Dan McFeeley asks Sen. Delph a series of questions about his immigration bill. There aren’t any real follow up questions to Sen. Delph’s answers, so it’s pretty one-sided, but at least it gives Sen. Delph’s public position on the matter.
My main policy concern about the bill, which would penalize employers for hiring illegals, is the chilling effect it might have on businesses from hiring people here legally. If hiring Mr. Sanchez might subject you to additional scrutiny even if you do everything right, why take the risk? Just hire Mr. Smith.
My favorite rhetorical concern is Sen. Delph’s purported concern for the “rule of law” being his prime motivation for offering this legislation. However, his concern did not extend to the military’s regulation against its members engaging in political activity while in uniform. Sen. Delph encouraged such activity and, when confronted, said he’d do it again.
Doug, you keep bringing up this “Rule of Law’ comment in a way that’s appears to attempt to show that Mike willingly broke some sort of law.
In reality, there was not intent or design to break any sort of law. Lt. Col Mejia was in uniform at the event (on his own initiative), but did nothing to actually promote the bill itself. He never once called upon anyone to vote for or support the law, he was simply there to serve as an example of what could actually be done if one follows the law and does things the right way.
You characterization of this as though Mike broke the law is incorrect and unfair.
That argument would carry more weight with me if Sen. Delph wasn’t on record as saying that if he had to do it over again, he’d do it the same way with respect to the uniform.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Lt. Col. Mejia testify before a Senate committee in favor of the bill while in uniform? That would be political activity while in uniform. If the military rule had been pointed out to Sen. Delph (giving him a huge benefit of the doubt that he was unaware of the rule) and he’d then said something to the effect of, “Woah, that was a mistake. Won’t happen again” then I might be inclined to figure Sen. Delph for an innocent bystander. But shrugging it off and saying he’d do it the same way again diminishes his “rule of law” argument.
And, the point of this isn’t that testimony in uniform constitutes unconscionable disregard for our legal system. It’s that there is a spectrum of seriousness about the gravity of our laws. Laws against jaywalking are on one end. Laws against murder are on the other end. There is a segment of the anti-immigration crowd who like to blurt out “THEY CROSSED THE BORDER ILLEGALLY” as if that ends the debate. They’d be laughed into silence if they were arguing that anyone who jaywalked to get to work should be fired upon pain of a business losing its right to do business if it failed to comply. I haven’t heard a lot of debate about where crossing the border without proper documentation falls on the spectrum between jaywalking and murder and why.
I regard people being in the country as malum prohibitum rather than malum in se. So, more akin to building without a permit than murder or theft. Once you’ve come to some sort of consensus about the gravity of the transgression, you can have a decent discussion about the appropriate penalties.
Look, Delph is in the military, right? So, I assume he knows the rules. And I assume that he obeys and supports the rules. When he saw Mejia walk in, he should have suggested the Lt Col change. The fact, that he allowed the man to be used at the press conference as window-dressing shows that he knew very well how it would look. If it could be proven that he even encouraged the action, which I suspect, then he broke the rules and deserves punishment.
The Rule of Law either exists and for all, or it doesn’t. Isn’t that Delph’s argument on immigration? Which, by the way, is a federal issue anyway. Doesn’t Delph have some property taxes to cut?
Give it a rest Jacob. You defend you buddy Mike like he is an innocent bystander and I’m starting to get embarrassed for you.
They both knew the rules and they both willingly broke them. Period.
He needs to suck it up, like a good soldier, and except the consequences.
oh please:
I nominate you for best username on this blog.
oh please:
And, of course, your gravatar should be a picture of John Lithgow as Dwight Henderson: World’s Meanest Methodist Minister.
/obscure
Doug, I wasn’t claiming Mike was an innocent bystander or ignorant of the rules. I’m simply saying that Mejia arriving at an event and speaking in uniform in and of itself doesn’t constitute a political activity. Mejia didn’t advocate for the bill at this event (I have no idea if he was at another hearing on this bill or not, I’m only talking about this news conference), nor did he push any particular political agenda.
I simply understand Mike’s point to be (and considering I’m the only one who’s actually asked him about it, neither you nor Welsh have, to my knowledge) that while they didn’t see it as violating a statute, they were willing to accept consequences if it was ruled to be later on.
Gravity of the transgression? Considering we are currently fighting a war against Islamofacism (and yes, I am aware of your stance on that issue), the blatant openness of our borders is a serious issue. Not to mention all of the associated crimes and burden on infrastructure placed by the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants here.
But, I’m not trying to fight the illegal immigration issue here, just trying to clarify the issue regarding Mike.
I know you’re not trying to go down this road too far, but I can’t resist. Is there any actual “fascism” to these “Islamofascists”? Or is “fascism” just being used, more or less, as a synonym for evil?
In particular, I always figured fascism to require an extreme dedication to a nation-state.