You’d be completely remiss if you hadn’t caught any of the news headlines this week. We had a story of a man plotting to bomb malls in Cleveland in the name of Al Qaeda. We have a report of testimony today that Al Qaeda is planning a “spectacular” follow up to the devastation they caused on 9/11. We have a story about how Mohammed Atta wanted 10 planes to simultaneously hit the United States intelligence agencies, various nuclear reactors, and chemical plants. We have a man being held hostage by Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. We have an enemy whose bloodlust is unmatched in the history of this planet.
It’s a scary time to be an American, and the stories you hear in the news everyday will confirm it.
So it should come as no surprise that the Democratic party, is deciding to do exactly what won’t help this country fight the war on terrorism.
Introduced into the Senate (and House of Representatives) today was a bill called the Restoration of Civil Rights Act.
Sponsored by four Democratic Senators, the bill claims to address the excesses of the Patriot Act. What it really does is weaken the hell out of our national security for vague reasons and to appease some special interests. The legislation does the following:
1. End the special registration program aimed at immigrants from the Middle East. Despite the fact that on 9/11 we were attack by islamic terrorists from the Middle East, and attacked in 1993 by islamic terrorists in the Middle East, and we continue to hear about how islamic terrorists from the MIddle East are to this day plotting to kill us, this idea is just plain stupid. No one is asking them to be treated differently, just to leave their name, photo, and a fingerprint. Considering how many illegal immigrants pour into this country, it’s not out of line to ask people who come from big terrorist areas to provide extra identification. If you don’t like it, don’t come here; I don’t remember it being a law that anyone must visit this country. If you want to be off the list, do something about the country you come from so that your government doesn’t shelter and fund the terrorists we’re trying to keep out.
2. Create an independent immigration court. What the hell is the point of this? Yet another court loaded with activist judges who, instead of ruling on the law, decide to rewrite it from the bench. On an issue like immigration, this is the type of activism we simply cannot afford.
3. Eliminate harsh penalties for some immigration violations. How about kicking illegal immigrants out of the damned country? Oh no, God forbid. I don’t even know what to say to this. I have no idea why we’re trying so hard to go easy on illegals, but for some reason we are. It’s both parties who really have a warped perception of the importance of the problem, but why is it always Democrats who want to lower penalties for crimes; especially immigration? Just kick them out; problem solved.
4. The changes proposed in the Senate bill would end the government’s blanket right to conduct deportation hearings in secret, allowing closures on a case-by-case basis, and would guarantee prompt release-bond hearings. I don’t see a point in this at all. Why should deportation hearings be public? If you don’t belong in this country, you don’t belong in this country. End of story.
5. The legislation also would require detainees to be apprised of the charges against them within 48 hours and would eliminate criminal penalties for minor technical violations of immigration law, such as failure to report a change of address within 10 days. I agree with the 48 hours part; it should stand to reason that people have a right to be charged. However, to eliminate criminal penalties for any part of immigration law is just ludicrous. Again, as with earlier points, what’s the point? You violate the law as an immigrant, we send you home to your country of origin. Piece of cake.
6. The bill would limit the secret seizure of private databases and individual records. The Law itself, however, already does, because every action taken by the law is subject to oversight by Congress and the Department of Justice. Sorry, I don’t see how making information off limits helps us to catch the bad guys. And I’ve yet to see this power be abused. That’s not to say it won’t be; there’s always that danger, but if we’re basing this on the actions that have happened, there is no basis for this legislation…
Lost around the rhetoric that usually accompanies any mention of the Patriot Act is one major fact…
Despite quotes like this:
“This law is necessary to restore constitutional freedoms that are being encroached upon by this administration,” said Corzine, D-N.J. “This law, however, will not compromise the nations security. We can be both safe and free.”
The truth of the matter is this:
“There has been not a single finding by the courts, by the Congress or by the Justice Department’s inspector general of any abuses under the Patriot Act,” Corallo said.
And there hasn’t. Dianne Feinstein (D. Kalifornya) has had her office do research into how many cases have been brought improperly on the Patriot Act and how many complaints against the government were related to the Patriot Act. Her office also contacted the ACLU. The Senate checks and balances the Justice Department on enforcement of the law. Net result? Not one single millimeter of proof that the act has done anything to hurt anyone’s civil rights, or in any way abrigated the constitution.
There are legitimate concerns with the Patriot Act, but these are not necessarily them. Laws that stiffen penalties for illegals should never be touched in an effort to be politically correct. This law is nothing more than some election year posturing, and the media will regurgitate the Democrat line on this one as if it’s a proven fact while never once challenging the position of the sponsors of this bill.
Don’t believe me? Think I’m wrong?
Read up tomorrow when this bill hits your local papers, and come back here and quote the criticism the paper gives, or quote the media questioning the Senators on who exactly is losing their rights.
I have all day… I’ll probably be waiting at least that long.
Source: NY Newsday AP Wire, 6/16/04