Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Tuesday, January 16, 2018

“Everyone has the Right to Be Here”

From the El Lay Times...
"Federal immigration agents targeted nearly 100 7-Eleven stores across the nation for audits and inspections Wednesday, including several locations in Los Angeles, as the Trump administration ramps up workplace raids to punish employers hiring people who are in the country illegally."
Here’s the money quote, provided by “Imelda Vargas, who works for the dry cleaner across the street,” and “said it wasn’t right for immigration agents to target the store’s workers.”

“Everyone has the right to be here, to work,” she said in Spanish.


Why would this woman believe and espouse such an absurd statement that has no basis in law or fact?

68 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Funny. Now give us a real answer.

      Delete
    2. We must forgive RN, and all the other Retards, as they know now what they are doing, or saying!

      Delete
    3. Closed border "libertarians."

      What's next, legless dance instructors?

      Delete
    4. "Why would this woman believe and espouse such an absurd statement that has no basis in law or fact?"

      Because she listens to those like RN who bask in their self-aggrandizing illusions of social-justice which know no bounds of absurdity!

      Delete
    5. Jon,
      their self-aggrandizing illusions of social-justice which know no bounds of absurdity

      Zing!

      And promoted by academia.

      Delete
    6. TC, Just as in any philosophy or political category of thought, libertarianism is a spectrum. The far end is anarchy.

      I ain't that kind of fringe kook libertarian, and I don't know if Les even still bills himself a libertarian at all.

      Open borders is idiocy and as a testament to our schizophrenic political environment, it finds the most adherents on the prog left, which hates libertarianism any time it strays beyond pro-pot, pro-abortion and gay marriage.

      Delete
    7. Left-Libertarianism is an oxymoron.

      Open borders is not idiocy. The existence of a welfare state is idiocy. Open borders with a welfare state is idiocy on stilts.

      Much is made of the argument that open immigration will destroy the welfare state. I accept that argument, and call for increased immigration to make it happen.

      Delete
    8. Your logic is internally-consistent. I grant you that.

      Delete
    9. Well, the crime argument is bunk. Increased immigration has coincided with a drop in crime rates. The economic argument is bunk, as increased immigration has coincided with a rise in GDP and GNP. What other arguments are there? Republicans can't appeal to certain skin colors? Bunkery.

      Get rid of the welfare state. Who gives a damn what color the parasites are?

      Delete
    10. I think I'll post the question at RN USA, giving full attribution to Silverfiddle for both the question and article. If he doesn't mind.

      Then perhaps answer the question.

      Delete
  2. It seems that many on the Left (maybe even on the Right) believe that she "has the right to be here." At least, that's my take after listening to some opining on immigration and "sh*thole countries."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Proud Honkey Hothead said

    I agree with. what Senora Vargas said. There could be nothing wrong with people who come here to WORK.

    There is EVERYTHING wrong with people who come here to drop Anchor Babies and to MOOCH off The System.

    HERE'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO:

    1. Build the wall FIRST.

    2. END Chain Migration.

    3. END Birthright Citizenship. Repeal the 14th amendment –– PRONTO!

    4. DEPORT all the Criminals and the Parasites with the understanding that IF they should return, they will be given an AUTOMATIC LIFE SENTENCE at HARD LABOR in a MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON.


    HOWEVER, all the decent people who've established themselves here for many years, and have worked steadily without applying for Food Stamps or Public Assistance should be allowed to STAY –– unmolested. Whether they choose to become Citizens, or remain as Permanent Resident Aliens should be of no importance whatsoever.

    WE NEED MOST TO CONCENTRATE ON CUTTING OFF THE FLOW OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND LEGAL IMMIGRATION TOO FROM "SHITHOLE" COUNTRIES.

    ENTRANCE to MUSLIMS and SUB-SHARAN AFRICAN SAVAGES SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Mooch off the system." As if anyone has ever taken less from Medicare than they put in.

      We seem to all be in agreement with the Chicago School and Friedman. "You can not have open borders AND a welfare state."

      You far left commies are just going to have to let go of your welfare state.

      Delete
    2. As if anyone has ever taken less from Medicare than they put in.

      Only all the people who died before reaching the age of 65.

      Delete
    3. It's still hilarious to me to hear and read extreme far left communists that claim to be conservatives rally to the defense of their government dependence.

      Delete
    4. No more hilarious than hearing and reading from utopian millenials who dream of opting out from systems of government dependence yet can't even pull together enough support to nominate a candidate capable of winning a primary election.

      Delete
    5. Beware the millenials. They actually WILL push granny over a cliff.

      Delete
  4. I was deported from Japan in 1977. No one told me that I had a "right to be there".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If a foreign national is deported from Japan or leaves Japan with the departure order, the foreign national may not, in principle, land Japan for a certain period (i.e., landing denial period) as stipulated in the Immigration Control Act. The following rules will be applicable:

      So-called repeaters (foreign nationals who has been deported from Japan or has left Japan with the departure order) may not land Japan for 10 years since the date of deportation.

      Foreign nationals who have been deported from Japan so far (except for the case "1)") may not land Japan for 5 years since the date of deportation.

      Foreign nationals who have left Japan with the departure order may not land Japan for 1 year since the date of leaving Japan.

      Delete
    2. You should have said that to the Japanese government. I'm sure they would have let you stay! LOL

      I have never been deported, but I did get thrown off a train once in Italy...

      Delete
    3. Being deported isn't the end of the world. You just go home. It's pretty simple.

      Delete
    4. The simplicity of that outcome depends largely on the location of "home".

      Delete
    5. Yeah, but only because of UN interference [turning "temporary" refugee camps into "permanent" homelands (ie - Palestine)].

      Delete
  5. I love this unintentionally hilarious statement from Senator Jeff Flakey:

    "I can tell you I’ve been negotiating and working with the Democrats on immigration for 17 years and on this issue, on DACA or on the DREAM Act for a number of years and the Democrats are negotiating in good faith.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/01/14/jeff_flake_on_immigration_reform_the_democrats_are_negotiating_in_good_faith_only_one_deal_in_town.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like all GOPe members, Flake mistakes "surrendering" for the term "negotiating". He's been "surrendering" to them for 17 years now...

      Delete
  6. I'm going to keep beating the drum for a favorite recent read: The Strange Death of Europe. That's what the whole EU governance is saying "they have a right to be here," and one local German council actually told GERMANS at a public meeting if they didn't like it they should consider leaving Germany. THAT's the tidal wave of thought moving through those in power.

    You can see it so clearly in Europe, but it's heading this way through their minions in the media, education and local governance (like California becoming an official sanctuary state).

    No one has a "right" to be here except those born here. For others it's a privilege more desired than gold and - in the past - they'd give up everything to come here. We were a vibrant, self-assured culture set on a firm foundation of 1) e pluribus unum, 2) liberty, and 3) in God we trust. And we knew how to pass that on to replicate those values in newcomers. We don't today, and instead get nonsense like this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of your argument points to a conclusion of "no one has a right to be here," period. Even people born here can be deported for adherence to communism (welfare statists get out, reeeeeeeeeeee!) or any other whimsical reason the legislatures and courts come up with. The right to live in the United States is not a natural or innate right. Egalitarianism is out the window, as is your "rights" to property, privacy, even due process.

      What fun we can have when we surrender human freedom to state approval!

      Delete
    2. I'm going to drive down I-95 the wrong way! No stupid government sign can tell me what to do! WHEEEEE!!!

      Delete
  7. Of course by legal criteria she doesn't have a right to be here. That's the fact on the most basic level.

    But what she i saying on another level is that she has the right to support herself and pursue a life that provides the basics.
    She takes the right to announce that contrary to the fringe right narrative she is not a welfare leech but rather a child of god deserving basic human decency. She doesn't need the U.S. right wing to understand that basic value.

    Unfortunately in this life she gets the law and whatever level of compassion is the flavor of the day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Render unto Caesar...

      I thought that you liked a separation of Church from State.

      Delete
    2. Wanna do some "good" for her? Donate to Catholic Charities.

      Delete
    3. "The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law."

      1 Corinthians 15:56

      Delete
    4. Ducky,

      Thank you for that gratuitous and simplistically obvious answer.

      So, by your standard, everyone in the world has a right to come to the US.

      Have you rejected international law?

      Oh, by the way, there are some poor people in Boston who are cold, hungry and have no place to live and they need your house. You're richer than they are, so get out.

      Delete
  8. "No one has a "right" to be here" except the Shawnee,
    Sioux, Ojibway, Shoshone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Based upon what standard?

      I asked my question in the blog post based upon US law and international law.

      Delete
  9. Seems to me the increase in "illegal" immigration over the last 32 years since Reagan's amnesty has coincided with a massive drop in the national crime rate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so, if we brought the whole world here, that should drop the crime rate to zero

      Delete
    2. Or at least mendacious racists like President Retard will stop citing crime as a reason to deny immigration.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, the whole crime argument is a mixed bag. While immigrants are over-represented in our federal and state prisons, I've also seen studies stating as a cohort, immigrants commit a lower percentage of crimes that native-born citizens.

      In this hyper-partisan atmosphere where everybody brings their own facts and statistics, its hard slogging to get to a clear picture.

      Delete
    4. Undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens.


      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3099992

      Delete
    5. How do they know how many undocumented immigrants are in Arizona? Wouldn't we expect undocumented otherwise-law-abiding illegals be undersampled here?
      That said, the gang membership thing is quite plausible, given the obvious reluctance of illegals to rely on legitimate police, plus some would have been trafficked by a gang in the first place.

      Delete
    6. @ jez:
      Statistical analysis mainly, same way they gather and project census calculations. Use of public services, enrollment in public schools, taxes paid into specious Social Security accounts, the numbers using free (for them) emergence health services. Typically, anything which can be counted in the bureaucratic state will be counted, parsed and projected ad nauseum.

      I've seen nation wide estimates as low as 10 millions and as high as 22 millions. Depends on who's doing the counting and why. If you're paying you low-ball the figure if you are being paid you high-ball it.

      Delete
    7. Maybe the full paper explains how they estimated their denominators. (I've only read the abstract.)

      Delete
  10. The Demagogue Party continues to play propaganda politics beautifully and flawlessly, blaming President Trump's racism for failure to get anything done.

    It was High Dudgeon Theater yesterday, with an outraged Leahy and a bawling Cory Booker grilling Homeland Security Chief Kirstjen Nielsen

    She is about the only bright spot in all of this. I am very impressed with how professional she is and how easily she dealt with the phony outrage and hammed-up histrionics of the Delicate snowflake Demagogue-ocrats.

    Meanwhile, the Repubelicants, led by their fiery leader Gonad the Vulgarian, continue to commit serial political malpractice.

    It is a great bonanza for the cable news coprophages who tickle themselves daily like two-year-olds repeating doo doo words over and over...

    Should be a fun week ending in a crescendo of political drama, agony and triumph by the weekend...

    Who else is sick of all this?

    ReplyDelete
  11. “Everyone has a right to be here” ranks right up there with the seriously (and dangerously) misguided notion that “It takes a village to raise a child.” Yes, I agree that statistics are nebulous; I’ve heard it argued that 92.467% of all statistics are made up on the spot (such as this one), but if we assign credibility to any statistics at all, perhaps we should just go with those provided, for example, by the State of New York, which is hardly a bastion of conservatism: 83% of all assailants are black. Together, blacks and Hispanics account for 98% of all gun-related crimes in New York. 49% of all murders are committed by blacks, most of which are perpetrated against other blacks, and 49 of every 50 muggings are carried out by blacks or Hispanics. It would seem to me, however, that if we wanted to improve our country’s immigration policies and enhance our nation’s future, we would institute merit-based immigration. To my way of thinking, this is pig-simple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello, Sam.

      Apparently, those in political power on Capitol Hill would rather not have merit-based immigration, which would benefit both citizens and such legal immigrants. Instead, those in political power on Capitol Hill would rather have cheap labor and a voting bloc -- never mind the negative impact on American citizens.

      Any immigration policy worth its salt should ask, "How will this particular immigrant benefit America?"

      We certainly have no need to import criminals!

      Delete
  12. SF... politics is politics and always has been. I hate it too. But the fact is, at least as it regards "winning" the political wars, both sides are guilty and without a compass to insure equal treatment.

    A good example is in the states rights arena. The GOP in the last 60 years has been the party of states rights, except when the state enacts a law they don't like, as witnessed by AG Sessions and his stance on marijuana. In this case, he usurps local control.

    The Dems, never a party since the mid 60's to be lovers of states rights are crowing over GOP efforts in the Mary Jane to restrict the states.

    And we see that everywhere. There are "principles" until you need to switch sides.

    You are correct that currently the Dems are playing "propaganda politics beautifully and flawlessly." I'd note however that during the Obama Admin, many libs would've, indeed did, say the exact same thing.

    It's killing us.

    To your original question... The US has a total right to control her sovereign borders. Period. No serious person can, or should argue differently. How we administer that for the good of the US and maybe our allies and the rest of the world, is up for debate, and yes, politics.

    But no one can credibly argue the point of our right to control our borders.

    At least I've never heard it.

    BTW... nice couple of posts... thoughtful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gee, why are all the examples of the new "State's Rights" violations of federal law? Marijuana, sanctuary... whereas the Southerners merely wanted the Union to respect the Constitution (vis "slavery") and get their armies the 'f off their sovereign lands.

      Delete
    2. Constitution of the United States, Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      Delete
  13. Joe... I'm not interested in relitigating states rights. I'm just making a point that both sides of the political spectrum seem to shape shift to the other side when it fits their political agenda.

    And that is one of our big problems.

    That and a desire to enter the fray to win, as opposed to find common ground for the good of the country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. w/o a framework for doing so, the Constitution, what's the point?

      Delete
    2. It's like trying to build a house w/oany foundation. You just go round and round forever, and nothing solid is ever left standing.

      Delete
  14. But no one can credibly argue the point of our right to control our borders."
    WHAT?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Z... it's true isn't it? How can anyone argue that point?

    ReplyDelete
  16. You're right Silver, libertarianism is a spectrum, just like all other political tribes.

    No Silver, I do not bill myself as a libertarian exclusively. Any more than I bill myself a conservative or progressive. Attaching a label to oneself has the effect of limiting thought and defining you are. It tends to limit your horizon and thereby opportunities for identifying solutions.

    Truth is most average Americans working and raising families or preparing for retirement have some beliefs that could be considered conservative, libertarian, and liberal/progressive. Talk about a spectrum!

    For me, living a life of intense singular partisan ideology would be to live frustrated and unhappy.

    We need a party called the Party of Rational Reasonableness. Of course that implies bipartisanship, something the power structures of both major parties desire to destroy. For purely political reasons.

    I am a man without party today.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You honestly don't think we can argue why a sovereign country has a right to control its borders!? Mexico is strong on that, other countries are, and should be, why can't we?
    What IS a country if not for itself, itself as a country which guards its borders and its citizens and kindly allows some in who can contribute? WOW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z, looks like I missed a word in the one sentence. It should be clear from what I wrote that I don't think anyone can argue "against" ourvright to control our own borders.

      Delete
  18. It is a given that all sovereign nations have the right to control immigration and their borders.

    So Z, how it that for years, regardless of which party was in power, we failed to do so?

    As for a border wall, it's a matter of cost versus benefit analysis. Insulting on of our major trading partners by erecting a wall, combined with the cost of building doesn't justify the expenditure. Not IMNHO at any rate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN,
      Insulting?

      Really?

      Really?

      The Mexican government and the drug cartels are the ons "insulting" the United States by allowing and encouraging illegal immigration to the United States!

      I agree with you that both the Dems and the GOP have been complicit in allowing our border situation to deteriorate.

      Delete
    2. No member of the US Congress wants to become Don Quixote, so unless there is a massive demand to fix a problem, from the public or from among cohorts in Congress, issues such as immigration becomes a windmill that no practical congressman is willing to take on. Hence, no fix for a thoroughly broken system.

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

!--BLOCKING--