Batfink's Beep -- Home

Canada says: You have to take them, but we don't

September 20, 2007

***UPDATE***: The Canadian government is working to get the word out that they give no special treatment to Mexican refugees.

[Windsor Mayor Eddie] Francis said the problem has been exacerbated by websites encouraging Mexicans to head north to avoid the American crackdown. "The word is spreading like wildfire," he said. "The overarching message that's being communicated is that here in Canada you don't have to worry about the immigration authorities cracking down on illegal immigrants."

***End UPDATE***

Isn't this lovely? The local powers that be of Windsor, Ontario in Canada are all steamed because Mexican illegal immigrants are apparently leaving Florida for Windsor, Ontario, and in large enough numbers to put the hurt on the local social services budget.

"When there is a possibility of adding thousands to the local social assistance system as a result of refugee claimants crossing the border into Windsor, we will become overwhelmed and our current resources will not suffice," [Mayor Eddie] Francis wrote in a letter sent Wednesday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

We sympathize. It isn't exactly cheap when they're hurting OUR social services budgets, either. It's not like they were being tortured back in the the native lands they fled, as the Canadian points out. As regards the matter of what are being termed "economic refugees', Canadian Immigration Refugee Board (IRB) spokesman Charles Hawkins says,

The fact someone wants to come here for better economic opportunity or a better quality of life ... that's no basis for a successful refugee claim."

Yes. Many people here feel the same way. People seeking escape from persecution back in their native countries is one thing. But taking in anyone who just wants a better life isn't really a practical solution when they show up in the numbers they do. We, as well as the Canadians, just can't afford it. But the interesting thing is how Mr. Francis isn't inclined to see us as co-sufferers in this matter of thousands upon thousands of people showing up to claim some of our bounty.

"I don't believe that Windsor's residents and taxpayers should have to foot the bill for U.S. immigration policy," Francis told The Star. He was referring to the suspected source of the problem -- a recently begun crackdown on illegal immigrants in economically struggling regions of the U.S. South.

Got it? They can't afford lots of people showing up just because the standard of living in Canada is apparently better than in Mexico. It's not enough of a reason to take in all comers. But apparently, when we can't afford it here, it's bad immigration policy.

And other Canadian politicians apparently agree with Mr. Francis:

"This is a problem the U.S. has allowed to create. It's really unfair for Canada to have to face this," said MP Joe Comartin (NDP -- Windsor-Tecumseh), his Party's public safety and national security critic. "This is very much being driven by (the U.S. Department of) Homeland Security," he said, predicting that, "with few exceptions," most of these "economic claimants" will eventually be sent back.

No. It's not fair for Canada to have to face this. Apparently, it is entirely fair for the US to, though. Nice.

So send them back, the MP says. But to where? The article makes clear that the 'refugees' in question were in Florida illegally in the first place, so you'd think the logical place would be to where they are citizens -- Mexico.

Who thinks that's what will happen?

How Do You Tell The Truly Evil From The Merely Stupid?

September 19, 2007

Here's how: Congressman Murtha is trying to pre-emptively disclaim the blame for the chaos and genocide even he knows will be the inevitable result of pulling out of Iraq.

If pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq results in "a bloodbath," the guilt will rest with the Iraqi people and not with the U.S. Congress, according to Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading proponent of withdrawing troops.

There you go. It won't happen at all unless he gets his way. But he's still bucking hard for it. And just in case he does, it's someone else's fault. In advance. Most people would take that state of affairs as proof that there has to be a better way, but not the man from Pennsylvania.

It just doesn't get any clearer than that.

Liberals wising up

July 31, 2007

Well, it's been 10 days since my previous post on the results of the surge, and a lot has changed since then. Two gents from the leftist Brookings Institute have admitted (in the New York Times, no less) that we might be winning. The expected gnashing of teeth and rending of garments resulted, but there was more to scream about.

Keith Ellison, the only Muslim in the House of Representatives, has returned from a trip to Iraq, and has also been departing somewhat from the party line:

"The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership," he said. "So they're not trying to just bomb people into submission. What they're doing is respecting the people, giving the people some control over their own lives."

"Success"? In Iraq?? What's going on, here? And it didn't even end there:

[California Democrat Jerry] McNerney, the California congressman, also said he saw signs of progress in Ramadi and was impressed by Petraeus, who argued in favor of giving President Bush's troop surge strategy time to work.

Hmm. It looks like an awful lot of Democrats are deciding to hedge their bets that they will be able to tar and feather the General sufficiently in September. Especially the ones who have met him, which can't be a positive sign for their cause.

By all accounts, Gen. Petraeus is a highly impressive man: aticulate, no-nonsense, and very driven and determined. He's a hard man to bet against. But the stakes for the Democrats are high. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) was reported by the Washington Post yesterday as saying that a positive Petraeus report would be "a real big problem for us":

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

"Something more generally positive", a big problem. Tells you all you really need to know about whose ox is being gored, doesn't it? Keep watching. This will be getting good in the remaining weeks before September.

What if the left believes Petraeus?

July 21, 2007

The rumblings, and in some cases, the actual interviews by now are making it clear that, come September, General Petraeus will give a stay-the-course pep talk to the President and Congress, stating that we are finally doing what it takes to win, and that the results are coming in. This has drawn the lamentable, but all too predictable attempts to pre-emptively assassinate the General's credibility.

Now, to hard core partisans, there is no news in the above paragraph, and no information about how the war is actually going; of course the General appointed by Bush will claim what his CIC wants claimed, says the true-believing left. In similar fashion, of course they're trying to get ahead of the report by making sure nobody believes it, say the hawks on the right. So where does the Bradley track hit the Iraqi road in September?

A productive line of examination may be to consider how true believing the true believers on either side actually are. After all, only a fool believes his own propaganda; I have to think that, even among the most distant partisans, there are at least a few with the sense to at least consider what happens if they turn out to be wrong.

Lets start with the easier of the 2 possibilities, since 2 they are: that is to say, someone will indeed turn out to be wrong in the end:

Right wing is wrong

Well, what can you say? Nobody believes Petraeus. It may even turn out that he gets caught up in some obvious falsehood during his testimony. Let's go so far as to say some Biden or Murtha tags him with the 'gotcha' that political nightmares are made of.

No, I don't think it'll happen. But we are assuming the left is right, the General is the President's stooge, saying what he has to even though he knows it ain't so. If you followed the second link above, you know this is what the left is claiming, so let's consider it. What happens?

Well, they get what they want, politically speaking: The war gets ended, since Pelosi and Reid will have the cover they need to end the war without getting stuck with the political bill for the defeat. San Francisco throws a party that makes Mardi Gras look like a high society cotillion. And, of course, the GOP is out of business for a generation. They'll go quietly -- they're Republicans.

Now, to whatever degree the right is considering this possibility, I suspect that most of the right-wing hardcore is less concerned about the political ramifications than the freedom our pullout will afford the terrorists. That Democrats will be leading the way for the forseeable future, while awful to contemplate, would not be the primary problem under the stated circumstances.

OK, that was pretty bad. But what if the Right is right?

What if Petraeus makes a good case, and regardless of the best efforts of the left blogosphere and the politicians they support, everyone believes it. Let's suppose a sort of 'reverse-gotcha'- the General supports his case, and it is manifestly supported by the bulk of the evidence. Maybe there are dramatic developments between now and then. However you want to slice it, let's say that, come September, it is quite clear that we are indeed winning. Let me put this another way: What if the Sullivans and Kos folks secretly believe the advance information on how things are now going, and believe that the longer Gen. Petraeus stays at it, the more likely this will all end in star spangled parades?

It's clear we're winning

I posit that this scenario makes it more, not less, likely that Democrats will bite the bullet and de-fund the war. After all, as John Edwards recently said, the war is just a bumper sticker slogan, which means the political equation is all that there is. And the one thing that would be worse than having defeat hung around their necks in the next election, would be the spectacle of Johnny coming marching home covered in glory just in time for that election.

The cries of "We can't win" have been getting progressively more shrill, and more naked. The Democrat investment in this so-called fact is by now pretty much complete. In different circumstances, of course, the left could simply do what they do in the cartoons, namely to brazenly claim they knew we'd win all along, and of course they support our troops, too. God knows, politicians are by no means above acting like cartoon characters, and as whoppers go, it would hardly be the worst that has ever been presented to the public by a politician as if they would actually believe it. But there's the rub -- nobody would. Too much ink has been spilled and too much video recorded showing otherwise to saturate the airwaves through a dozen election seasons.

Going into Autumn '08 being blamed for defeat is one thing. You can at least argue that defeat was a foregone conclusion as soon as Bush sent in the troops, and a lot of people would believe it. The Dems would by no means be doomed. But only if the defeat sticks. As soon as the parades start, everything they've said for the last 5 years is suddenly laid bare as not just nonsense, but also the rooting for the enemy we all knew it to be all along. Their sour pusses through all those parades would continue to hammer the point home - they wholeheartedly bet against us in war, and lost.

I think that, faced with that, pulling the funding and risking the backlash that has kept them from acting up to now, will actually seem the better of two evils.

top

Visitors since Dec 1, 2005:

Revised: 05/19/08 08:06 -0400 .