Tag Archives: illegal immigration

Do as I do…

Posted on by

I got my sample ballot in the mail last night and between the fevered runs to the liquor and grocery stores to prepare for the onrushing storm of the millennium, I thought I’d so something a little different this year and admit right our in public exactly how I intend to vote when I step up to the “electronic device”. And yes, I always fill out the sample ballot in advance and take it with me, so I can make sure it jives with the actual ballot and so I don’t have to spend alot of time holding up the line on the big day. I’m a conscientious voter like that.

On the right hand side of the sample ballot, you’ll see a pretty straight party line Republican vote. No surprises there and I think I’ve spent enough time here talking about why my on-again-off-again relationship with the Republican Party is back on this election year. The only gap in my ballot reflect a current lack of knowledge about the Maryland Court of Special Appeals continuance and for the local board of education candidates here in Ceciltucky. I’ll need to get my research on before coming down on those three candidates.

So now it’s down to what everyone is curious about… How Jeff breaks on the seven potential amendments to the state constitution. Not only will I tell you which way I’m going, but I’ll also give you a bit of explanation on my thinking for each one.

Question 1 & 2: No. If a justice of the United States Supreme Court doesn’t have to be a barred lawyer, what on earth makes anyone think that the PG and Baltimore County Orphan’s Court Judges must absolutely be practicing lawyers. There are plenty of smart people in the state who aren’t lawyers and would do fine in those positions and it does not rise to level of requiring an amendment to the state’s foundational document.

Question 3: Yes. If you’re elected to a position in government and are convicted of criminal action, I want you removed from office as quickly and expeditiously as humanly possible (consistant with your due process rights).

Question 4: No. I support in-state tuition rates for legal residents of Maryland. Those in the United States illegally should not be entitled to special discounts at citizen expense.

Question 5: No. The Congressional districts drawn by the state legislature would be a joke if their impact wasn’t so serious. Gerrymandering is wrong regardless of the party that’s doing it. District lines should be as simple as possible and not represent an effort to “carve out” a seat for one part or another.

Question 6: Yes. Straight, gay, animal, vegetable, or mineral, it’s none of my damned business who you want to marry. The government should issue a civil marriage license to any couple who otherwise meet the statutory requirements. Marriage licenses, like any other kind of state permit, are a revenue stream and I’m all for increasing the number being handed out (and the fees being paid).

Question 7: Yes. I can play blackjack in Delaware, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New Jersey all within a 90 minute drive of where I’m sitting to write this. Maryland has already opened the pandora’s box of gambling, so we might as well go all in… and try to draw some gamblers from Northern Virginia with a fancy new casino at National Harbor.

So there you have it. That’s how the 2012 election is going to look from my place in the cheap seats. And now that I’ve probably offered up something to piss off every friend, colleague, and member of the family, I think I’ll go turn my cell phone off to avoid the commentary that’s pretty much inevitable.

Selective enforcement…

Posted on by

I’ve got a real issue with any administration that selectively enforces the law. Either an action is illegal or it isn’t, otherwise what’s the purpose of describing yourself as being a nation of laws. By effectively granting amnesty to illegal immigrants under the age of 30, President Obama decreed that both the letter and the intent of current US law regarding immigration is irrelevant. Of course the current president isn’t the first to decide that the law is whatever he says it happens to be at the time. Once safely out of office, I seem to recall Nixon saying something about “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” Nixon was wrong then just as much as President Obama is wrong now.

I’m not going to drag this blog into a discussion of whether current immigration policy is right or wrong (for the record, I think it needs to be overhauled and then actually enforced, not necessarily in that order). This isn’t a discussion of right and wrong or good and bad, it’s a simple discussion about whether the President of the United States should “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” or just make it up as he goes along. Here’s a hint, one of those two courses of action is spelled out word for word in the Constitution. In cases there’s any confusion, it’s always a good rule of thumb to consult the national user’s manual for guidance.

The president finds the idea of deporting illegal immigrants unethical and unpleasant (not to mention bad for reelection). Fine. I understand that. I find the federal income tax laws unethical and unpleasant. Does that mean I can go ahead and just not pay those this year, or is ignoring the law solely the preserve of the Executive Office of the President? Where does it end? Should companies ignore clean air and water laws or regulations because they’re inconvenient? Maybe it’s ok if soldiers don’t follow lawful orders on the battlefield. After all, the Commander-in-Chief set the precedent that it’s ok just to do whatever it is you happen to agree with.

Even taking away the political implications that will certainly prevent this country from discussing the issue in any rational way, this is bad governance. It’s another step on our race to the bottom. Shame on you, Mr. President. Shame on you for sneaking in the side door what you don’t have the capital or popular support to get done the right way. Shame on you for putting expediency and political considerations ahead of your sworn duty.