Census Bureau Cancels Deportation in 2010

Logo courtesy of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services

Counting of the people every ten years is one hell of a tough job and I can understand the dilemma of the Census Bureau when counting illegal immigrants to America. Their job is in fact to count all of the people regardless of citizenship or legality of that residency requirement.

As liberal and blue state blooded that I am I find it ridiculous for the Census Bureau to request that immigration enforcement agencies stop deportation of illegal aliens for any time period. Any person that works with numbers on a daily basis knows that if you deliberately take out any part of the equation it will skew the results that the experiment is looking to study. Stopping the legal government deportation of illegal aliens would make the next census useless.

That is where the hairs on the back of my neck go up and low and behold that same request would feed into the hands of the political philosophy that immigrants are a pox on America. Making illegal immigrants look like an invasion on our shores would feed into what political machine in 2012?

Immigrants are a constant in the American population whether you like it or not. Stopping the deportation process for any reason serves only one purpose and that is to make all immigrants, legal or illegal a political weapon for political parties to stand against.

Over at the Chicago Tribune they have this to say about the request to stop deportation in 2010...

Census Bureau Wants to Halt 2010 Raids
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press Writer
6:45 PM CDT, August 16, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Census Bureau wants immigration agents to suspend enforcement raids during the 2010 census so the government can better count illegal immigrants.

Raids during the population count would make an already distrustful group even less likely to cooperate with government workers who are supposed to include them, the Census Bureau's second-ranking official said in an Associated Press interview.

Deputy Director Preston Jay Waite said immigration enforcement officials did not conduct raids for several months before and after the 2000 census. But today's political climate is even more volatile on the issue of illegal immigration.

Snip - A - Roooooo

Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, said the intense debate over immigration has made immigrants even more suspicious of the government today.

"The Census Bureau has a job to do," said Vargas, who belongs to a committee that advises the bureau on the 2010 census. "They need to convince people that they need to report themselves to the federal government and that it's going to remain confidential. That's a hard sell."

Supporters of stricter immigration laws said the whole discussion of suspending raids shows that the immigration system is broken.

"If you don't enforce your laws, this is what you are going to get, one agency asking another agency to subvert the law," said Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates stricter enforcement of immigration laws. - Chicago Tribune

I’m guessing that this is just a political chess game that will play out a couple of years down the road in the race for president in 2012. You have to really think long term when it comes to issues like immigration. Both political parties are fighting the procedures and laws required to fix it so who is up to this latest strategy? That is an answer I don’t have. Just something for you to tuck away in the back of your mind to think about a few years from now.

Same paper and the same article…

One lawmaker said she thinks "it's nuts" for the Census Bureau to ask for a break in enforcement.

"I don't know what country the Census Bureau is living in," Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., said in a telephone interview from her district. "I can tell them the American people have grown sick and tired of their immigration laws not being enforced. They are not going to tolerate enforcement being suspended for any amount of time."

The Constitution requires the Census Bureau to count everyone, including illegal immigrants, in the census. The once-a-decade population count is then used to apportion seats in Congress and to appropriate billions of dollars in federal spending each year.

Miller has introduced a constitutional amendment that would apportion seats in Congress based only on the number of U.S. citizens in each state. - Chicago Tribune

One question regarding this latest point in the article and this Congressional Members outrage, isn’t the Census Bureau under the Bush administration? Could this be micro managing by President Cheney… I mean Bush on forwarding the agenda of promoting the party politic?

I for one do not trust any lawmakers that want a Constitutional Amendment change when we have a perfectly good Congress and Senate at our disposal. What the hell is she so afraid of?

Immigrants are coming to our shores from every single nation around the world and changing our Constitution is not the answer. Changing the laws regarding immigration so that it works is the only answer.

My wife forwarded me an email recently that talked about the trials in life in comparison to boiling water that is our daily lives and what is put into it. Carrots in boiling water become soft and change to suit the temperature of the water. Eggs become hard when boiled and loose the ability to change forever other than a solid. Coffee beans however change the boiling water around them to become something for all to enjoy. That my friends is the melting pot that is America. Those of us that fear change the most are the people and leaders to fear the most.

Papamoka

Feel free to link to this post...

Technorati Tags:
INS, Illegals, Illegal Aliens, Mexican Americans, Immigrants, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Polish Americans, Lithuanian Americans, Armenian Americans, German Americans, Canadian Americans, English Americans, WASP, European Immigrants, African Americans, African Immigrants, Deportation, Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, Bush, Immigration Politics, Mexico, Border Issues, Border, Border Patrol, Leaky Border, Weak Border, Cheney, Political Chess, 2012, Presidential Elections, Defend the Constitution, Realistic Immigration Laws

Judges Popping Bush Bubble on Surveillance

Picture Courtesy of the White House

President Bush may think that his double top secret members only surveillance program on Americans is out of the courts hands but technically I don’t think the Judges of those courts think so. Frankly, I can’t blame them. Lawyers for the administration are defending the President’s actions by simply saying in court that it is a state secret.

What is really a pain in the Bush royal behind is the simple fact that the very liberal 9th Circuit Court is reviewing the terminology of “State Secret” as far as the governments case goes regarding fifty legal cases pending. George, you aren’t in Crawford anymore and clicking your heals three times is not going to appease this court. Three of the Judges on the court are pissed and they are letting the attorneys for the government know it.

Over at the Washington Post they have this outstanding must read piece regarding this story…

Judges Skeptical of State-Secrets Claim

By Karl Vick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 16, 2007; Page A04

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 15 -- Lawyers for the Bush administration encountered a federal appeals court Wednesday that appeared deeply skeptical of a blanket claim that the government's surveillance efforts cannot be challenged in court because the litigation might reveal state secrets.

"The bottom line here is the government declares something is a state secret, that's the end of it. No cases. . . . The king can do no wrong," said Judge Harry Pregerson, one of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit who grilled administration lawyers at length over whether a pair of lawsuits against the government should go forward.

Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre was forced to mount a public argument that almost nothing about the substance of the government's conduct could be talked about in court because doing so might expose either the methods used in gathering intelligence or gaps in those methods.

"This seems to put us in the 'trust us' category," Judge M. Margaret McKeown said about the government's assertions that its surveillance activities did not violate the law. " 'We don't do it. Trust us. And don't ask us about it.' "

At one point, Garre argued that courts are not the right forum for complaints about government surveillance, and that "other avenues" are available. "What is that? Impeachment?" Pregerson shot back. - Washington Post

I’m thinking the recipe for Coke is a secret, Betty Crocker has a ton of recipes in her apron that are a secret. Industries across America have trade secrets that don’t destroy peoples lives. Our government and our President is hiding behind a wall of secrecy and that is unacceptable to me as an American citizen when they use the “State Secret“ defense. Then they have the audacity to request that the cases be dismissed due to “State Secret” reasons.

Our courts are there for a reason. They are charged with upholding the laws of our nation. If the courts are confused over the laws as our President cares to adhere to them or stray past the gray area and play in the pitch black area then where is the checks and balance that the courts are supposed to uphold. Public statements from the President does not define the law. Laws that he sees fit to use and abuse to fight his made up war in Iraq on his own people!

While the President and his crew is busy covering up the truth, it’s a simple fact of life that the truth never really goes away. He can pave over the truth, color it with multiple brush strokes and even try to hide it away in the darkest corner of the closet of American history. It’s still there, the pavement will crack from the heat, the colored paint will chip and peal and everyone always has to eventually clean out the closets. Time is what will give up the truth and George Bush is biding his time.

Papamoka

Others talking about this issue...

Rising Hegemon

The Seventh Sense
Mockingbird's Medley
Amygdala

Feel free to link to this post...

We will gladly reciprocate in kind...

Cross posted at Bring IT ON!

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Rove, Libby, Hastert, Karl Vick, Tom Delay, History, Reuplican, Wire Tapping, FISA Court, 9th Circuit Court, Liberal, Justice, FBI, CIA, Spying, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Terror, Terrorists, War on Terror, Karl Rove, State Secret, Washington Post, Bush Lies, Signing Statements, Congress, Impeachment, Impeach, Presidential History, White House, Iraq Cover Up, Bush Administration, George W. Bush

Bush adds Rove to Untouchables List

Picture courtesy of the White House

Well it looks like lady justice took her blinder off and wiped her back side with it. At least that is the way President Bush interprets executive privilege. Ummm, Houston we have a serious problem here.

Karl Rove has a note from his mom… I mean the President to not appear before the Congressional investigation of the dirty dealings and firing of the nine U.S. Attorneys.

Karl Rove's Immunity

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, August 2, 2007; 1:24 PM

The presidential aide who acts with such impunity now has the ultimate protection: absolute immunity from congressional oversight, at least in the judgment of White House Counsel Fred Fielding.

White House political mastermind Karl Rove had been subpoenaed to testify this morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of the investigation into last year's still-unexplained firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

No one actually expected Rove to show up. But Fielding's assertion of executive privilege yesterday to block his testimony was nevertheless surprising in its breadth.

From Fielding's letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy: "Based upon the advice of the Department of Justice, the President . . . has requested that I advise and inform you that Mr. Rove, as an immediate presidential advisor, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity. Accordingly, Mr. Rove is not required to appear in response to the Judiciary Committee subpoena to testify about such matters, and he has been directed not to appear." - Washington Post

I’m guessing that Karl Rove could steal candy from a baby and the President would insert executive privilege to save his sorry ass. This is just so wrong it simply is not even funny… unless you are Karl Rove. Bush is tossing executive privilege around like snow flakes in a blizzard. For the record, the postal worker delivering mail to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is now covered in executive privilege stamps. Just in case good old Karl happened to have his unmentionable magazine subscriptions mailed to his place of work.

Just an after thought to all of these proceedings is that the Congress is doing nothing to stop the President from tossing the very simplistic vagueness of executive privilege around like a tennis ball at the US Open. I know Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have the (politically correct terminology for male reproductive genitals) to take on President Bush but Harry Reid damn well does! What are they waiting for? Is the President supposed to tell them its okay to insert the powers of the other two houses of our government?

Something is not right with this big picture and if the Democrats are not willing to go after the President and his Soprano crew then maybe the true Republicans have too. What does it take to make the government work as it was designed to do so when situations like the alleged criminal actions of this administration happen. Didn’t they all swear to defend the Constitution or was that just a common oath or phrase like “pass the salt”? So much for upholding the Constitution. Maybe one of them huge paper companies could recycle it so the President could use it in his executive privilege bathroom.

One thing is sure in all of this is that President Bush has set a very dangerous precedent. Future Presidents will look back to these days and think they are Kings or Queens. As we all know now, the crowns court is without guilt even if you had a video tape showing that the law was clearly broken. Our King and his court do not live by the laws they sign for the rest of us. It is what it is.

So how many book deals do you think Karl Rove will get out of this Presidency? Just something to make you go Hmmm?

Papamoka

Jury Duty Part II

Well I did my jury duty. I happened to have the chance to read my latest paperback but then again they have a television in the jury room so that was a bonus. Nobody was talking to anyone other than pleasantries and it felt more like a wake then a public service adventure.

All of the folks that were called for jury duty were placed in a room that was somewhat devoid of any artwork other than a Walmart special clock that just failed to tick off the minutes. Then the court officer came in and declared war on smokers and anyone with an inkling of needing to leave the room we were somewhat incarcerated in. If any one person left the room, we would be there till after four in the afternoon due to procedures in place to keep the jury pool out of ear shot of any lawyers discussing cases in the halls. Sort of a time out for all of us kids on the jury pool because one of us just might sneak out for a butt. When he asked for a show of hands amongst us only one person raised their hand and he was put to task. "I will be watching you!" The court officer stated as fact.

Just as the morning television talk shows were in full game they killed the television on us to watch one of those Charlie Brown videos of judges discussing the process, what the duty of the jury is and how it all works. I'm sure the woman sleeping at the table heard the teacher from Charlie Brown, Wha, wha wha wha, wha wha wha wha wha....

I forgot to mention the screening process, no cell phones, no electronic devices, and all the rest of logical things like weapons of mass destruction are not aloud in the court house. I emptied my pockets and feared that my bic lighter would be seen as a terrorist weopon but is was not once we were locked down. My wallet and pictures of my kids were rifled through as well as my car keys. Key to key were looked over. I was pissed off when one of the jury members whipped out her lap top and started typing away once we were in the sealed room. Had I known those were okay I would have brought mine.

One of the judges from the court came into the jury room in full robes and thanked us all for attending and serving not just our state but our nations legal system and that impressed me. It was probably the same speech he gives five days a week but it was the first time I have heard it and it made sense. Thank you Judge whatever the hell you said your name was. I so much wanted to ask him while he was thanking me so much for being there where the vending machines were for a soda, a snack, something? I didn't.

End result of my jury service was that I did not get to be on a jury. Damn lawyers scewed me over and settled all of the cases today or had continuences without the need for a jury. From what I now understand this is the case many times in our courts. All of my anxiety for serving on a jury were dealt with by a couple of lawyers making a deal in the halls of justice. Am I wrong to think that our justice system is screwed up? Yes, lawyers are there for their clients but if they are spitting out odds like a Las Vegas gambling house then why am I being called for jury duty?

Have people taken lawyers opinions as judges as a fact they have to face without a trial? Even a trial by a jury is feared by the lawyer? I see a real problem with this and frankly you should too! This is a serious dilemma. Judges in a court of law are lawyers but any lawyer in a court is not a judge. Something isn't right here. How do these lawyers know what any jury would think given any case? What if I had one problem with any given statement in any trial as a jury member? What if I had a problem with the police procedures used in any given trial?

Trusting a lawyer when your interests are at stake is up to you as an individual to say yes or no. Lawyers should be advisors to their clients and not deal makers in the courts of our justice system.

Papamoka

Jury Duty…

I’ve been called to appear for jury duty and unlike many people I am looking forward to it. Many friends and family have told me what I should say to get out of it but that isn’t me. I’d like to be on a jury and see how it really works. It would be an interesting experience and a learning one at that.

So would you lie to get out of jury duty? I promise not to tell anyone what you say but you have to swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Feel free to comment either way… Post anonymous though to protect your identity if you would lie.

What I would love to see from a juror point of view is the lawyers giving their arguments pro and con on the innocence or guilt of the person on trial. Granted I could kill a vacation day and do that any day of the week and sit in the back of the court but being on the jury is different. Two lawyers or if the accused chooses to defend themselves then they have to convince me if the law was broken or if there is reasonable doubt. That is the deliberation that I would have to face if picked as a member of the jury.

I’m wondering if I would be the one person with the question in my mind if the person is guilty or not while the rest of the jury is in the opposing opinion? How do you discuss or argue the points while deciding the fate of another person if you believe one way or the other? This isn’t television where the star points out the obvious. This is real life, real people. Somebody could go to jail or be free. That has me thinking.

I guess I will find out tomorrow.

Papamoka

Bush Chucks Congress the Finger!

Picture courtesy of the White House

President Bush made it loud and clear that he does not work for the American people today by refusing to hand over any documents to the Congress regarding the investigation of the nine fired U.S. Attorneys. This pretty much proves that he is not a President of the people but a Monarch.

I’m laying odds for all the Las Vegas houses on how long the President can withhold the documentation the subpoenas were meant for. Two weeks and five to one odds he turns them over on a late Friday afternoon. Nobody in Washington reads the late news on Fridays.

One thing that this President is good at is timing and delaying tactics. While he entertains Putin from Russia in Maine and soaks up the sunshine at the family estate in Kennebunkport the press and all of us bloggers will move on to yet another topic. Ten to one odds that a diversion tactic comes out of the Putin summit!

Over at the Washington Post they have this to say about the President using his first amendment right at flicking the bird at the spineless Congress…

Bush Won't Supply Subpoenaed Documents

By William Branigin and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 28, 2007; 12:42 PM

The White House said today it would not comply with congressional subpoenas for documents and testimony relating to the firings of federal prosecutors last year, setting up a potential constitutional confrontation over its claim of executive privilege.

In a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees, President Bush's counsel, Fred F. Fielding, said the White House refuses to turn over documents that were subpoenaed by the two committees on June 13. The deadline for handing over most of them was today.

"I write at the direction of the President to advise and inform you that the President has decided to assert executive privilege and therefore the White House will not be making any production in response to these subpoenas for documents," Fielding wrote in the letter to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

"With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation," Fielding said. "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion."

The committees are seeking the documents to determine the extent of White House involvement in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys last year. That action by the Justice Department has caused an uproar in Congress and prompted many Democrats and some Republicans to call for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. - Washington Post

I get the feeling that no matter what laws are broken by this administration that there are a limited number of orange prison jump suits to go around. Our current Congress has no teeth or the desire to take a bite out of the Bush apple. No matter how much we all scream and shout about the iceberg dead ahead that is the crimes of this administration and demand it be corrected, the ship still steers full speed ahead with its collision course.

There is no shame in the Bush administration. As much as he holds his friends close he is not one that will ever let himself hang when someone closer to the gallows will take the rope for him. That is the key to the team of the Presidency that is driven by Cheney and propped up by the man supposedly elected to the highest office in the land.

Watch the news over the next couple of weekends to see the true hand of this President. Alberto will swing but it will be the President that will hand select the rope. Friends do that for friends I guess. At least that is what they do in our nations capitol. For now it will be shiny object over hear while something else is going on over there in the Bush camp.

Papamoka

Alberto Gonzales is Cool With Mini Republicans

Just for giggles and chuckles let me put forth a hypothetical scenario that involves you. You are speeding way over the posted limits and a police officer pulls you over. You know what you did wrong and know the consequences of it but you have a get out of jail card up your sleeve. All you have to say to the police officer is “I don’t recall”. That and the card up your sleeve gets you off without so much as a slap on the wrist.

This is the same scenario played out in our nations capital with the man that is supposed to be in charge of enforcing the laws of the land. I do not recall is not the answer you want to give when you know your hand is glued inside the damn cookie jar. An oops might work but I don’t remember that I broke a dozen laws as Attorney General just does not fly.

Congress is a body of people that make the laws and if the Attorney General forgets what laws apply then a vote of no confidence is in order. President Bush was right in declaring the latest vote on Alberto Gonzales as politics. The only problem is that it is yet one more time that the Republicans fail to face reality that the current administration has been twisting the laws that apply to everyone else to suit what they want.

Over at Yahoo News they have this piece on the never ending deception and bait and switch that is the Bush administration…

GOP blocks Gonzales no-confidence vote

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press WASHINGTON -

Republicans blocked a Senate no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Monday, rejecting a symbolic Democratic effort to force him from office amid blistering criticism from lawmakers in both parties.

The 53-38 vote to move the resolution to full debate fell seven short of the 60 required. In bringing the matter up, Democrats dared Republicans to vote their true feelings about an attorney general who has alienated even the White House's strongest defenders by bungling the firings of federal prosecutors and claiming not to recall the details.

Republicans did not defend him, but most voted against moving the resolution ahead.

Monday's vote was not the end of scrutiny for Gonzales and his management of the Justice Department — more congressional hearings are scheduled and an internal department investigation continues.

Short of impeachment, Congress has no authority to oust a Cabinet member, but Democrats were trying anew to give him a push. Gonzales dismissed the rhetorical ruckus in the Senate, and President Bush continued to stand by his longtime friend and legal adviser.

"They can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government," Bush said in Sofia, Bulgaria, the last stop on a weeklong visit to Europe.

"This process has been drug out a long time," Bush added. "It's political."

The attorney general said he didn't plan on leaving anytime soon. - Yahoo News

Everyone should get the same turn at the wheel of justice that the President has in his pocket. For that matter I would prefer the laws that simply apply to political appointees by this President. Break any law you want and if Dick and George approve then it is okey dokey. Apparently, the Republican Party has no problem with that either.

One problem with this scenario is that each one of these people that refused to vote for a no confidence vote for the Attorney General also swore to defend the Constitution and as we all know, you might as well use is to wipe your back side according to President Bush.

Personal thanks to Achorn for this list of Senators with confidence in Gonzales...
Papamoka

Technorati Tags:bush, gonzales, alberto, justice department, congress vote, no confidence, attorney general, politics, rnc, dnc, elections, washington, yahoo news
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator