DHS to build fences anywhere at any time, even committing mass murder to do so?

Don't laugh at the title because, in the "liberal" coordinate system, it's true.

However, in the real world, it isn't. The blog of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, after linking to Duncan B. Black, quotes the following from a "Judiciary Committee source" about the REAL ID Act, which was today passed by the House:

Section 102 of the Immigration Bill that passed today provides that "notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws" he determines necessary to construct barriers and fences.

Consider what this means. Not only can the Secretary waive environmental, labor and laws concerning Native American rights in connection with the construction of the 17 mile fence near San Diego, but this allows him to waive all laws concerning the construction of any fence at any time!! This means the Administration can take property without compensation, engage in direct cash payoffs to themselves and their friends, hire child labor, violate the civil rights laws, and even murder people if they think it would help them construct a barrier fence somewhere, anywhere in America...

I left the following comment:

Wow. I had no idea that the DHS can now build fences anywhere at any time that they wish.

I'm sure we'll now see a whole plethora of fences being built, including mass murders being committed.

Wait, that can't be right, because this only applies to this section. See "Improvement of Barriers at Border".

Could the opposition to this bill have anything to do with "liberals" supporting illegal immigration, some of them going as far as trying to get Mexico to meddle in our internal politics?

Gil Cedillo (sponsor of innumerable bills in California to give DLs to illegal aliens) said we should give DLs to illegal aliens because "they were here first." Do "liberals" agree with those sentiments? If so, perhaps they should reconsider their citizenship options.

In other words, this new law only applies to the San Diego fence. And, of
course, any cases of mass murder would probably get a little media attention, so I don't expect we'll be seeing mass murders to build fences in the near future.

Is the DCCC willing to stake their reputation on the word of Duncan B. Black or this unnamed source? Let's wait and see.


Oops! That was a handle I was using at gnxp.com just before I came here. Damn insomnia.

I was simply referring to Israel's determination to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel proper not the 1948 expulsions which took place ,after all, in time of war. If you really want to be quixotic on this issue (ethnic cleansing) you can campaign to get the Poles and Czechs to take back the fifteen million ethnic Germans(and their descendants) who were expelled (often with great cruelty) during and after WW2.
On the other hand there is an ongoing ethnic cleansing,in the form of population displacement through massive illegal immigration, that can be addressed in the here and now.It must be considered population displacement unless you believe there is no difference between a "gringo" and Mexican. This ethnic cleansing/populcation displacement is openly encouraged, and even celebrated by the Mexican government- but,hey, you know that.

Steve, I think this conversation is contentious enough without bringing in Israel. But since you did...

So you don't have a problem with Israel expelling the Palestinians who were living there at the time of Israel's creation? I'm sure you'd graciously give up your California home to some Native American or Mexican who had some claim that his ancestors lived there a few millenia ago, right? Sure.

Can you give me an example for when, under your moral regime, ethnic cleansing or apartheid would NOT be permissible? Or is it just might makes right?

Right, James Bond. Just like when Israel insists that Israel remain Jewish and not be transformed into an Arab state it is exhibiting "gut-level" prejudice. MAybe you think Israel is the same as Nazi Germany, I don't.

I don't think that all restrictionists are racist - some aren't even white, and oppose illegal immigration because they are devoted to the Rule of Law. Such people, if consistent, would also be angered by people violating other federal regulations, those pertaining to worker's rights, the environment, civil rights, etc.

But when people state that they oppose illegal immigration on the grounds of "preserving our demographic heritage" (which is what?) they deserve to be called on their crypto-racism. A discussion on how to preserve America's racial breakdown (since that's what you mean by demographic) or some similar tihsllub doesn't raise the level of discussion, it drops it into the gutter, from reasoned arguments into gut-level prejudice. Restrictionists don't get to decide the terms of this dialogue, so tough titties.

"their reputation"

What reputation would that be?

They're a political organization, which means the positions they take may or may not be principled, or match up well with your principles.

Such hyperbolic tihsllub should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the "debate" about immigration, where the principal argument of the pro side seems to consist of calling people on the anti side racists and xenophobes.

Trying to raise the level of discussion, hopefully to include an honest dialogue about whether the demographic heritage of America is something worth preserving, has proven difficult. This can be so when one side relies on emotion and seems oblivious to facts and reason.