Treason Bites Back

Democrats suffer from their love of illegals.

For all that observing our modern political scene can be in turns enraging and depressing. it does offer one great pleasure: that of schadenfreude, or, the pleasure that comes from someone receiving a richly deserved misfortune.  And what a month for schadenfreude it has been!

If Donald Trump has one particular talent he likes to trumpet above all others, it's his skill as a negotiator.  And many decades of his success in business illustrate his style: one of aggressive, unpredictable, yet oddly affective brinksmanship.  Who but a brash New Yorker would dare to run out the clock to a government shutdown, then cut a deal to delay it by a few weeks - then do it again, and again, and yet again, we know not yet how many times!

Even when the government did technically shut down, by some masterful skill, it did so on a weekend when nobody would much notice or be affected.  Yes, one work day was lost, but somehow, everything people cared about was able to function with no delays beyond the normal delays we are accustomed to for government work.

The Democrats, of course, had been trumpeting that the world would end within seconds upon news of a government shutdown, as atoms and molecules spontaneously fly apart in the absence of a paid government inspector to make them stay put.  Nothing of the sort happened; they look like the fools they are.

If the left truly believed that government were responsible and essential for literally all that is good in the world, every moment of every day, and if they had the slightest spark of human decency, then we'd reasonably expect them to risk such a horror for only the most profound of reasons.  But no - as our Tweeter-in-Chief put it:

The Democrats are turning down services and security for citizens in favor of services and security for non-citizens. Not good!

Once again, the President has shown his matchless command of the pithy, meaningful soundbite, expressing a core truth in a way everyone can understand and even the media's best efforts cannot obfuscate.  The simple fact is, the House Republicans did pass a bill to fund the government, the Democrats did block it in the Senate, and - their own explanation - on behalf of the so-called "Dreamers," who are by definition non-citizens and thus not their constituents at all.

So, yes - if you believe that government is essential for survival every minute of every day, the Democrats sold out the citizens of the United States of America, on behalf of foreigners who are in a willfully ongoing state of breaking our laws.  How's that for government for the people?

Of course, the premise is false - we know the Democrats don't actually believe their lies or they'd never have dared to try it.  What's odd is how they continue to lie about the absolute essential nature of all-encompassing government, even though their own shutdown proves that deep down, they all know that it's not so.  They have cried wolf so many times that it's a wonder anyone even pretends to listen to them anymore.


You'd think that nobody could reach the heights of government without having at least some sense, right?  Some degree of brains, some mental talent, some intelligence or understanding?  They obviously aren't geniuses, but surely no actual moron could be successful in election after election, working their way up the greasy pole into power?

Comes now two news items that force us to question this premise.  First, the Washington Times reports:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was interrupted at a press event Monday by a group of over 100 immigration activists.

As Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, was speaking to a crowd in San Francisco, a group of so-called Dreamers or DACA recipients, people brought to the U.S. illegally as children, overtook the stage and began chanting...

Mrs. Pelosi was eventually forced to leave her event as protesters overtook the stage and continued chanting for over half an hour. She did not appear to respond to their accusations before leaving.

Holding the high office that she does, Ms. Pelosi never goes anywhere without armed guards whom we generously provide for her.  And let us repeat once again: by definition the "Dreamers" are in active violation of our laws, every moment that they are present in our country without legal permission.  If they were here legally, or if they were citizens, they wouldn't be "Dreamers."

What sort of madness is it, when the powerful and well-protected Mrs. Pelosi is driven bodily from her own press conference by a mob of people openly claiming, nay boasting, to be criminals?  Did it not occur to her to simply have her guards arrest them?  Or call for a vanload of ICE agents to enforce our laws by deporting them?

American citizens have First Amendment rights to protest.  Foreigners who are here legally do not - as some learned to their shock at the time of the Trump inauguration, our customs officials have every right and ability to refuse people from other nations who want to come here and protest against our government.  Foreigners who are here illegally have even less claim on our attention or sufferance.

You might tolerate your own kid criticizing you at the dinner table, even yelling and storming off.  Few of us would put up with such treatment from an invited dinner guest.  And nobody would tolerate someone breaking into your own home to cuss you out - you'd be on the phone with the police to come handcuff them and haul them off immediately.  How is this any different?

Well, the superannuated Ms. Pelosi is increasingly reported to be having mental difficulties of various sorts.  But she is far from alone in her illogical and self-defeating reaction to these obnoxious criminals.  Her fellow Democrat Charles Schumer has an even worse problem, as Fox informs us (with video evidence, in case you don't trust their reporting):

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) was on the receiving end of a pro-amnesty protest Tuesday night...

A Facebook page advertising an "Our Lives Are On The Line, Chuck" demonstration invited protesters to congregate at Schumer's apartment building along New York City's Prospect Park.

"If Chuck won't let us dream, we won't let him sleep," they chanted, according to video captured by a man at the scene.

Now, there has long been an obvious reason why most Democrats are so tolerant of illegals: when given the chance, they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.  Yet here we have a rather angry and annoyed group of illegals, who are drawing attention to themselves by protesting Democrats.

Presumably they wouldn't vote for Mr. Trump either, but if they're mad at the Dems, what's the point?  Why put up with bad press and annoyances from people you have every right to summarily turf out?

Indeed, that's what the Trump Administration may be, or should be, doing, to the shock and horror of the left:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has detained or deported several prominent immigrant activists across the country, prompting accusations from advocates that the Trump administration is improperly targeting political opponents.

That might sound disturbing, until you read several paragraphs further in - which few do - and discover the carefully veiled truth:

A top ICE official denied that the agency is targeting immigrants for deportation because of their activism. The agency says its priorities are immigrants who pose a threat to national and border security and public safety. Most, but not all, of the targeted immigrants have criminal records.

They may not have criminal records beyond being here, but if they are here illegally, they are criminals nonetheless.  There is no legal, rational, or moral reason why we should tolerate them protesting against our laws, our culture, or our country.  So "deporting prominent immigrant activists" is not merely legal, it's simple common sense!

Thus, in the true spirit of schadenfreude we encourage these "Dreamers" - these ongoing violators of our laws - to continue making themselves annoying nuisances to the Democrats who are the only reason they're still here.  By all means, keep Chuck Schumer up at night, so he won't have any energy to keep wrongfully fighting on your behalf!  The sooner they wear out their welcome entirely, the sooner they can be turfed out.

Then maybe our government can get back to representing our citizens and making it possible for us to fulfill our dreams - which, after all, is what it was created for in the first place by our forefathers at great expense of blood and treasure.

Read other articles by Hobbes or other articles on Immigration.
Reader Comments

Brilliant! I revel that the lunacy of the left (LOTL) is being showcased so wonderfully!!

January 28, 2018 9:33 PM

Well done. But don’t underestimate the Democrats formula for tax payer funded welfare benefits for votes. It’s worked with blue state govt unions, other minorities and the current 60+ million people collecting un prepaid benefits. I’m sure the dreamers expect serious First World goodies when they get citizenship. That’s why I think Trumps brilliant move has been to limit deductibility of SALT. Tought for blue states to buy votes when other states aren’t footing the bill. To kill the monster, you have to first stop feeding it.

January 28, 2018 10:32 PM

I see these protesters chanting, "All of us, or none of us," and I say, that is an easy choice. I take the second one.

January 28, 2018 10:57 PM

I saw this comment from a liberal on the Atlantic arguing that illegal non-citizens have full constitutional rights. Is it correct?

"No court system needed, non-citizens have no CIVIL rights."

You are embarrassingly ignorant of your own country's laws, to speak with such enthusiasm about them. Equality is baked into the fundament of our judicial system; we are prohibited from breaking our own laws in order to enforce the law, and the Constitution is the highest law. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently and repeatedly for well over a century that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment extends all the same constitutional rights for anyone within the jurisdiction (meaning, ! physical boundaries) of the United States, almost without exception (those exceptions being voting and gun ownership, the latter of which should enrage any genuine gun rights advocate). That means the right to due process, among many other things. From Yick Wo vs Hopkins:

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: 'Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge ! of the pr otection of equal laws."

From Wong Win vs United States:

"It must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United
States are entitled to the protection by those amendments [Fifth and
Sixth] and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or
other infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand
jury, nor deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of

From Plyler vs Doe:

"The illegal aliens who are ... challenging the state may claim the
benefit of the Equal Protection clause which provides that no state
shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.' Whatever his status under immigration laws, an alien is a
'person' in any ordinary sense of the term."

Your blathering about Operation Wetback only deepens the hole you've dug yourself. As you would k! now if yo u'd learned anything about that program beyond "lol we deported some ppl", Operation Wetback was resoundingly condemned for its numerous civil rights violations, including shipping people off to the wrong countries, leaving many deportees stranded in the middle of nowhere without food and water, thousands of formal complaints from documented workers, and even the wrongful deportation of hundreds of American citizens. And all in all, the INS only deported a few hundred thousand people while that program was in effect.

Here's some relevant backstory: Operation Wetback ultimately stemmed from racist and nativist backlash against Congress two years earlier overwhelmingly passing the first set of immigration laws in our history in which whiteness was not a fact! or. Anot her unfortunate fact: when the industry most impacted by those raids, agriculture, couldn't hire illegal workers, they ultimately mechanized rather than hiring more expensive American laborers. That had the effect of moving both undocumented and American workers into cities, and was a factor in the decline of many formerly thriving rural communities - because ultimately, all people have to eat and live somewhere and buy clothes, and American businesses benefit just as much from a dollar spent by an undocumented worker as by an American. It's certainly, and demonstrably better than nobody spending any money at all.

January 29, 2018 11:11 PM

Yes, various court judgments have made rulings along those lines.

The Supreme Court also said that the Negro had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect." Is that Holy Writ also?

The Constitution itself is crystal clear that our government was created by "We the People," for the express cause of "secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." That is a far cry from Everyone in the Whole Wide World.

We are not arguing that our government should summarily execute illegals suspected of murder without a fair trial. We simply say that they have no right to be here, and no right to due process arguments over their removal once the fact of their illegality has been sufficiently proven in front of a judge.

And as far as "jurisdiction" is concerned, that writer is ignoring the documented intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment, as explained in the New York Times of all places:

So, to sum up: If you hold all recent Supreme Court decisions as equal to the Constitution, then yes, your writer is very close to correct. If, however, you view the original intent of the Constitution and its amendments as being the ultimate law, then he is plainly wrong - as are many modern Supreme Court rulings. That's why it matters so much who gets put on the Court - it's not impossible for the Court to reverse itself, as it did in the infamous Dred Scott case and many, many others over the years.

January 30, 2018 6:55 AM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...