Linda Chavez Can Still Go F!!¢k Herself

In this article, Linda Chavez exposes herself as even more of a fool and/or charlatan than she had previously. Her prior notable diatribe was mostly vitriol and hate. This one pretends to be a reasoned elaboration, though it's anything but:

What you won’t hear is that liberals are just as relieved that this bill didn’t pass as conservatives - and they know time is on their side. Their plan is to wait until January 2009, when they expect bigger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and a Democrat in the White House, and then reintroduce immigration legislation.

Interesting, perhaps, but completely f!!¢king irrelevant. I don't give a good goddamn about the open borders lobby's big "plan." The naked truth is that any President who signs an immigration bill into law after 2009 is going to have to answer to the voters in a future election. This blatantly open-borders President won't. If the open borders lobby thinks it's going to get a better deal out of President Fred--or even President Hillary--it's mistaken. Will Hillary Clinton be willing to lay her second term down on the altar of open borders? Don't bet on it. Are the Democrat legislators ready to become the "open borders men" without any cover from their Republican colleagues? Not a chance--especially after they see what we're going to do to Lindsey Grahamnesty next year.

MORE BELOW THE FOLD: Chavez continues:

They know that the present laws can’t be enforced, not because of lack of will but because the laws themselves are inadequate and contradictory.

Bullsh!+! This is a bald-faced lie. There is a total lack of will toward enforcing the border, and everybody knows it. The laws are adequate and clear. It is not difficult to determine who is here legally and who is not. It is not difficult to determine what is proscribed for those who are not here legally. The President simply refuses to enforce the law. It really is that simple.

Under current law, an illegal alien can present a fake Social Security number and a fake identity card with a photo so long as it reasonably looks legitimate. If the employer is suspicious about the authenticity of the documents, there is little he or she can do now.

This is a lie.

Questioning the prospective employee could lead to a civil rights law violation - such objections are now one of the largest sources of civil rights complaints filed with the Justice Department.

Truth with a side-order of bullshit. Notice she doesn't say it IS a violation. Notice she doesn't say that questioning MIGHT BE a civil rights violation. She says only that it could LEAD to a civil rights violation--which is the same as saying nothing. It's the type of sentence that sounds like it says something, but doesn't say anything at all. Immigrants may very well be filing complaints with the Justice Department. They probably are. People file complaints every day. The fact that a complaint has been filed has almost nothing to do with whether a law has been violated, and most people realize this.

Under federal law, an employer is completely within its rights (and obligations) to check employment papers for employment applicants, and to check them thoroughly. A violation occurs when an employer is selective about which employees it checks out. An employer who checks all employees out thoroughly is not violating the law--and I suspect Linda Chavez knows it, which means she's just out to deceive people. Of course, it's possible she's simply ignorant.

Even the government’s own program to check employment eligibility - Basic Pilot - is unreliable, failing to detect fraudulent employees so long as the Social Security numbers they use are valid and aren’t being used by other persons. Worse, the system spits out a high percentage of false ineligibles, in other words, citizens or legal residents who are entitled to work but are flagged because of outdated or inaccurate government data bases.

In other words, because the system we have is not perfect, there is no reason to use it. By this logic, I should throw away my computer and junk my car. I should burn down my house. I should get rid of all my friends. They're all imperfect, so I shouldn't bother with them. This argument is mindless. Every system is imperfect. Our customs system is imperfect. Our banking system is imperfect. Our criminal justice systems are imperfect. So what? Shall we jettison them ALL in some quest for bureaucratic perfection? If not, then what the hell is Chavez' point?

Now, one could make the argument that an employer who used the Basic Pilot program should be insulated from liability caused by a false indication of employment status, but I'm pretty sure that's not the point that Chavez is trying to make. She's saying because the program is imperfect, no one should be asked ot bother with it. This argument is silly.

So how do you enforce the employer sanctions provisions of current law? You can’t, except sporadically, by raiding companies suspected of wrongdoing.

Objectively and provably false.

Those raids make headlines, but they barely dent the problem of illegal workers. And, truth be told, if all illegal workers disappeared overnight, we’d be in a bind.

I completely agree with this part. The raids the government does barely make a dent. Ans yes, we would be in a bind if all illegal workers disappeared overnight. (For starters, there would be mass panic brought on by the news that millions of people had disappeared overnight.) In any event, rather than extricate ourselves from this less-than-ideal situation, Ms. Chavez advocates that we swim deeper into the quicksand. Call me crazy, but I'm not convinced.

Of course, the priority for new jobs has to go to Americans first - but some jobs, at both ends of the job skills spectrum, will go unfilled unless we allow foreign-born workers to take them. Not enough young Americans are studying engineering, science and math to fill all the jobs that require those skills. And Americans are over-educated to fill the jobs at the lowest end of the skills spectrum.

More bullsh!+. Anyone who understands basic market economics understands that pricing is driven by supply and demand. Buyers (employers) want to pay a small price (wage) for the product (labor), so they cajole and bribe the lawmakers to increase the supply of the product (labor). We can argue over whether this is a good idea or a bad idea, but let's be honest about what's going on, here. We've already seen the ways in which lawyers can easily skirt the laws set up to protect domestic workers.

In short, this piece of drivel, like everything else we've seen from Linda Chavez lately, is a truckload of bullshit designed to muddy the waters and confuse the issues.

Posted by: Ragnar at 09:48 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1129 words, total size 7 kb.