Obama’s Gonna Let Me Go

Illegal Immigrant Apprehended at Border: ‘Obama’s Gonna Let Me Go’

Illegal Immigrant Apprehended at Border: Obamas Gonna Let Me Go

MISSION, TX – APRIL 11: A U.S. Border Patrol agent guards a suspected drug smuggler on April 11, 2013 in Mission, Texas. Border Patrol agents with helicopter support from the Office of Air and Marine broke up a smuggling shipment of marijuana being transported across the border from Mexico into Texas. In addition to heavy drug smuggling in the area, Border Patrol agents say they have also seen an additional surge in immigrant traffic in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley sector since immigration reform negotiations began this year in Washington D.C. Credit: Getty Images

It seems even illegal immigrants seeking to cross over the U.S.-Mexico border are following the current immigration debate. Linda Vickers, who owns a ranch in Brooks County, Texas, told WOAI that she witnessed one man being arrested on her ranch and that he told the border agent Obama would let him go.

“The Border Patrol agent was loading one man up, and he told the officer in Spanish, ‘Obama’s gonna let me go’,” Vickers said.

Meanwhile, Border Patrol agents report that some immigrants will even ask, “Where do I go for my amnesty?” while they are surrendering.

Continue Reading

The Naïveté of Conservative Politicians (part two)

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Yesterday, I released part one: If you missed it, you may read it here.

 Continuing with Senator Marco Rubio’s attempt to convince us to follow him to the immigration promised land.

Rubio says we must first modernize our legal immigration system. I frankly don’t know what that even means, because no one, including Rubio, ever explains whsorry-its-the-lawat is so wrong with our current immigration laws. I do know one thing. We have thousands of immigration laws and most, if not all, are not enforced.

Is it just me, or does anyone else recall these politicians taking an oath to uphold the laws on the books? What a naïve notion, I know.

Rubio says he supports family-based migration. Family migration sounds to me, a bit like chain migration, where one family member is admitted and drags the entire family along with him. Not good.

He says, “We need a functional guest worker program so that, in times of low unemployment and rapid economic growth, our industries have the labor they need to continue growing.”

Times of low unemployment? Rapid economic growth? What, is he joking? As more and more progressives on both sides of the aisle gain a death grip on our government, low unemployment and private sector growth won’t be a concern.

Rubio adds, “Over 40% of our illegal immigrants entered legally and overstayed their visas. That’s why we need to have a complete system of tracking the entry and exit of visitors.”

I suppose the 40% just go underground after their visas expire? Not hardly. I’m sure we already have methods of finding them, our government just chooses not to. If one were to look hard enough I’m sure they would find a law pertaining to this that simply isn’t being followed. Also, anytime you hear a phrase like “complete system” oLatinos for Obamar “comprehensive system”, think “purposely-complicated” system with a ton of loopholes hidden in it.

Rubio says, “And we need to achieve control of our borders. This is not just an immigration issue; this is a national security and sovereignty issue. The southern border is actually divided into nine separate sectors. There has been progress made some sectors and not enough on others. We need to establish the high probability of intercepting illegals crossing in each of these sectors in a timely and effective manner.” Hooray! I finally, completely agree. I don’t agree that it needs to be part of a “Comprehensive Immigration Policy”. It should be a standalone initiative and nothing should be done before this is achieved. When a boat springs a leak you don’t start to bail first, you plug the leak first and then bail the water out. We need to plug the leak first.

Rubio goes on to explain, “We have to deal with those who are here without documents. I am not happy about the fact that we face this problem. But we do. Most of these are people who will be here for the rest of their lives with or without documents, so it is in our best interest to deal with them and to make sure this never happens again.”

And… He’s completely lost me. The entire statement is a crock and that “can not do” attitude is quite attractive also. So the right hand of the Republican Party concedes that 11 million criminal aliens will spend the rest of their lives in America. At the same time, the left hand claims to be able to prevent it from ever happening again. Do I have that correct?

Frankly, I don’t need to hear anymore from Sen. Rubio or any other politician that tells me, with a straight face, that we can allow these illegals to stay and somehow prevent others from coming in. It didn’t work in ‘86 when the lefties lied to Reagan about securing the border and it’s not going to work now.deport

I also just laugh at the want to enact new legislation. What good will new laws do if we already have laws up the wazzoo our ruling class chooses not to follow? More worthless laws won’t help.

I don’t wish to sound defeatist but until we rid ourselves of progressive representatives and an administration that fancies itself a monarchy, we have zero chance of accomplishing what needs to be done. That being, the sealing of our borders and the expulsion of all whom illegally entered our country and any offspring born here after the fact.

But, you may say; I’ve heard it would be impossible to find them all and extremely expensive to even try. Well, you’d be wrong on both counts. Last year Homeland Security admitted that it would be possible to find and deport all illegals but would cost over $135 billion. We couldn’t afford that, until you find out that it costs around $115 billion per year (and climbing) to keep them here. So, suck it up, spend the money and deport them. Then spend several more billion to really secure the border and in two years the entire endeavor has paid for itself. Problem solved. Then, and only then can we begin to work on a legal immigration system that will actually benefit us.

Malkin Beats Me to the Punch

I am a Santorum supporter. Rather than just explaining why I don’t support the other schmoes, I’ve had a request to write an article explaining my support for him.

Well, it appears, I don’t have to. Michelle Malkin has expressed her support for Santorum as well as I ever could.

From Michelle Malkin:

Rick Santorum opposed TARP.

He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.

Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual U.S. Senate waters.

He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum
has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth”, as Newt did.

Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.

Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.

He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics.

He rose above the fray by sticking to issues.

Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.

Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey.

I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul.

And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is.

If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists
at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t

changed for me in 2012.

Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer.

It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.”

For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine.

And at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them.