October 26, 2003

Of Course, Arnold Still Won't Give Them Driver's Licenses

Anybody see Nancy at the A.N.S.W.E.R. rally yesterday?

U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said on Friday police raids on dozens of U.S. Wal-Mart stores in the search for illegal immigrants this week amounted to "terrorizing" workers.

Uh huh. So enforcing the laws enacted by, you know, Congress, constitutes terrorism. Are these core principles of the Democrat Party Nancy is espousing as they try and convince 50% + 1 of us that Democrats can be trusted on national security? What voter demographic is she trying to appeal to here?

"It instills a great deal of fear in people who are only trying to earn a living and put food on the table for their family," Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters on a Congressional visit to Mexico.

Ok, so she wasn't at the A.N.S.W.E.R. rally, but she might as well have been there finding common cause with her fellow travelers. Hmm..., so it seems Nancy's trying to lock down the vote of Mexican citizens? Isn't there something more than a little unseemly about major Democrat figures like Nancy and Madeleine going overseas to criticize their own government?

"We think there might be a better way to go about this because the fact is that it is against the law for the employer to hire these people so there should be more focus on the employer and less in these terrorizing raids," Pelosi said.

Why is it either/or? If an employer broke the law, prosecute them. That still doesn't provide an illegal immigrant with a free pass to not be deported.

Pelosi said the Wal-Mart raids showed the need to legalize undocumented workers in parts of the economy other than just the agricultural sector.

Or maybe we need to stop the exploitation of illegal immigrants to provide you and me with underpriced vegetables from California year 'round. Or perhaps it shows the need to enforce the laws on the books, tighten the borders and deport those who are in violation of the laws Congress has passed. I'm sure Nancy understands what self government is all about, doesn't she? I can't quite get past a feeling that a big part of this is an attempt to slander Wal-Mart because they are big, successful, and non-union. Just another target of convenience. Maybe Nancy wants to follow the Bay Area's lead and move Wal-Mart out of all of Kalleefornya, if not the US.

Several bills to grant legal status to illegal immigrants working in U.S. agriculture are before Congress, including the Berman-Cannon bill which would let an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants earn legal residency.

If Nancy and her friends can get the bills passed and signed into law (I doubt this, and I'm certain there's no chance of a veto override), then so be it. I'll respect it as the law of the land -- so long as Nancy will begin respecting what is already the law of the land. Otherwise, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the slander, I mean, gander. Right?

Posted by Charles Austin at October 26, 2003 08:44 AM

Were I a pedant, I would point out that Mexico is not overseas. But I'm not, so I won't. :-D

To the extent that Pelosi's comments can be interpretted to support some kind of guest worker program, I agree with her on the need to legalize undocumented workers. But that's probably not what she means - putting a guest worker program in place is generally considered by hardline lefties like her as exploitation. The fact that a significant percentage of these workers come here for a season or two and then take their earnings home - and would thus welcome a program that allowed them to do so without the attendant legal risks - is ir-relevant to them.

Ina ny event, there's no way Bush would veto that bill. *He* himself has suggested amnesty programs more than once. He'd sign that puppy and then run ads next year on Spanish radio touting that fact, more likely.

Posted by: Dodd at 11:51 AM

The thrust of her comments, as you say, are that laws she disagrees with are illegitimate. for a member of the Congressional leadership, this kind of rhetoric is beyond irresponsible.

I wonder how well her criteria for terrorism would hold up as a general case?

"It instills a great deal of fear in people who are only trying to earn a living and put food on the table for their family,"

It's just possible that the "food on the table" defense could be quite popular among broad segments of the criminal population.

Posted by: Dave in LA at 05:51 PM