The Water's Edge

There’s an old, old principle in American politics that states that “politics stops at the water’s edge.” The theory was that no matter our differences, we do not take our domestic disagreements abroad. And we certainly do not invite other nations to participate in our domestic affairs.

That seems to be at an end, thanks to the Obama administration.

Now, I understand that Arizona’s new illegal alien enforcement law isn’t that popular in certain circles. But it’s not something that should be the subject of international debate. The fact that one state has gotten fed up with the federal government’s staunch refusal to carry out its own responsibilities and chosen to do what needs to be done is strictly a matter for our own concern.

It’s clear that the Obama administration doesn’t like the law. I understand they’re preparing a legal challenge to it. (Presumably, after they’ve actually read it, but not necessarily.) But so far, what they’ve done to express their dislike of the law is reprehensible.

Oh, I can live with their out-and-out lying about the law. That’s pretty much part for the course for politicians in general and the Obama regime specifically. So when President Obama demagogues on the nature of the law, talking about how “now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen,” I shrug it off. I’m used to the guy just making shit up and saying whatever he thinks might fly in getting his way.

But when officials of our State Department, in discussions of human rights with China, a truly brutal and oppressive regime, actually cites the law as a “human rights violation” by the US and apologizes for it, then I get furious. Of course, that particular official claims that he hasn’t actually read the law he finds so appalling should come as no great surprise — he’s just following the party line established by the boss and propagated by others in his regime, including the Attorney General who will be in charge of challenging it and the Secretary of Homeland Security, who prior to that was the governor of the state in question.

But if there’s one thing the Obama regime is infamous for, it’s for their tendency to double down on stupid. Once they latch on to a theme that gets them some press, they ride it right into the ground and beyond.

Such as the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement stating that one way the Obama regime might fight the law is by refusing to accept illegal aliens detained by Arizonan officials, forcing them to release the detainees for lack of anything else to do with them. That’s right, officials charged with enforcing the law are saying that, as a political statement, they will refuse to enforce the law.

Which is precisely what triggered this whole situation in the first place — the federal government staunchly refusing to enforce immigration laws and securing the border, Arizona stepping up and doing their job, and the feds insisting that they have the right to not only refuse to enforce the law, but to ban anyone else from doing it, either.

And that brings us to last week’s state visit by Mexico’s President Calderon. First up, President Obama uses the opportunity of the joint statement to once again speak out against the Arizona law (without bothering to mention whether or not he’s gotten around to read it). Then, during an address to Congress, Calderon loudly denounces the law (which is still a far cry from being anywhere near as firm as his own nation’s laws regarding illegal aliens) — and he gets a standing ovation from pretty much all the Democrats and representatives of the Obama regime.

Including the aforementioned Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security.

This is utterly indefensible.

(We will now pause for our regular menagerie of Obama apologists and rumpswabs to spin defenses of the indefensible.)

The official policy of the Democrats seems to be that our southern border is not really a crisis flashpoint, its utterly unguarded nature no big deal, and the best way to address the whole situation is to point and shriek “RAAAAACIST!!!11!!!111!1!”

Meanwhile, Americans living along the border are being murdered, Phoenix is racing to become the kidnapping capitol of the world, and Mexican drug cartels are now engaging in open piracy against Americans on lakes that straddle the border.

But remember, the real crisis is that some Americans might hold bigoted views. That’s the only thing really worth discussing. Everything else is just a distraction, or at best a symptom of the real problem.

Shortlink:

Posted by on May 22, 2010.
Filed under Politics.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Poole

    A State visit is a carefully planned event. Months before the visit, top officials from both nations will meet to discuss what themes are to be presented, what events will be held to highlight those themes, the substance of all speeches will be reviewed, edited, and carefully vetted weeks in advance.

    The words of the President of Mexico had to have been reviewed and approved by the Obama administration at the very minimum. More probable is that the White House suggested the President of Mexico should condemn the Arizona law.

    The use of a foreign head of state to help a sitting POTUS in a partisan political matter is a new low for Washington politicians. In some respect, this tactic by the White House is reminiscent of the tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy – low and dirty. And like Joe McCarthy, the actions of the White House demand that someone should cry out “have you no shame?”

    As for President Calderone to blame the United States for all the automatic weapons used by Mexican drug cartels, then he will be in for a surprise very soon. Hugo Chavez had bought a gun factory to be built in Venezuela which will be used to manufacture AK-47 assault rifles. Considering the fact that Venezuela already has enough assault rifles to equip an standing army twice its current size, the reason for the factory has little to do with national defense.

    Hugo Chavez wants to generate revenue by selling weapons to his friends and allies. It will not be long before these rifles to cross various borders, including the Mexican border.

    When the flood of AKs flows into the armories of the drug cartels, will President Calderone blame Chavez or continue to blame the United States?

    My guess is that he will continue to make the United States his scapegoat because he will fear everyone else.

  • Justrand

    On the one side the OVER 70% of Americans who favor the Arinzona law. OVER SEVENTY PERCENT

    On the other side:
    - Barack Obama
    - the Democrats
    - Calderon
    - Castro
    - Chavez
    - Red China

    November 2010 can’t come soon enough!…nor can November 2012

  • Gmac

    “That seems to be at an end, thanks to the Obama administration.”

    Maybe you missed it but this occurred throughout the Bush administration years, yes all 8, where Democrat politicians would be abroad and denounce a particular policy he or she didn’t approve of. Your pick of the usual loudmouth suspects.

    What Calderon did was completely hypocritical given his countries immigration policies. If he doesn’t like guns coming into Mexico, which by the by are *TOTALLY* illegal, then maybe its time for him to do some border enforcement rather than to stand there in the center of our capitol in the halls of Congress and tell the legislators and American citizens that he doesn’t approve of the policies of one state that are identical to US immigration policy is beyond the pale.

    IMHO he should shut the hell up until he has control of the US Mexican border.

    I was even more appalled by the standing ovation he received from the Democrats and if that isn’t a part of political ads used to present the facts of what the Democrat party stands for in the next several elections then it will be a missed opportunity.

    What Obama has done is taken to denouncing policies that are current US law that he doesn’t like or see’s as a way to score cheap politically opportunistic points with a particular segment of society and trash them. Alinsky rules…

    In this instance I believe the law of unintended consequences is going to impolitely remind him in 6 months why its not the brightest idea to alienate 70% of the population that has an opinion on this particular matter.

    “I Can See November From My House.”

  • Myronhalo

    How many letters does it take on Wheel of Fortune to guess the answer? For the liberal, anti-US, anti-freedom people, mind-control people they have on the board the following: “hypocr*t*cal *gnoramous”

    . . . And then they ask to buy an “O”

    I wish the consequences of life´s choices were as obvious as “Wheel of Fortune”

  • GarandFan

    Read the local and county papers this morning. The ‘usual liberal suspects’ bashing Arizona. The MFM is really getting strident now. The general public (judging by the polls) is not buying their bullshit, so you can expect them to increase the volume.

    Last couple of days, been listening to an LA talk show. Every day they have one or two callers with heavy Hispanic accents railing on about ‘the illegal Arizona law’. Got to give the host props for putting up with it. The hook comes when he asks them to give an example of what is ‘illegal about the law’. They then recite the MFM/DNC talking points. Which are total bullshit. He keeps asking them to recite portions that they claim to have read that are “illegal”. To put the screws to it, the host then recites portions of Cal PC 834(b). They, of course scream, “that’s illegal”. The host then tells them, “No, that’s current California law”. That doesn’t stop them, they just raise their voices and babble more crap.

    But don’t worry. Barry is “studying” the problem.

  • myronhalo

    Oh, and by the way, what I fear about Elena Kagan is a very heavy, lifetime dose of the same destructive tripe. Unfortunately, the judges on the supreme court have no term limits and their only expiration date is the one their Maker decides on.

  • Shawn

    Jay Tea,

    Nice article. Well reasoned. I couldn’t have said it better.

    Completely off topic, I see you have taken quite a liking to calling me “Chone” instead of Shawn, even on other sites.

    I may have to retaliate, perhaps calling you “Gay Tea,” for example.

    You know this means war.

    -Chone

  • http://wizbangblog.com Jay Tea

    Hey, colleague, I didn’t post it there. Someone else quoted it, without my knowledge or consent. I keep my slandering strictly here.

    J.

  • BlueNight

    I have suddenly realized what part my own state (New Mexico) plays in the radical Liberal strategy.

    This state should be conservative, because it is largely rural and agricultural. However, Santa Fe, Albuquerque, and Taos are meccas for Liberals. As such, this state’s electoral votes have only gone to the Republican presidential candidate once in the past two decades.

    This state prevents the southwest from seceding.

  • GarandFan

    I believe the section of the Arizona law that most scares liberals is the part that prohibits the establishment of “Sanctuary Cities”.

    When you try to take over, a little bit at a time, it’s hard to do when you can’t get the camel’s nose in the tent in the first place.

  • ryan a

    Jay Tea,

    Now, I understand that Arizona’s new illegal alien enforcement law isn’t that popular in certain circles. But it’s not something that should be the subject of international debate.

    Except for the fact that this is about an international border, so the whole international debate thing makes some sense. Also, how do you propose we limit or control international debate?

    And that brings us to last week’s state visit by Mexico’s President Calderon … during an address to Congress, Calderon loudly denounces the law (which is still a far cry from being anywhere near as firm as his own nation’s laws regarding illegal aliens) — and he gets a standing ovation from pretty much all the Democrats and representatives of the Obama regime.

    You’re right. Calderon and the rest of the Mexican State really have no business telling others how to police borders effectively, let alone within the purview of human rights. People who enter into Mexico from places like Guatemala aren’t exactly treated like royalty.

    The official policy of the Democrats seems to be that our southern border is not really a crisis flashpoint, its utterly unguarded nature no big deal, and the best way to address the whole situation is to point and shriek “RAAAAACIST!!!11!!!111!1!”

    Oh, it’s a problem. No doubt about that.

    Meanwhile, Americans living along the border are being murdered, Phoenix is racing to become the kidnapping capitol of the world, and Mexican drug cartels are now engaging in open piracy against Americans on lakes that straddle the border.

    Tell that to all the Americans who buy the drugs and supply drug traffickers with billions of dollars. My point: Americans are part of this problem (at least some Americans). This isn’t just something that we can blame solely on Mexico. The problem exists here in the US AND in Mexico–and has to be dealt with on that level.

    The one GOOD thing about Calderon (who is pretty much another Vicente Fox is many ways) is that he has been going after the cartels, unlike what the PRI was doing for the vast majority of the 20th century. It remains to be seen how effective his efforts will be. The rise in violence in Juarez and TJ is a result of some of these crackdowns, and it has not been pretty. Some of the corruption runs pretty deep.

    But as long as there is a billion dollar market here in the US, this problem is going to exist, IMO. So what should we do about that?

    And THEN there is the issue with labor migration from Mexico into the US, which should not be confused with the whole drug cartel/trafficking thing. People lump these together all the time as if they are the same problem; they’re not.

  • Shawn

    Alright, you magnificent bastard.

    If you say so, I believe you.

    -Shawn

  • GarandFan

    “People lump these together all the time as if they are the same problem; they’re not.”

    Good piece Ryan, but in one respect they have a common denominator. The border is as porous as a colander. Remember 1985? “No more amnesty, we’re going to secure our borders!” They lied.

  • ryan a

    GarandFan,

    Good piece Ryan, but in one respect they have a common denominator. The border is as porous as a colander.

    That is the common denominator…the border is indeed pretty porous, in certain places (like the deserts of Arizona). Operation Gatekeeper didn’t really solve anything; it just pushed immigration into more remote places.

    Remember 1985? “No more amnesty, we’re going to secure our borders!” They lied.

    Politicians? Lying? ;)

    Imagine if politicians–on all sides–spent as much time working to SOLVE problems as they do making promises! That’ll be the day…

  • GarandFan

    “Operation Gatekeeper didn’t really solve anything; it just pushed immigration into more remote places.”

    “Gatekeeper” was in California, more specifically targeting San Diego County – former “Gateway to the US”. The fence WORKED. It forced the illegals east into the desert where it’s easier to see them, rather than a built up urban area. The fence followed (you can see portions from I-8).

    It was to be extended – but suddenly it became a billion dollar “virtual fence”. It didn’t work, it doesn’t work. Imagine that. The border is still open. (The local joke was that it’s a ‘virtual fence’ to stop ‘virtual illegals’.)

    It did work in San Diego County. As one measure, ask the citizens of National City how low their auto theft rate is now. Ask how many have 30-40 people running through their front and back yards on a nightly basis now.

    Is a fence the ONLY solution? NO! But it is PART of one.

  • GarandFan

    Question: If a “virtual fence” is so much better than an actual fence, why is there an IRON fence around the White House?

  • LiberalNitemare

    I propose a deal with Maxico

    The mexican govt can dictate the rules for immigration along Americas southern border IF they enforce the same rules along Mexicos southern border.

    Works for me.

  • GarandFan

    One final thought on our SOUTHERN border.

    Why is the Obama Administration spending MILLIONS in “stimulus money” on border security with Canada, but can find none for the southern border?

  • http://www.wholesaleinsurance.net/ Mark Manderson

    Let’s not blame the current admin for breaking with the old proverb. This nation is founded, in part, on appealing to foreign power for support. (Let’s remember how and why we got the Statue of Liberty.)

    However, I agree that AZ’s new law should not be an international matter. I further believe that that dispute should not be an interSTATE matter. They’re not doing anything they don’t have a right to do. The rule of law supports their actions.

    (I’ve read the changes to the law.)