Language is very important in politics. The earliest stage of a political fight is often the fight to gain control of the terms used in the debate. Supporters of the bland sounding “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” really don’t like it when opponents call their various schemes “amnesty”. Why? No one wants to be seen as rewarding criminal behavior even when that’s EXACTLY what they are doing. So supporters of amnesty will go to great lengths and intellectual contortions to make sure no one dares use that term.

Take a look at how Marco Rubio, one of the key figures in the most recent amnesty push, phrases the argument.

We have de facto amnesty right now

No we donÂ’t.

If we did, why are we going through this whole process in the first place? If we had de facto amnesty, we wouldnÂ’t hear about how hard it is for illegal immigrants to live in the shadows. If we had de facto amnesty, we wouldnÂ’t be deporting anyone. If we had de facto amnesty, there wouldnÂ’t be a thriving black market for illicit work documents and identity theft.

Amnesty supporters will tell you it can’t be amnesty because illegal immigrants will say there are "tough but fair" penalties for illegal immigrants such as paying a fine of some sort, have to pay back taxes and “go to the back of the line” behind those waiting to come here legally for permanent residency and citizenship.

The last bit is particularly deceitful. The “back of the line” language is designed to make it sound like a real penalty is being imposed on illegals. The reality according to amnesty supporter Chuck Schumer is they would get big rewards up front with no penalties of any sort.

"On day one of our bill, the people without status who are not criminals or security risks will be able to live and work here legally."

According to Rubio, the "penalties" will come years down the road when illegal aliens apply for green cards.

As for the path to citizenship, as Rubio explained when he rolled out his ideas a couple of weeks ago, the senators envision a temporary legal status and then the opportunity to obtain a green card, upon payment of back taxes, learn English, and a background check “among other requirements.” (Although there was no mention of Rubio’s suggestions for fines or community services is made.) The path to citizenship provisions also emphasize that none of the illegal immigrants could jump ahead of those who have legally been pursuing a green card.

In short...illegals will gain immediate legal status upon enactment of the law with no penalty until some unidentified time far off in the future. How is that not amnesty? Until we see the actual legislation, we don't even know if illegals will have to apply for a green card or citizenship. It's very possible whatever category of visa they get upon passage of the scheme will entitle them to stay for as long as they want.

more...

Posted by: DrewM at 06:30 AM | Comments (555)
Post contains 916 words, total size 6 kb.

Happy Tuesday.

France is "totally bankrupt," says the French labour minister. Hollande's government is now denying it vigorously, saying the labour minister "mispoke," but the flight of French capital from Hollande's insanely huge taxes is unmistakeable. I love the picture the Telegraph chose to illustrate this article.

Rasmussen finds just 36 percent now identify as "pro-life," down from 43 percent in January 2012. Thank you, Rep. Akin.

Lucasfilm (now under the control of Disney) is cancelling the 3D re-releases of the previous movies, thank God.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder is sending the state's new right-to-work law directly to the state Supreme Court for review. Unions were shopping around for their favorite lower court judges to stay the law pending review, so Snyder decided to moot that process and ask the Supremes to make with the final ruling already. Republicans currently have a 4-2 majority on the state Supreme Court, after a Democratic justice "retired" last month upon discovery of her extensive money laundering and property fraud.

State Department office to close Guantanamo closes before Guantanamo does.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 AM | Comments (247)
Post contains 184 words, total size 2 kb.

We're All Victor Laszlo Now

Professor Jacobson of Legal Insurrection isn't giving up:

I have not given in to all the doom and gloom, although it's hard not to.  There is a deliberate effort to declare the Republican Party, conservatives, and the Tea Party movement over.  Operation Demoralize never stops.

And often the effects of demoralization are far worse than any particular defeat. You can recover from losses but not from an internal defeat of the spirit.

And Joe Engel follows up on this:

As tempting as it is sometimes to compare our inept and feckless Republican leaders to Marshal Pétain and his Vichy toadies, that only highlights how unwarranted the demoralization is.

Because for all our despair and disappointment, life in America 2013 is hardly comparable to life in Casablanca 1942.  Those who were caught in hegemonic limbo never knew whether today was the day they'd be rounded up as one of the "usual suspects" and pay the ultimate price as an enemy of the German state.

Yet even while the movie Casablanca was being shot through the summer of '42, the Allied invasion of North Africa was being plotted, culminating that November in Morocco's liberation.

So here, be inspired.  And sing loud-louder than they do.  We're all Victor Laszlo now.

I'm shocked, shocked that demoralization is taking place in this establishment.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:06 PM | Comments (743)
Post contains 865 words, total size 9 kb.

A few nights ago, a moment of inspiration filled me with a serious question...

what if we are already dead, and this is all just a flashback?

Posted by: CAC at 04:44 PM | Comments (399)
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

Indeed.

Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allan, 18, spend each day watching their 47in flatscreen TV and smoking 40 cigarettes between them in their comfy two-bedroom flat.

It is all funded by the taxpayer, yet the couple say they deserve sympathy because they are “trapped”.

They even claim they are entitled to their generous handouts because their hard-working parents have been paying tax for years.

The couple, who have a four-month-old daughter Tullulah-Rose, say they can’t go out to work as they could not survive on less than their £1,473-a-month benefits.

The pair left school with no qualifications, and say there is no point looking for jobs because they will never be able to earn as much as they get in handouts.

We can pour moral scorn on them, but they'll ignore the moral scorn and just keep taking the $2400 per month (or whatever) benefits.

If you're paying someone to do a job, they're going to do that job, because they have to do that job to stay alive. Moral scorn won't deter them. And in this case, England -- and the US, too -- is hiring people to sit in their apartments and collect checks from taxpayers.

And so they're going to keep doing that job, aren't they?

Even Bill Maher noted this, in his inimitable style (by which I mean not funny, and also not perceptive). And yet, he still finally got around to wondering that if we continue escalating benefits for the nonworking, gee willickers, doesn't that mean the working will have to pay a lot more?

Solvency, generous government benefits, a social order that no longer penalizes people for engaging in costly behaviors they can't pay for, but rather encourages them to do what thou will: Choose any two.

Posted by: Ace at 03:41 PM | Comments (467)
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

Definitely no peaking this time.

Posted by: CAC at 03:27 PM | Comments (129)
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.

A reminder of the mindset we're dealing with on guns appears below the fold. more...

Posted by: andy at 04:20 AM | Comments (352)
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

Why does every establishment news organization, supposedly unique in its mission of providing "truth" to its audience, make it its core mission to lie to the customer?

The new New Republic claims it will be free of party ideology or partisan bias. I honestly donÂ’t know exactly what Hughes means by this, but it strikes me as a very bad start. A New Republic that is liberalism-free has no reason to exist (much as a National Review that is conservatism-free is pointless). A liberal New Republic that pretends itÂ’s free of liberalism while it attempts to advance liberalism is a huge step backwards. After all, why should the reader trust a bunch of committed liberal opinion journalists if they canÂ’t even be honest about what they are or what they are trying to do?

If the first thing out of someone's mouth is a childish and stupid lie -- not even a clever one, not the sort of lie that makes you think "Oh my that's wicked" -- why stick around for the second thing?

His second public action as TNR owner was to betray the promise he made in the first.

Based on that interview with Obama, I’d say Hughes is not striving that hard or he’s not good at what he’s striving to do or — most likely — he only wants to appeal to Democrats, so he only wants to do enough to seem to be free of party ideology and partisan bias to Democrats. Is this enough to make our target audience feel good about the nourishment they’re getting from this source? The good feeling is some combination of seeming like professional journalism while satisfying their emotional needs that are intertwined their political ideology and love of party.

Looks like TNR has decided to be Catfish: The Magazine.

Yeah I don't really know what Catfish is either but I'm informed it's a Topical Reference Which Will Appeal to the Youth Demographic. I made the grotesque error of watching part of Saturday Night Live this week (I remembered it even existed) and found them referencing it in their inimitable style, by which I mean, it wasn't funny.

Posted by: Ace at 02:39 PM | Comments (239)
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.

Instant amnesty in exchange for... eventual border protection, according to a plan cooked up by seven "veteran amnesty supporters" plus Marco Rubio.

Instant amnesty, in exchange for nothing but a promise?

We've never heard this before.

The amnesty is instant and the border controlling will never come.

Liberals are assuring other liberals that the "border control" elements of this plan are in fact a sham to provide some cover to Republicans.

Supposedly a commission will determine if border control has proceeded sufficiently so that the second tranche of the deal can go through (full citizenship), but...

As Sharry [an amnesty advocate who supports the plan] put it, Democrats realize that they can’t “allow the commission to have a real veto” over setting in motion the path to citizenship. He noted that Dems see the commission as “something that gives the Republicans a talking point” to claim they are prioritizing tough enforcement, giving themselves cover to back a process that “won’t stop people from getting citizenship.” However, Sharry added: “The details of this are going to matter hugely, and we’ll have to fight like hell on the individual provisions.”

That said, Sharry concluded: “This is a left of center framework.”

Ross Douthat observed on Twitter that the GOP is rushing heedlessly to increase the vote share of Latinos, without doing anything else to actually attract them as voters.

And, in fact, as a party we can't do anything to attract the majority of them as voters -- they're pro-government, pro-welfare-state, and all the rest.

They're also increasingly pro-choice and liberal on social matters.

So after we extend citizenship and voting rights to 11 million Government Clients, what's Step 2 of our master plan?

Maybe this is our plan for destroying ObamaCare.

Comprehensive immigration reform could make millions of people suddenly eligible for assistance under President ObamaÂ’s healthcare law, assuming a final deal paves the way for undocumented immigrants to receive papers.

…”We have to figure out a way in which [undocumented immigrants] incorporate themselves into the larger workforce, and into our society in general, and not be a burden,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), a leader in the immigration debate.

“Do we want them to go to the exchanges? Absolutely we do — if and when they don’t have healthcare through their employer,” he said.

Posted by: Ace at 12:50 PM | Comments (693)
Post contains 383 words, total size 3 kb.

As Marion Ravenwood said, "Must've slipped his mind."

The man is nefarious.

Martha Raddatz, the latest ABC "reporter" to pass up on the story, is a woman, but the quote's about a man, so.

And speaking of the state-run media, apparently 60 Minutes ran a particularly soft double-interview with Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Kirstin Powers calls it propaganda you'd expect to see from a "state-run media."

Something occurred to me: The preference cascade I was talking about did happen. But it's happened in the press. They feel empowered, they feel history is on their side, they feel the audience is inclining to the liberal position, and so they're not hiding it anymore.

Which, of course, suggests that the very limited amount of Hiding It they did was not for purposes of ethics, but simply for pecuniary reasons; that is, they pretended a little bit simply to not lose parts of the audience.

But, as Instapundit has noted, "ethics" pretends to be some sort of code that provides hygiene to the industry whereas, in fact, "ethics" are usually created precisely to protect the industry, and cover up its excesses.

The media claims, for example, that "ethics" preclude them from revealing their voting histories and their politics, because revealing such would compromise their objectivity.

Bullshit. Their objectivity is already compromised. Objectivity is compromised by bias; it is not compromised by the admission of bias. In fact, the admission of bias increases partiality. Hiding one's bias is dishonest as a first matter but then further creates an environment in which honesty is denigrated, and thus leads to further dishonesty.

The industries have imposed this rule not to serve the public better but to withhold from the public crucial information, which information, while helpful and important to the public in evaluating media reports, would hurt the media itself. That is, if CNN admitted it was liberal, it would in fact be providing more helpful, useful information to its audience, but some of that audience might stop watching it.

This "rule" is a complete lie, and an indefensible one. The "ethical rule" only exists to deceive the public and is directly contrary to the interests of the public; the only beneficiary of this "ethical rule" is the industry itself.

So I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that the media is now treating an "ethical rule," supposedly dictated by non-self-interested considerations, as what it always was, a simple matter of self-interest.

And since they think they won't be punished, market-wise, for showing some more liberal leg, boy are they showing it.

Posted by: Ace at 11:36 AM | Comments (387)
Post contains 484 words, total size 4 kb.