Illegal Immigrant Environmentalism (Build a Wall and They Won't Come)

Substitute The Jack-Booted here.

Of all the "carefully crafted with insanely twisted logic" rationales for not controlling our nation's borders, none makes my blood boil over more than the claim that control of our borders means damage to the environment.

Here I am: A Democrat and very sympathetic to the cause of a healthy environment. Pass all the strong, broad and far-thinking environmental legislation possible, I say. Guilty of throwing a gum wrapper into the gutter? Get a rope.

So, yes, a wall along the border will cause some environmental damage resultant by both its construction and by its effect on migrating animals. But what does this mean in comparison to the damage to the environment that unchecked illegal immigration to America will, is currently, and has caused? Think in these terms: A weed standing next to a giant sequioa.

The presence of tens of millions of people who should not be here produces, or contributes greatly to, the following results: Litter; Increased rate of the filling of landfills; Increased traffic and smog; Urban sprawl; Dwindling water supply; and all-around environmental degradation. These are problems that range across America, from the border areas to Nebraska to New York and Georgia, Chicago, Los Angeles and Seattle as a direct result of unchecked illegal immigration. Some areas will be impacted year after year -- mainly the American west due to the lack of water even in the best of times.

But areas impacted are as far-ranging as the settlement pattern of illegal aliens themselves: Good citizens of Atlanta, how do you like sharing your drought-stricken water rations with people who aren't there legally? Los Angeles and San Diego, have you met your illegal neighbor in the next lane over as you sit in choked freeway lanes around 8 a.m. or 5 p.m.? People of Denver, you certainly are not immune to the concept of sprawl brought on in no small way by the housing demands of -- wait for it ? illegal aliens. What does that suburban and x-urban sprawl, that lack of water, that pollution, and overall environmental degradation mean to the banana slug, the spotted owl, the golden trout, the elk, the grizzly, the desert tortoise, the salmon run, the Sierra frog, the old growth forests, the already-on-the-ropes wetlands, and the American bald eagle? How about to your basic right to breathe clean air?

Well, it ain't good. That pack of bobcats that hop-scotches across the U.S.-Mexican border that pro-illegal activists suddenly have become so concerned about cease to become statistically relevant in comparison to all the environmental ills unchecked illegal immigration ultimately casts. 12 million illegal aliens as a city would be ranked just below Mumbai, India (Population: 13 million) and Karachi, Pakistan (Population 12.1 million) on the list of world's largest cities. It is 4 times the population of L.A. If you were to remove L.A. four times over -- though we must preserve Dodger Stadium for the author's personal amusement -- anybody who has spent a smoggy day in the City of Angels can get a sense of what that would do for the health of the environment, not to mention the lungs.

I sit here and boil over the fact that the leaders of my own party seem to lack either the conviction or the will to combat this obvious and very real problem, even though there are plenty of mainstream Democrats like myself who would insist upon it as a matter of the preservation of our country. My dismay at my own party is matched only by the fact that leaders of the GOP are very much influenced by the money that industry captains shove in their pockets to keep the supply of cheap labor flowing unobstructed instead of listening to their rank-and-file.

Now, are illegal aliens the root cause of all evil in the vast world of American environmental problems? No. Not by a long shot. But they certainly aren't helping, and most-assuredly are contributing to the problem. I'm just here to offer the plain truth to counter claims that stopping their crossing will hurt the environment. Indeed, whatever environmental problems a wall would create in the border lands alone would have to be negated by its positives. Anybody have any idea how much trash is left behind in the desert by illegals wandering through?

Beyond the obvious primary questions of fundamental fairness of those who would cut in line, security, and national autonomy there is to be no doubt that irreversible environmental degradation is the single-most tangible body-blow that illegal aliens land on the United States.

This so doesn't happen 5 years ago

After 2 World Series in 4 years, the first ending an 86 year drought, leave it to Red Sox fan to suddenly have a heart. The Red Sox asked Bill Buckner, he of the muffed grounder in the ’86 World Series against the Mets, to throw out the first pitch for the Sox home opener, whereupon he received a standing ovation from the faithful.

Well, well, well. Isn’t that special. They savaged Buckner to the point he and his family ran off to Montana or Idaho somewhere and now he’s welcomed back like a native son.

Even now, in video here, he looks somewhat hesitant, like he’s waiting for the other shoe to drop as he walks in from the outfield. We would’ve loved to have been a fly on the wall when Buckner took the call inviting him back. “… this is some sort of sick joke, pal.”

New England fans have always been obnoxious but there was an (almost) endearing quality to them in the recent past as all their professional sports teams were terrible. Not like Cubs fans, though, who almost revel in their teams futility because Sox fans believed failure was inevitable, pre-ordained… their existence spent under the gloom of a Calvinistic cloud (paraphrasing George Will).

But now that the Celtics are running away with the East, the Pats being among the top teams in football, the Red Sox collecting their rings and even BC QB, Matt Ryan, possibly being the first player at his position to be taken in the NFL draft, New England fans have become the nouveau riche’ of fandom: always loud and obnoxious but now with an extra helping of in-your-face crassness, arrogance and I-told-you-so.

Forgiveness made easy.

Programming Alert

The annual BwD spring camping confab will be going down out at Joshua Tree starting Thursday and extending through the weekend. As B-Daddy’s idea of roughing-it is staying at a Motel 6, he will remain behind and mind the store for us in our absence. Now lest you think B-Daddy some sort of dandy and nothing less than the rugged Harrison Ford-like individualist that he is, we will dispel any of those notions by simply stating he remains steadfast in his conviction that the “great outdoors” are outdoors for a reason.

Mongo and ourselves will try to help out with some pre-made heat’n’serve posts.

It just wouldn't be the same without it.

Like great art, great music stands on its own. It doesn’t need any explanation, rationalization or context. That’s why “One Shining Moment” is happy as hell to have the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament.

We were standing in line at the bank today and they had Romey’s television program on. Rome was absolutely brutalizing the song, saying they needed to put the old nag out to pasture – that the young kids today, particularly the ones playing in the game to which the song honors, weren’t “down” with it.

Sorry, Jim. We remember with crystal clarity Mateen Cleaves, the Michigan St. point guard after their championship win in 2000, telling Jim Nantz that he would sing the song in his head as a kid growing up thinking of this very moment.

The song is a treacly, over-the-top piece of pop fluff but in the context of providing the swan song backdrop to each year’s tournament montage wrap-up, it totally works. Does it, ever.

Ladies and Gentleman, the 2008 NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, “One Shining Moment”. Enjoy!

R.I.P., Luther

"Where do we keep finding these people..?"

California…. Garden Grove to be exact.

Coronado-based Navy SEAL, Michael Anthony Monsoor was posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor today. He is the first Navy recipient of the award in the Iraq war. Story from U-T, here.

Monsoor fell on a grenade and saved the lives of 3 American snipers and several Iraqi soldiers in Ramadi on Sept. 29, 2006. He died within a half-hour.

Monsoor’s remains lay at the Ft. Rosecrans National Cemetary out on Pt. Loma here in San Diego. His headstone will be replaced with one that will reflect his award.

Were not psychologists and we don’t have any supporting data in front of us but the description of Monsoor’s personality by family, friends and colleagues appears to fit a pattern we observed in this nation’s bravest: quiet, unassuming guys who were never the BMOC or the best athlete on the high school football or wrestling team but were always the hardest workers who led more by deed than word. They’re all business at work but good-naturedly rambunctious away from it and never turn down an opportunity to play a practical joke on a mate. And perhaps ironically, they never seem to wear their patriotism on their sleave but all of them, of course, are held in the highest esteem by everyone with which they come into contact.

Two posts in the past two days regarding losing two of the good guys. Not an encouraging trend.

Update: Video of presentation ceremony here. H/T: Hot Air

Boston Follies

… and speaking of the dubiousness of curing social ills through legislation… The city of Boston is grappling with an issue similar to what the city of San Diego is with its “mini-dorms” and zoning regulations with respect to rental units for college students.

The city fathers have enacted an ordinance that would limit landlords to renting a single unit to no more than four college students which would supposedly cut down on loud, wild, late-night parties and other related behavior said to be “anti-social” (article’s choice of word which we thought to be highly ironic).

As this article notes, there are several problems with this ordinance, chief among them from the landlords’ standpoint: it limits the amount of income the landlord can generate from his property. This can, in effect, be argued as a “seizing of property”.

And from the college student standpoint, it is discriminatory as it singles out college students only… there is no prohibition against renting to families with more than four members.

As with Prohibition, though, this legislation will result in black or gray markets as work-around solutions to a) students wanting to decrease their individual rent and b) landlords wanting to maximize their income from their rental units. The article neglects to mention the most obvious result of this ordinance which is, of course, the 4 students sub-letting to other students so that money is exchanged from student to student and student to landlord… an “invisible hand” mechanism that renders this law which would be nearly impossible to enforce anyway, moot.

We sympathise with the plight of the folks who may live next door to a defacto Delta House but this ordinance appears to be just another well-intended piece of legislation that is simultaneously on legal thin-ice and practically ineffectual if not detrimental to the current state of affairs.

And make that a Ketel One martini, please.

Not a whole lot else needs to be said. Oh... drink responsibly. There.

75th Anniversary of...

the re-write to the Volstead Act, better known as the "The Day the Beer Flowed Again." B-Daddy here, commemorating what must be a high holy day for a blog site named Beers with Demo. Prohibition, a result of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, was still in effect on April 7, 1933. But the 18th amendment had not defined the term "intoxicating liquors." Congress had passed the Volstead Act in October 1919, defining intoxicating beverages at greater than 0.5% alcohol. Fast forward to 1933 and the country is in a depression, prohibition is widely flaunted and FDR had won election to the Presidency promising a repeal of prohibition. Still, a constitutional amendment takes time to repeal, so the quick fix to get brewery workers back on the job and create a market for grain farmers, was to change the definition of intoxicating beverage to greater than 3.2% alcohol, the traditional value for beer of the era. Very quickly the states ratified the 21st Amendment, ending prohibition in most of the country. The mood of the country is captured here:



Of course, B-Daddy has some lessons learned.

Repealing prohibition turned alcohol from a drain on the Treasury to a source of revenue. Anything else we prohibit that might have a similarly beneficial effect?

Prohibition was based on the notion that we could legislate human goodness. We cannot.

Badly written law undermines the entire concept of the rule of law, because of widespread disobedience.

Prohibition sets the stage for corruption.

Prohibition and gun control both seek to solve complex societal ills by banning inanimate objects. This approach seldom works.

Beer is good.


















H/T: LA Times by way of realclearpolitics.

Susan Estrich is optimistic about our pessimism.

No, no… we’re not going to beat-up on her. Though, politically disagreeable we’ve seen her enough on the telly to sense that she is a pretty rational and sane observer of the body politic. Her article, (misplaced the link - will try to track down and post later), points to the “right direction/wrong direction” poll that was done recently as being good news for the eventual Democrat nominee. Said poll claims that 81% of us think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

Not ones to ever be accused of overthinking things, this poll question never seemed to make a whole lot of sense to us, though, as it appears much more nuanced and subjective to interpretation than what the pollsters intended, perhaps. As such, we don’t know how we’d answer that question were it ever posed to us. Our reasoning would be a rather complicated algorithm to which generating a binary answer might prove impossible.

But back to Susan: Estrich hangs her hat on the CW that with an overwhelming majority of the American public being in a funk over the national “direction”, this spells trouble for the incumbent party in power….in the Oval Office. While this may be true, one’s got to think that the extraordinary job Congress has been doing as evidenced by their approval ratings has to be factored into this equation as well. It would seem to us that both Clinton and Obama as Democratic members of a Democratically-controlled Congress should be perceived as part and parcel reasons for our country-wide bummer. While this logic may hold for Clinton, Obama’s awesomeness lifts him above the fray.

B-Daddy, a while back, strongly urged the Republican primary candidates to run against Congress rather than their prospective Democratic opponent precisely because of this reason. Unfortunately for John McCain though, because of his track record in the Senate, we are skeptical that that he will be able to decouple himself from the overall unpopularity of the Senate and House.

Afterall, our disgust with Congress may equal that of a liberal’s, though for very different reasons which makes divining the effects of these polls somewhat sketchy.

"If it saves just one life, then it was all worth it."

The old adage of “bad examples make for bad policy” has always been a refrain of ours but one which we would never suggest to Sgt. Anita Shaw of the United States Army who was serving this country in Iraq when she lost her teenage son, Jamiel when he was gunned down by an illegal immigrant in L.A. in March of this year.

But come to think of it, why would deportation be bad policy? For all the hand-wringing of an economic collapse due to mass deportations and whining over breaking up the family units of hard-working, family-oriented illegal aliens because of the same, would it be too much to ask that we at least kick-out the bad actors? Check out Jamiel’s Law, here.

Is it too much to ask our elected leaders to grow a spine and possibly (gasp) ruffle some Mexican and central American feathers by rightly making these people their problem instead of ours? Is it too much to expect our elected leaders to actually uphold the law of the land to which they have sworn an oath? Don’t hold your breath.

In fact, expect just the opposite. The same inane “sanctuary city” policies that cost Jamiel his life are being pursued in a much splashier fashion by San Fran mayor, Gavin Newsome who has embarked on an $83,000 tax-payer funded city-wide program that seeks to welcome illegals with open arms.

Boy Blunder, you may recall, is the same person who decided on his own 4 years ago to abrogate Prop. 22 which banned same-sex marriages here in California by ordering the city clerk’s office to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Newsome was widely criticized by fellow Democrats for giving George Bush a stick to beat John Kerry about the head regarding this issue. Nice work, Gav. We’re hoping this stunt has a similar effect in further galvanizing all us racists and nativists.

...and makes us feel we've been targeting the wrong people with all this deportation talk.

Perspective

Democrats opining on media bias: We’re not quite sure what this guy’s point is. Its just politics… Suck it up, Rendell.