news is filled with opinions that the US would somehow be guilty of something if we do not take in refugees. How guilty are Middle Eastern states, similarly? Why aren't we first looking at them? It should be clear that most Arab states are by and large guilty of isolationism well beyond what the US might ever be. 

I await a day when the liberties of the US are exported, not when the rampant illiteracy, misery, and oppression of crap-holes like Syria are imported. 

Hold onto your phone/mouse/tablet as you read this (and read to the end, please): 

If there's one thing Pres. Barack Obama has accomplished internationally that I consider worthwhile, it's to cause the world to realize that the United States might not be there for them someday when they need us. That said, I'm very disappointed that the message was sent through a tenor of cheap diplomacy and weak messaging. And a message of US weakness.  

Man up, world. And, world, don't think the USA will be long under the rule of a hippie-bred academic. Because it will not be. 


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Who wants to reduce all citizens' liberty? Is it Obama or the NRA?

President Obama (see article, link at bottom) said that gun lobbyists' "grip" on Congress is, in effect, to blame for mass murders with guns. So, simply, crazy killers are the blame of the NRA, or any other firearms education and civil rights organization with millions of members. And, I imagine, we can include all the gun manufacturers in that list of evil lobbyists, too. But Obama doesn't cite them, specifically, because then he'll have cops and the military on his ass, as he does the NRA, gun owners and hunters. That LEOs and the armed services aren't already chastising him in unison is a matter of THEIR patience and respect for order, I'd gather. It has little to do with Obama. 

The  has a grip, indeed, though it is on the clear purpose of the Second Amendment, not the bent one the nanny state left promotes. Unlike Mr. Obama, who seems to have a very loose grip on the Constitutional idea of a citizenry free from government tyranny.

Criminals will NOT bring in their guns to the nearest police station because you ask them to, Mr. President. It is beyond buffoonery to continue to propel the myth that restricting public's gun ownership would have prevented  or other mass murders, with guns or without. 

What a shame that a group which insists upon upholding the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns and not have to register them is bashed by the people who lead us, and entire PARTY system that wants to lead us exclusively.

Too bad that the POTUS of a once free country promotes the idea that the lack of freedom for all will improve the odds of horrible crimes from happening. That will assure only one thing: only police, military and criminals (true criminals and renegade gun owners, which could be grandmas in Harlem or cowboys in Texas) will then have firearms. Which is how citizens plummet into the serfdom of democratic socialism and other forms of soft tyranny. 

I think we should and can trust the government, but only insofar as they are willing to trust law abiding citizens, and respect their right to join any civil rights groups they choose, such as the noble -- and totally, completely and undeniably anti-crime -- NRA. If you're not a member, if you don't read their publications, then you know nothing about them, except what statist haters want to tell you (inaccurately) about the NRA. It's members are all about gun safety. 

Obama, meanwhile, seems to be for government expansion -- of debt, deficit and tyrannical potential. The Second Amendment isn't about "lax" gun laws, it is about superior gun rights, and so is the NRA.  


Obama blames the NRA for 'lax gun laws' and gun violence (at IBT.com)


- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Obama: 'this kind of mass violence does not happen' in other countries

Obama was once again vacant of actionable, realistic ideas, but big on ideological, statist and big government, nanny state vision for safety, in his comments after the Charleston AME church murders by a lone 21-year-old with a gifted handgun.
"We do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun," Obama said at the White House. "At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it."
Other advanced countries rely on us and our stellar economy, military and international influence to keep them safe, strong and bustling right along with us. The idea of individual liberty is lacking in those places as well. So, as usual, the unimaginative POTUS says the wrong thing at the wrong time. He might have said something about mental health, taking responsibility for one's family members, and using SENSE when gifting guns. Instead, he promoted a losing battle against the NRA and responsible gun owners of the US, by batching them in with lone homicidal nut jobs.

If this Root fellow didn't have a gun, he could have built a bomb. Or used a knife. Or STOLEN a gun and used that. Or a baseball bat. Or a bow and arrow. Since the gun was a gift, he might have been exactly the wrong kind of person to be gifted a gun. It is obvious now, but maybe it was not so obvious always.

No matter, blaming guns for violence, and not looking to determinants of violence such as mental problems, is a crass way to address a problem in a free country. Blaming the inherently anti-tyrant amendment to the Constitution for mass murder is not the way to prove you are in favor of liberty. Suggesting that America is failing its people because the government cannot refuse gun ownership to whomever it chooses is NOT American. Obama is a wannabe post-America leader. The America he knows only existing since about his birth date. It appears that he simply does not believe in the Constitution, this being another example of that. He is all about government control, about elites reigning over useful idiots and a weak opposition. Government control is the progressive answer to all problems. Obama is not really a Democrat, he is a statist progressive.

Obama: 'Senseless murders' in church shooting - CNNPolitics.com

- jR, aka AirFarceOne (Twitter)

Insurers eye ObamaCare hikes

Call it Obamacare. Or something other than it's given name. It is a misnomer to call it the Affordable Care Act. It is not affordable, not healthy, and lacking much care for the free market that made the country so prosperous. And the act is the one being played on people who fell for it years ago, and is still being played on them and the rest of us who can see this is not serving the greater good, only single-payer, eventually.  

It is not serving the greater good. It is hurting anyone with dependents who isn't earning well into the high $60k. (Unless they are not earning a thing, and exempt from paying their own way.)

Not only are Obamacare rates increasing, but rates for ALL HEALTH COVERAGE are going up. And at an impressive rate. If you don't believe it, just ask anyone in a medium-sized or small business just after they see their annual coverage enrollment changes. They're going to be hit with some bad personal financial news.

But never fear: states are regulating us all into prosperity:


Under ObamaCare, states have the power to challenge rate increases they consider to be "unreasonable."

Some states — including Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut and Oregon — are known for taking a strong role in regulating the rates.

Other states, particularly where leaders prefer a free market approach, are much less likely to challenge rates. In Florida, Republican Gov. Rick Scott has said he would not allow state regulators to tamp down rate increases.

"Some states just raise questions about trend[s] and approve different things," said Claxton of the Kaiser Family Foundation.





jR @airfarceone on Twitter
Write me at rusetopia@gmail.com