illegal immigration

Pop Quiz: Which Answer From This Pathetic Couple Is Worse?

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

I just rejoined “X” so I could pick off a post here and there, but I won’t be tricked into paying for a “blue check” again. That telling scene above just came to my attention. I was about to file it for a future “warm-up,” but decided to get it out of the way now.

At one of the stupid “No Kings” rallies Saturday, these two were asked if they supported the deportation of illegal immigrants. The guy, obviously the beta in the relationship, stutters, “Yes,” only to be admonished by his audibly sighing female companion. She then answers the same question with a “no” and explains, “It’s not illegal.”

Oh. Fascinating thought process there! Then the bearded guy, having been persuaded, almost, by her 1) dirty look and 2) her brilliant legal analysis, changes his answer to “I’m not sure.”

Which answer is worse, once we eliminate the ethical answer, which was “yes”? My vote goes to the weenie’s “I’m not sure”— stupid, cowardly, obviously insincere and still enabling law-breaking. That guy and his ilk are the ones who let the Left get away with its habitual “It isn’t what it is” strategy.

I hope the interviewer didn’t end that relationship. Those two deserve each other.

If Trump Derangement (And Groupthink) Can Make Intelligent and Informed People Post Junk Like This…

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

.

…what hope is there for sanity and rational discourse in the near future?

I am distraught. The meme above was posted with approval by a elite college history professor I have known for 50 years. I know he’s smarter than this, wildly so, and that he would flunk any student exercising such poor critical thinking skills in an essay or thesis. So how did he come to post such obvious crap, and how can he be helped? Continue reading →

On the Illegality of Illegal Aliens

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Guest column by Ryan Harkins

We have this report from HotAir explaining that that the ICE raid on the meat packing plant in Nebraska was not simply due to the fact that the plant hired so many illegals. Instead, the focus of the raid was on an identity-theft ring running out of that plant.

I want to make it clear I am all in favor of whoever in the world who wants to come to the United States to make a better life for themselves should have the opportunity. I’d give top priority to those who wish to become US citizens, but I’m generally in favor of letting into the country far more people than our current immigration system allots. How many more, I can’t say, as I’ve not crunched the numbers. But in general more immigrants means more workers, more production, higher demand for services, all which contribute to a growing economy that enriches everyone here.

Continue reading →

Case Study: How Broadcast News and “Experts” Deceive the Public

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

As I have mentioned here before, I usually sample broadcast news by simultaneously watching CNN, Fox News, BBC America and MSNBC on the DirecTV “News Mix” channel, never staying with any of them for more than a few minutes because they all are unethical, biased, and untrustworthy and it drives me CRAZY!

Just now, I saw Wolf Blitzer (has anyone ever parlayed a cool name into such a long, undeserved TV career despite persistent mediocrity?) interview an “expert,” clearly another Trump-hating law professor. She opined that President Trump “might” be violating the Constitution ( “KING! FASCIST!”) by directing ICE to again focus their illegal immigrant raids on restaurants, farms and hotels. It’s a likely violation of the Tenth Amendment, she opined. “The Tenth Amendment reserves the policing power to the states.”

That’s funny, I thought. I don’t recall the Tenth Amendment saying anything about police, and indeed, it doesn’t. What it says is that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Like the Second Amendment, the Tenth was not the Founders’ most shining hour in terms of clear, unambiguous language. The Tenth continues to be a rich and never-ending target for the Supreme Court controversies, but SCOTUS did rule, in McCulloch v. Maryland, that there is a principle of implied powers where the federal government (Congress or the Executive) can exercise powers not explicitly listed in the Constitution if they are necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers. Obviously the ability to enforce federal law would fall under that category, but okay ICE foes, take your best shot and see what SCOTUS says.

However, what the “expert” implied was that the Tenth explicitly included policing as one of the powers reserved to the state. Wolf, either as a deceitful accomplice or as an ignorant boob (I’m guessing the latter to give him the benefit of the doubt) just sat there nodding. Thus any viewer who wasn’t moved to check the Bill of Rights (I’m guessing that’s 99.9% of CNN’s audience) was left with the false impression that President Trump is being a dictator again by directing a Federal Agency.

Let’s see: fake news, misinformation, partisan spin, deceit. Take your pick. No wonder the Axis was able to gull thousands of citizens into wasting time on “No Kings” day.

Open Forum (With a Pope Note…)

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Funny, after watching “Conclave,” I found myself wondering when the Roman Catholic Church would select an American pope, not that I really cared. The New York Times saw yesterday’s surprising decision as justification for more Trump-bashing and an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy) that the Times’ acolytes—Democrats—overwhelmingly don’t acknowledge as an authority. Thus we got “The Pope Appears Uneasy With Trump Immigration Policies: Before Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost became pope, a social media account under his name shared criticisms of the Trump administration’s positions on immigration. “I…Don’t…Care,” and no one should care even if the social media posts in question came from the guy, which is unlikely. Sharing any opinions or positions without one’s own commentary is lazy, ambiguous social media conduct. But apart from that, becoming Pope creates a hard, black border around whatever the individual elected may have thought, said or done before becoming Pope, making all of that “non-operative,” as the used to say in the Nixon Administration. Furthermore, if this Pope tries to interfere with U.S. law, policy and values like the last one did, the proper response of Americans ought to be the same as I expressed here. The short version: “Mind your own business.”

I was amused yesterday when three waggish baseball pundits were discussing which Chicago baseball team Pope Leo followed, as he hails from the Windy City. The White Sox, one of them claimed. “No, his team is the Cubs!” another insisted. “I’m pretty certain he roots for the Angels,” said the third, ending the debate.

They forgot about the Padres!

Enough from me: This is your post…get opining.

Bleeding Heart Test: Who Feels Sorry For These “Good Illegal Immigrants”? (I Don’t.)

/ Jack Marshall / 31 Comments

The New York Post has a tale that is guaranteed to make “Think of the Children!” fans and “They just want a better life!” defenders of illegal immigration swim in a lake of tears like shrunken Alice in “Alice in Wonderland.”

Ximena Arias-Cristobal, 19, was a Dalton State Community College ( in Dalton, Georgia) student driving without a driver’s license when she failed to obey to a “no turn on red” sign. After police pulled her vehicle over, she claimed to have an “international driver’s license” (Nice try, kid!). One thing led to another, and eventually it was determined that she was not a citizen, having been brought here illegally by her Mexican parents when she was four, that they were here illegally too and had been for 15 years.

Continue reading →

Pssst! Somebody Tell Sen. Klobuchar That She Needn’t Work So Hard At Embarrassing Minnesota With Gov. Walz Doing Such a Bang-Up Job of It…

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

When did “Minnesota Nice” mutate into “Minnesota Stupid”?

Following the charging of a Wisconsin judge who pretty clearly obstructed justice and used her position to prevent an illegal immigrant and criminal from being arrested, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D. Minn), as you can see above, tweeted, “This is not normal. The Administration’s arrest of a sitting judge in Wisconsin is a drastic move that threatens the rule of law. While we don’t have all the details, this is a grave step and undermines our system of checks and balances.”

Remind me to shake that in front of the faces of my various friends and relatives who supported this shallow, foolish woman when she was running for President in 2020. Her tweet is one more smoking gun proving that Democratic officials will find excuses to accuse President Trump of threatening the “rule of law” and “separation of powers” and creating a “constitutional crisis” regardless of what he and his administration does.

Hilariously, Klobuchar admits that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about —“we don’t have all the details”—but in fact the details already made it as clear as Saran-wrap that Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan deliberately set out to interfere with the lawful arrest of an illegal immigrant. Dugan’s bizarre conduct revived memories of another lawless judge with a soft spot for illegals, Massachusetts District Court Judge Shelley M. Richmond Joseph, who was indicted in federal court in Boston on obstruction of justice charges for preventing an U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer from taking custody of an alien defendant. She delayed ICE while her staff secretly let the illegal escape out the courthouse back door in the Spring of 2018, before Trump Derangement had reached pandemic levels.

The details on Dugan’s effort to thwart law enforcement are worse, as this thread by Prof. Margot Cleveland amply demonstrates. Also hilariously, Democrats are condemning what sure looks like a legitimate criminal charge against a Democratic judge as politically motivated after they spent 2024 applauding lame, contrived and blazingly political prosecutions of Donald Trump while they intoned, “Nobody is above the law.”

Continue reading →

Today’s Unethical (and Stupid) Headline of the Day: “Ten Year-Old American With Brain Cancer Deported Because She Fell Out of the Wrong Vagina”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

To be fair, that headline is supposed to be funny: it is the work of the humorous news aggregator and satire site “Fark,” which posts links to stories that can support snarky, sarcastic, vulgar or wise-ass headings. I don’t find that headline anything but obnoxious, however, especially since a large number of “Think of the children!” saps and pro-open borders activists will be shaking their heads sadly after reading it.

The linked story is by NBC News which sports the only slightly less obnoxious header, “U.S. citizen child recovering from brain cancer deported to Mexico with undocumented parents.”

A fair, un-biased headline would read, “Illegal immigrant couple deported, along with their children.” That’s what happened. The fact that one of those children has a medical condition is irrelevant. (That’s the girl above. I would think her blurry face problem is at least as serious as her brain tumor…). The implication that the child was the focus of the action rather than her parents is deliberately misleading (that’s deceit, by definition). And the parents aren’t “undocumented,” they were here illegally. The use of “undocumented” is always a tell: anyone who uses it it trying to glide over the illegal status of someone who has no ground to complain if they are sent back to their nation of origin.

Continue reading →

Rationalization #71: Dick Wolf’s Mantra, or “They Only Want A Better Life”

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

As with all of the more recent rationalizations added to the list, #71, the first non-sub rationalization in a while, and thus the highest number so far, should have been included years and years ago. Who hasn’t been hearing and reading “They only want a better life!’ from illegal immigrant enablers, apologists and accessories after the fact for decades? Jeb Bush said it during his mercifully short Presidential run in 2015. Axis media like the New York Times may not use the exact words, but that is the underlying argument in their routine reporting of “good illegal immigrant” stories.

Why am I dubbing this annoying rationalization after Dick Wolf, the prolific TV producer and writer responsible for about a third of the dramas on TV among the reality shows quiz shows and sitcoms? It is because he drops the line into his productions virtually every time an illegal immigrant appears in the story line. I was tempted to call #71 “Mariska’s Rationalization,” because the star of “Law and Order: SVU” mouths the sentiment repeatedly throughout the show’s apparently endless seasons (after Mariska Hargitay finally dies on the job, the show will probably have her mummified corpse leading the police unit, like El Cid).

I confess: after announcing last year that I would be boycotting all Wolf shows after a particularly disgusting woke lecture in one episode I was unfortunate enough to hear, I tuned-in to an SVU re-run last night when my pathetic options were that, “Two-and-a-Half Men,” “Smile 2” and even worse junk. Sure enough, Olivia Benson was tracking down a white monster who was trafficking poor teens from Mexico and who set one of them on fire when she balked at being forced into prostitution to pay for getting across the border. When one of the other girls told Benson that she was afraid of being sent back to Mexico if she cooperated with “policia” to shut down the operation, Mariska, her face full of sympathy and her voice oozing motherly concern, said, “I know. But you you’ve done nothing wrong: you just want a better life!” At least in this episode Mariska didn’t talk about ICE like it was the Gestapo.

Continue reading →

Ethics Alarms Generally Ignores Michael Moore But a Quote This Unethical and Cretinous Warrants an Exception…

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

“Who’s really being removed by ICE tonight? The child who would’ve discovered the cure for cancer in 2046? The 9th grade nerd who would’ve stopped that asteroid that’s gonna hit us in 2032? Do we care?”

Yes, activist communist and has-been documentary-maker Michael Moore really and truly made that head-explodingly stupid argument, my candidate for the most ridiculous rationalization for allowing illegal immigrants into the U.S. yet, even topping the “But that poem on the Statue of Liberty!” excuse.

It is so stupid that the theory would be a valuable diagnostic tool on IQ tests. If someone checks the “Sounds good to me!” box, that test-taker’s cognitive ability should automatically be judged as “dangerously impaired.”

As we have explained here many times, consequentialism is the ethical theory for dolts, the concept that a decision or action is right or wrong depending on what happens as a result of it. Moore is saying that an action is unethical or wrong if anything good might have happen if a different choice had be made. I hesitate to give this walking, talking ethics corrupter credit, but he just has to be smarter than to believe that. As usual, Moore is trying to con the dimmer members of the public, a large contingent among Americans who still pay attention to him.

One wag on social media responded to Moore’s insulting question with “Now do abortion.”

Bingo.