Thursday, June 24, 2010

California Senator Darrell Steinberg Fears Securing Border a path to Lawful Enforcement

Greta On the Record:The Argument for a Boycott of Arizona

video



Greta: Do you have any objections to the Federal Government, right now, securing the border in Arizona - and then we can move forward and both sides should sit down and figure out what to do about immigration in this country - what kind of policy- but do you have any objections, right now, securing that border with Arizona?

Senator Steinberg: I would prefer - a more comprehensive solution, because what I fear would happen would be - that we'd do all of the border enforcement work - and then there would never be, (the impedance,?) or the follow-up, to make sure that there is a path to legal residency...
 
 


Senator Steinberg (D-Sacramento) admits here, in his own words, that there is a reason border enforcement duty is not being followed.

I am not sure if Greta caught it but this Senator explained to a T why Senator Kyl's statement regarding Obama's own preference is precisely what the Democrats strategy is, and has been, and why the border "enforcement work" is not being done...right now.

There needs to be a leveraged quid pro quo trade available to make sure that there is a path to "amnesty".

It is as simple, and dangerously negligent, as that.

There really is no other word for 'comprehensive reform' other than amnesty - because there already IS in place an immigration path to lawful "legal residency", just as there are already laws in place to secure our border.

Making illegal aliens legal does nothing to change the social and fiscal costs they impose on Arizona or the nation as a whole. The Heritage Foundation's research puts the cost of amnesty at over $2.5 Trillion dollars.

Senator Steinberg's (and these reported 44 California lawmakers who want a boycott of Arizona) real motive is the base numbers expansion no matter the cost. The Democrats are unwilling to 'do the work' to protect our border in order to hold on to the influx of a known democratic oriented voting block of millions.
What Steinberg and the rest really fear is anything that would diminish the path to that growth plan.

It all comes down to trading our 'security' as a bargaining chip for Democratic Socialist Power.

It is as simple as that.

Meanwhile the drug Cartels, who are massacring 10's of thousands a year in Mexico, are so emboldened by this lack of security limbo co-operation, and this enforcement War between the States and the Federal Government, that they have moved into our country, taken hard security posts for surveillance, and are now threatening our own police with death.

Obama's, "Y factor" solution is certainly to hold our Nations security, and stability, hostage until 'impedance' forces into motion- admittance.

The Arizona Law has more civil rights within it than the Federal Law and far more in it than California's own (834b)immigration law. The intolerant hoop-lah appears to be that Arizona is scheduled to actually enforce their law.

Would there have ever been a 'need' for States to have their own law written up if the Feds had performed their duty and enforced the U.S. Federal laws already in existence?

I am a Northern Californian (with the proper first 3 digit S.S. number) and I say there is no argument for an economic attack on Arizona.
I say HELL NO to these politicians who continue to rule without consensus, divide by hyphen-baited tactics, coerce by fund withholdings or sanction threats, and ignore our laws for their own personal longevity agendas.

Senator Steinberg made it very clear that he is not willing to do the work (or allow those who actually do the work) to secure the border unless, or until, he gets his, "what for what" or "something for something" trade.

Options:
Obey and implement the Federal Law of the Land written by lawmakers right now -

or resign.

It's as simple as that.
 
 
 

0 comments:

Post a Comment