Knight Of The Mind

I'll do my best to present a philosophical and generally conservative look at current events and life, the universe and everything. Readers are invited to take all that's posted herein with a grain of salt. or if they prefer, a grain of salt, a slice of lime and a shot of tequila.

Location: Alexandria, Virginia, United States

Greetings and welcome. My name is Steve, I'm 35 years old and I work for the US Army as an Operations Research Analyst. Hence my blog title Knight Of The Mind.

Monday, December 27, 2004

MALDEF - Enemy Of American Democracy

Homeland Security has become a touchstone and mantra of the modern American politician. We've added an entire bureaucracy to make sure it gets talked about ad infinitum. When you fly the friendly skies, make sure your feet don't stink because the shoes are probably coming off before your flight leaves.

All this serves a need that America had patendly and somewhat arrogantly ignored until 11 September 2001. Regretably, not everyone has gotten with the program and some aspects of our country remain painfully vulnerable. Secretary Thompson spoke up about our nation's food supply and how he could not believe no one had hit us there yet.

However, there is one giant hole that runs for several thousand miles and has not been discussed in the slightest. Our national borders are still a wide-open, target-rich environment for Osauma Bin Ladin and all of his fanatical ilk. We're not just asking people to smuggle a nuclear device across the borders and detonate it in one of our downtowns, we're flat-out begging.

Finally, the good citizens of Arizona had taken as much as they could stand. They put a ballot initiative through aimed at restricting illegal imigration. The Washington Times describes it as follows.

The initiative, known as Proposition 200, passed Nov. 2 with 56 percent of the vote. It requires state and local government employees to verify the immigration status of those seeking public benefits and to report to federal immigration authorities any applicant who is in violation of U.S. immigration law. It also subjects the employees to criminal charges if they fail to report illegals. - Washtimes

This is not sedition, racism, backwardness or nativism run rampant. This initiative features a 56% majority of the citizens of the State of Arizona asking their state government to enfore the (expletive-deleted) law!

Of course nothing seems to get liberal activists more exercised than a vigorous and aggressive exercise in liberal democracy. The will of MALDEF, in this case, is not the will of the people. So this particular liberal intrest group is invoking the usual liberal refuge from having to honor the will of the people. They've lawyered up and intend to sue Arizona to block the will of 56% of it's citizens, because these arrogant liberal (expletive-deleteds) think they're smarter, holier and just a shade better looking than the rest of us.

MALDEF grounds its arguments against the proposition with the same intellectual rigor and commitment to the truth we remember fondly from Soviet propaganda and Howard Dean's campaign speeches. Here are three stirling examples of how Arizona's people are tyrannizing the less fortunate.

  1. MALDEF had argued in court papers that unless the initiative was overturned, it would "jeopardize the health and well-being of families and children who depend on public benefits for their basic necessities."
  2. MALDEF said Proposition 200 would "cut off all state services, including education, medical care and police and fire services, to all individuals who are unable to immediately provide adequate proof of their U.S. citizenship or residence."
  3. MALDEF President and General Counsel Ann Marie Tallman called the initiative "an illegal, impermissible, unconstitutional state attempt to regulate immigration policy, which is a fundamental function and responsibility of our federal government." She said it "denies basic services to hardworking, contributing members of our community while forcing public servants to become de facto federal immigration officers."

Dissecting this terrible logic is nearly as much fun as it is depressing. As a person who works with mathematics for a living, I would be fired tommorrow for failing so utterly to base my work on a graveman of factually supported syllogism.

As for fallacious argument number one, no one has to depend on the government for their basic necessities if they are sound of mind and able in body. If they could walk across the border, evade US employment law, and hold down a job long enough to mail lots of money back home, they are smart enough to make it off of welfare. They, like me, have earned their job. Now they, like me, can support the people they love without leaning on the government dole like a crutch.

As for argument two, a rational mind would deem this facially invalid. If I worked on a fire truck, drove up to a burning house and saw a propane tank getting ready to explode and spew burning fuel all over the nearby woods or some other houses, I think I'd have that hose out and active before I checked the homeowner's citizenship.

If I were a cop on the beat and saw a woman getting raped, I don't think I'd amble on over to the woman and say "Excuse me Ma'am. Before I pull this cretinous reprobate off your bodice, could you please provide your proof of US citizenship."

Argument number two has to be one of the stupidest written arguments ever presented in a court of law. It's a shame lawyers don't get disbarred for offensive stupidity. A legal mind of that caliber could reaffirm The Dred Scott Decision.

Argument number three reestablishes the institutional hostility of liberal Americans to the 10th Amendment of The US Bill Of Rights. Anyone doing anything without permission from a Federal Commisar is trampling on the Federal Government's role. What a wonderful view of society. Germany tried that out as a form of government a few decades back and the Jewish people didn't like it much.

The second part of that argument looks better, but only because it couldn't possibly have been as collosally bad as its predecessor. It's like comparing your local High School team to The Washington Redskins playing Dallas. Some of those kids are bound to look professional by comparison. The wannabee Louis Nizer's of MALDEF argue that anyone who reports a violation of Federal Immigration laws to the Feds is being forced to serve as a defacto federal immigation officer.

Perhaps if I do my civic duty and report a criminal activity, I should qualify for a police pension. It follows from MALDEF's logic that our civil responsibility to report wrong doing to the authorities deputizes us all.

So there you have it, America. MALDEF argues the following:

a) Expecting illegal immigrants to get a job and work like the US citizens have to deprives the poor of their only source of income. Next thing you know we'll make these people learn English or something.

b) Cutting off any state services from illegal aliens means that you'll cut them all off, no matter how rediculous the consequences of doing so would be. If an illegal alien's roof catches fire, all the neighbors better crank up their sprinkler systems and make sure the lawn is good and wet.

c) The 10th Amendment was only in a rough draft of The Bill of Rights and no state agency can operate in any way that even approximates a federal function.

d) Anyone reporting a crime serves as a de facto enforcement officer. Yes, you should report wrong doing, but first read the malefactor his rights first and then call your attorney and make sure you're covered by The Posse Comitatis Act.

It's really fortunate that this case will be heard by a judge of sound mind and stern bearing who has lived in Arizona for years and loves the state and all of its people. What? It's going to the 9th Federal Circus Court in San Francisco? They have jurisdiction over a case involving Arizona state law?

Of course, the 9th Circus has juris-my-dickshun. They get every case that a whackjob liberal intrest group wants a 2% chance of winning. If this law were passed in Maine, the federal case would be heard in San Francisco. Everyone knows the role of the Federal Judiciary is to lord it over those stupid (expletive-deleteds) that don't vote the way Dennis Kucinich wants them to.

Alan Drury wrote best-selling novels about this sort of abusive governance. They were given boring, ponderous titles like "Come Nineva, Come Tyre" and no one with a date on Friday Night ever read the stupid things. Well, it's come to pass.

If you live in America and can't stand the oppression of Representative Democracy, just lawyer up and tap a kidney on those stupid little people and their ballot box. If they can't vote the way we tell them to, we'll just sue them for having a contradictory opinion. Once these people learn how to think properly this whole Democracy thing could have potential. In the meanwhile, back to the lawsuits.

Update I: Michelle Malkin offers the following analysis of how this fiasco of a case ever reched the 9th Federal Circus:

It's a gratifying (if temporary) win for pro-immigration enforcement activists. Even the Democrat state attorney general, who had publicly opposed the ballot measure, agreed that it was constitutional and dismissed the open-borders lobby's argument that allowing state and local officials to help enforce our laws was "illegal." -


As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around... per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.
Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by