Calderon Lectures Congress On Immigration

Calderon is a hypocrite and Obama and the Democrats that cheered him are despicable cowards. To allow him to come here and not only address congress, but stand and applaud as he condemns the state of Arizona for daring to pass a law that is not only far less draconian than the Mexican laws, but much less severe than even the Federal policies. And if Holder and Big Sis are too busy to read the law before opening their big mouths, I can guarantee none of the Democrat congressman read it either. Fortunately here's a common sense comparison between the Mexican, Arizona, and U.S. Federal laws.

Obama In Complete Control Of Spill - Doesn't Know If Birnbaum Was Fired

Giving his first press conference in 308 days, Obama used the timing of BP's most ambitious effort yet to plug the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico to attempt to convince the American people that he's in control and is taking responsibility for the spill, like a third string quarterback coming in when his team is up by 4 touchdowns and taking credit for the win. But all that aside, his claim that he didn't know whether Birnbaum had been fired or not creates exactly the opposite message he was trying to convey. So let's get his story straight. He claims that he's in supreme and complete control of one of the worst environmental disasters in our history, yet says he's unaware of the removal of a key division head who's agency just so happens to be at the center of the controversy regarding the very same disaster? Of course the idiots at Daily Kos are praising Obama for "taking action" and firing Birnbaum. Which raises the question to the Obama regime, were you lying before, or are you lying now? Or is he really just that incompetant?

Vancouver Canucks Reaction To Blackhawks Goal Song

It's great how Kevin Bieksa actually starts singing along with the song before he recognizes it. Unfortunately for Ryan Kesler, it seems to trigger traumatic flashbacks.

First a Wall -- Then Amnesty

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 7, 2006

Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: (1) to regain control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters and (2) to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us.

Start with the second. No one of good will wants to see these 11 million suffer. But the obvious problem is that legalization creates an enormous incentive for new illegals to come.

We say, of course, that this will be the very last, very final, never-again, we're-not-kidding-this-time amnesty. The problem is that we say exactly the same thing with every new reform. And everyone knows it's phony.

What do you think was said in 1986 when we passed the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform? It turned into the largest legalization program in American history -- nearly 3 million people got permanent residency. And we are now back at it again with 11 million more illegals in our midst.

How can it be otherwise? We already have a river of people coming every day knowing they're going to be illegal and perhaps even exploited. They come nonetheless. The newest amnesty -- the "earned legalization" being dangled in front of them by proposed Senate legislation -- can only increase the flow.

Those who think employer sanctions will control immigration are dreaming. Employer sanctions were the heart of Simpson-Mazzoli. They are not only useless; they are pernicious. They turn employers into enforcers of border control. That is the job of government, not landscapers.

The irony of this whole debate, which is bitterly splitting the country along partisan, geographic and ethnic lines, is that there is a silver bullet that would not just solve the problem but also create a national consensus behind it.

My proposition is this: A vast number of Americans who oppose legalization and fear new waves of immigration would change their minds if we could radically reduce new -- i.e., future -- illegal immigration.

Forget employer sanctions. Build a barrier. It is simply ridiculous to say it cannot be done. If one fence won't do it, then build a second 100 yards behind it. And then build a road for patrols in between. Put in cameras. Put in sensors. Put out lots of patrols.

Can't be done? Israel's border fence has been extraordinarily successful in keeping out potential infiltrators who are far more determined than mere immigrants. Nor have very many North Koreans crossed into South Korea in the past 50 years.

Of course it will be ugly. So are the concrete barriers to keep truck bombs from driving into the White House. But sometimes necessity trumps aesthetics. And don't tell me that this is our Berlin Wall. When you build a wall to keep people in, that's a prison. When you build a wall to keep people out, that's an expression of sovereignty. The fence around your house is a perfectly legitimate expression of your desire to control who comes into your house to eat, sleep and use the facilities. It imprisons no one.

Of course, no barrier will be foolproof. But it doesn't have to be. It simply has to reduce the river of illegals to a manageable trickle. Once we can do that, everything becomes possible -- most especially, humanizing the situation of our 11 million illegals.

If the government can demonstrate that it can control future immigration, there will be infinitely less resistance to dealing generously with the residual population of past immigration. And, as Mickey Kaus and others have suggested, that may require that the two provisions be sequenced. First, radical border control by physical means. Then, shortly thereafter, radical legalization of those already here. To achieve national consensus on legalization, we will need a short lag time between the two provisions, perhaps a year or two, to demonstrate to the skeptics that the current wave of illegals is indeed the last.

This is no time for mushy compromise. A solution requires two acts of national will: the ugly act of putting up a fence and the supremely generous act of absorbing as ultimately full citizens those who broke our laws to come to America.

This is not a compromise meant to appease both sides without achieving anything. It is not some piece of hybrid legislation that arbitrarily divides illegals into those with five-year-old "roots" in America and those without, or some such mischief-making nonsense.

This is full amnesty (earned with back taxes and learning English and the like) with full border control. If we do it right, not only will we solve the problem, we will get it done as one nation.

Building Trust; Pakistan and U.S. Pledge to Work (it)Together

Read the rest at the New York Times