October 18, 2005

Deporting Illegals: Put Up or Shup Up

Filed under: Immigration,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:20 pm

From time to time, I have posted on the topic “Illegals Across America.”

I’ve been meaning to do it more often, but it’s one of those topics I collect links about, and the next thing you know, I have a dozen, and then a tough time creating a post that wouldn’t be a mile long (instead of the 3/4-mile ones readers have come to know and tolerate).

Maybe this news from Homeland Security chief Chertoff is a reason to clean out the cobwebs of that monster post and spread it over 4-5 days:

US security chief strives to expel all illegal immigrants

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said his department aims without exception to expel all those who enter the United States illegally.

“Our goal at DHS (Homeland Security) is to completely eliminate the ‘catch and release’ enforcement problem, and return every single illegal entrant, no exceptions.

“It should be possible to achieve significant and measurable progress to this end in less than a year,” Chertoff told a Senate hearing.

Let’s hope this reflects a seriousness on the part of the Bush Administration and not just one guy flying off the handle. Note, however, that even Chertoff is carefully limiting his remarks to people who try to get in currently (“entrants”) and are caught. I do not believe he is directly addressing the issue of what to do about the 7 million – 15 million illegals (estimates vary that widely) who are already here, but is instead leaving the impression that he might be open to apprehending and deporting them, while allowing for plenty of future wiggle room.

I believe the vast majority of Americans, myself included, would support apprehension and deportation.

And it is way, way past time for our government to get serious about controlling our borders. You many have missed it but a few weeks ago there was this startling news:

Report: Illegal Immigration Has Increased

Sept. 27–WASHINGTON: The pace of illegal immigration to the United States has increased despite tighter security measures and it generally parallels the pace of economic growth and the availability of jobs, a report said Tuesday.

The report by the Pew Hispanic Center also found that the stronger security steps since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 have had the effect of reducing legal immigration.

Overall, immigration to the United States declined along with the economy after 2000, but the report says the number of people trying to get into the country is on the upswing again.

….. Among the reports finding’s:

– Since 2001, the (annual) number of legal permanent residents entering the United States has declined from 578,000 to 455,000, while the number of illegal immigrants has increased from 549,000 to 562,000. Legal, temporary residents account for the remainder of people entering the country.

Even ignoring what I believe is an understatement of the number of illegals entering the country each year, the quoted paragraph tells us that more people have been entering the country illegally than legally. Even though this is not (to use a favorite leftist word) sustainable for a country that intends to retain its borders, language, and culture, Mr. Chertoff can expect to hear cries of “racism,” “nativism,” and the like from the homegrown illegal-immigrant apologists ranging from The ACLU to The Wall Street Journal, and of course Vicente Fox, in the coming days.

UPDATE: Lonewacko confirms my suspicions that there is a lot less than meets the eye in Chertoff’s remarks. For example, he “agreed with Kennedy that trying to deport all illegal immigrants would not be possible.” How about at least trying?

Per Lonewacko and Immigration Blog, Chertoff’s remarks also appear to relate only to OTMs (Other Than Mexicans). Zheesh, I guess Vicente won’t be upset.

Jim Cramer, Registered Dem, Defends Bill Frist’s HCA Trades

Filed under: Business Moves,Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:55 am

Somewhat old news: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is under investigation for his trades in HCA stock.

An interesting twist: Financial commentator Jim Cramer, first on his nationally syndicated “Real Money” radio show Monday, and then in his Real Money Radio Recap, says that he believes that Frist didn’t have inside information, as his detractors allege, he was just smart (bolds are mine):

Cramer said Frist, whose sales of HCA are the subject of a probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission, likely did not trade on information received from management prior to his selling of the stock because if he had, said Cramer, he likely would have been buying. HCA management and Wall Street were overwhelmingly positive at the time of Frist’s stock sales, said Cramer. Yet Frist sold anyway, which proved to be smart.

There are lessons to be learned from Frist, said Cramer. First, be skeptical when management and/or Wall Street are enthusiastically positive, said Cramer. Second, don’t be a pig — take profits when a stock is up huge. Third, understand the importance of sector trends. Despite HCA management’s and Wall Street’s bullishness, hospital trends were weakening at the time of Frist’s sales, said Cramer.

So, give Frist the benefit of the doubt, he said. Frist was smart to sell, or at worst, lucky. But, he’s most likely not guilty of insider trading because if he had listened to management, he would have been buying, not selling.

What is not mentioned in the web link, but was mentioned by Cramer in his opening radio segment, is that he (Cramer) is a registered Democrat.

Cramer’s argument is convincing. I suppose there will be those who believe that Frist may still have had hush-hush contacts with management where he learned that the stock was in trouble despite all the public happy talk. But given Frist’s track record, I doubt that very much.

Positivity: Cancer Nanobombs

Filed under: Marvels,Positivity — Tom @ 6:07 am

I usually try to stay away from early-stage research because it so often doesn’t pan out, but this one looks too promising to ignore. From The University of Delaware Daily (HT Good News Blog, which I would hope will start linking to the underlying stories soon):


An Open Letter to Bob McEwen: Run in the 6th District

Filed under: OH-02 US House — Tom @ 12:16 am

To Bob McEwen: Your US Senate candidacy consideration (6th paragraph), though somewhat clever, is fooling almost no one.

As Project Logic noted, John Mitchel, who took 23% of the primary vote against George Voinovich in 2004 (even before George became a crybaby over John Bolton), is already in the Republican primary race against Mike DeWine. Your entry would splinter the field (a phrase that was a favorite of yours during the 2nd District primary last spring), and ensure a Mike DeWine primary victory.

If you really think politics is in your blood, the place you should be is Ohio’s 6th District:

  • It’s an open seat, as current occupant Ted Strickland has announced a gubernatorial run.
  • Since it’s an open seat, your evangelical friends James Dobson, Don Wildmon, and Tony Perkins, and the Ohio Restoration Project ministers you’ve been glad-handing for the past few months, can campaign for you without looking like the complete fools they would indeed be if they supported you in the 2nd District against current Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, who for all her supposed faults is as prolife and pro-family values as almost any Republican in Southern Ohio. The same goes for your Republican buddies from the “good old days,” the Council for National Policy types like Ed Meese, Jack Kemp, and Paul Weyrich.
  • Of course, if they were honest and fair, the national values leaders and heroes from the past just mentioned would evaluate the other conservative candidates in the 6th District before deciding to support you. But if they were honest and fair, they would have done that in the 2nd District this past spring, and they didn’t.
  • Strickland ran unopposed in 2004, and his GOP opponents only got 40% of the vote in 2000 and 2002. The chances that you will have a strong Republican primary challenger appear to be pretty low. If they catch wind of the fact that you’ve got Dobson and the old GOP crew behind you, they may fold without a fight.
  • Though it has pockets of Democratic voters, the 6th should by all rights be almost as reliably Republican as the 2nd. It’s only your House Bank scandal-driven loss to Strickland in 1992 (scroll about halfway down) plus 2000′s redistricting that cemented Strickland into his 6th District perch. Additionally, the 6th District may actually be more receptive to the endorsements of the evangelicals and the oldtime Reaganites than the 2nd.
  • At least a small part of the 6th was in “your” old district of yesteryear (half of Scioto county, and perhaps a small sliver of Athens County), so your claim to be coming back home to serve would be barely credible, just as it was in the 2nd this spring. Of course, you’ll have to buy a place in Marietta or another town in the district to make it look like you live there, but that’s no big deal. This time, you’ll be able to say you’ve lived in “your” district a whole six months instead of two.
  • The national party may support you if you get through the 6th District primary, since winning the 6th would represent a pickup for the Congressional majority.
  • If you ultimately win, you get the satisfaction of taking the seat currently held by the guy (Strickland) who ended your congressional career in 1992.
  • George Bush and Karl Rove may hem and haw for a bit, but in the end they’ll support Jean Schmidt for reelection in the 2nd District, making an upset by a challenger, especially one with more baggage than a sold-out Boeing 747, that much more difficult.
  • It’s possible that the people who were so opposed to your primary candidacy earlier this year might not be as concerned about your representing the 6th District, where the talent pool appears thin, as they were about your parachuting into the 2nd earlier this year, when there were at least three credible, credentialed, deserving, and resident conservatives already competing.
  • Then again, one never knows what sort of information might surface from the Federal Trade Commission or FBI about a certain business opportunity you have been involved with for the past 15 years or so (y’know, the one that has such a “good name” that it now operates under another name, so the original name doesn’t have to be mentioned). Well, that’s a risk you’ve obviously been willing to take no matter what office you happen to be running for.

Nearly 75% of GOP voters of the 2nd District sent a clear message in June that they didn’t want to be represented by a 12-years gone, foreign-company and foreign-government lobbying, financial disclosure game-playing, multilevel marketing (and possibly pyramid-scheming), House Bank Scandalizing (4th paragraph), two-time losing (now 3), still-Virginia-residing (publicly available listing) carpetbagger, who, against Emily Post’s rules of etiquette and common sense, can’t stop calling himself “Congressman.”

Maybe the voters of the 6th District will be more receptive and forgiving.

So the suggestion from here is this: Take your loyal followers, and your currently dormant all-purpose blog, and go east, old man. Go east.