Disturbing

The immigration battle is being waged right here in little ole Richfield. This is my third post (1st and 2nd) on the subject, but I suspect it will not be the last. This article from last week has several disturbing items. Let me hit them one at a time. Item #1:

Although she did not cite any cases from Richfield in which police asked for documentation from immigrants, she said she knows that it has happened in other communities in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

All the "evidence" seems to be anecdotal to this point. I have not seen any concrete evidence that it is a problem in Richfield.

Item #2:

Passing an ordinance in Richfield would send a message to other cities in Minnesota, Stellick said. “Good things spread like wildfire,” she said.

There is no need for Richfield to be a leader in this fashion. Let Richfield lead by trusting and supporting our police officers.

Item #3:

Richfield residents might be more inclined to contact police, too, with such an ordinance, Stellick said. “When an Hispanic knows who is committing a crime, who is selling drugs on a corner, and they won’t be asked about immigration status, they will be glad to share it with the police, just as you would if you had information,” she said. “As a Richfield resident, you will feel safer knowing that if you have an immigrant neighbor, he’ll look after you and call the police.”

This statement is utter nonsense. If this ordinance were to pass, do you think a person who is in this country illegally would actually be more inclined to call the police to report a crime? That is just plain silly. People who report crimes are people who have an investment in their neighborhood or community. By nature, an illegal immigrant is somewhat transient because they need to be able to move to aviod being caught (remember, they are criminals because they are breaking the law) therefore they will not be invested in the community and not as likely to report a crime.

Item #4:

“It’s just like you wouldn’t want something to happen while you’re sitting on a beach in Mexico, with someone asking for your passport or visa,” she said.

More nonsense! I'll gladly produce my passport and papers any time I travel abroad. I had to do it when I was in the Ukraine in 1996. I was approached by a man with a sidearm and behind him were two guys in berrets with a nice automatic weapon over their shoulder. I wasn't afraid. Why? Because I knew I was there legally.

Item #5:

Richfield Director of Public Safety Dan Scott, one of the panelists at the May 17 forum, said he has worked to educate immigrants about state laws and practices and to alleviate concerns that might prevent victims of crimes from coming forward. Richfield police already have a policy preventing officers from inquiring about a person’s immigration status.

Finally some sanity. This policy is enough. Making it a law with a fine puts our police officers in a box because it forbids them from asking the question even in an extreme case. Maybe I am naive, but I trust our police officers and I do not want them to be handcuffed.

Item #6:

He also raised concerns about a proposed $1,000 fine that could be levied against an officer who asked about a person’s immigration status. Although an officer could be charged with a misdemeanor for some violations of law, such a penalty is unprecedented, Scott said.

I don't want our police working in a state of fear. If this ordinance passes, isn't it possible that we will have people making false claims against our officers?

Item #7:

With the exception of Scott, the panelists said they support the proposed ordinance. Some of the panelists said it would help make a proactive statement to the immigrant community that the city is concerned about them. The forum’s audience filled up a room at the Richfield Community Center. Several City Council members attended. Councilmember Fred Wroge said after the meeting that he wished the panel had included more opponents of the proposed ordinance. “I think it was one-sided,” he said. Wroge supports Scott’s efforts to educate and reach out to local immigrants, but does not support the proposed ordinance, he said. However, he welcomed the forum as a way to provide people with more information.

OK, Fred is my hero and I'm scared about the "one-sided" comment. Next time I'll make a point to attend.

If any of these quotes above frighten or concern you, I urge you to take some action. This is a tough battle and the other side has already gathered allies (Jewish Community Action, ISAIAH and the Mexican Consulate to name a few) and formed an army. Attend the next meeting, call you council member, call the mayor, call members on the Human Rights Commission, just do something! You can bet I am.

Ranum and Reenactment of Concealed Carry Law

SD63's beloved Senator Jane Ranum did her best to delay or derail the reenactment of the Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003. This may seem like old news, but I simply point it out so this can be remembered in Nov. '08. All the details on the bill (SF2259) can be found here, but here are a few excerpts:

Amendment offered by Sen. Jane B. Ranum on May 13, 2005, to increase the fee for permit renewal to $100 and designate $25 of that to the general fund. The amendment failed in the Senate (22 to 42) on May 13, 2005.

Amendment offered by Sen. Jane B. Ranum on May 13, 2005, to make it a misdemeanor, rather than a petty misdemeanor for failing to leave a posted establishment when requested to. The amendment failed in the Senate (22 to 40) on May 13, 2005.

Senator Ranum was also joined in the amendment flurry by Marty (SD54-Roseville) and Skoglund (SD62-Minneapolis). Of course, most or all of these amendments failed and the bill passed. A final note on the bill though, why did Michel (SD41-Edina) and McGinn (SD38-Eagan) vote against the bill? I know this topic does not necessarily fall down party lines thanks to the outstate DFL legislators smart enough to know their constituents, but why does a Republican in Edina and Eagan not support it? In the House, both Rep. Thissen (63A) and Larson (63B) voted against the passing of HF2424, the companion to SF2259. Did I even need to mention this? No, you should have known their votes.

Which is Better?

I received two emails about "the deal", just like our friends at KvM, I agree with Gary. One is a statement by Rep Mark Kennedy and from a GOP party operative. I posted the full Kennedy statement and part of the other email below. I prefer the Kennedy statement myself.

The so-called compromise does not end a fundamental injustice: For the first time in our nation’s 216-year history, judges are now being held to a 60 vote standard, not the simple majority intended by the Constitution. Never before have judicial nominees who have passed out of the Judiciary Committee and would win a Senate majority, been denied a vote on the Senate floor. While it’s nice that 3 nominees will receive the floor vote they deserve, it leaves 4 nominees in limbo. Likewise, there is no guarantee going forward that future nominees will receive a vote. In my experience, practically everything is an “extraordinary circumstance” in the Senate. This agreement rewards obstruction. I want to serve in the Senate so I can help try to end the obstruction that has gone on too long. It’s time, once again, for common sense to prevail in the United States Senate. Mark Kennedy 06 651.644.2506

· It is a positive step that after enduring years of harsh, unjustified attacks, Justice Priscilla Owen, Justice Janice Rogers Brown, and Judge William Pryor will finally get an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. · These highly qualified judicial nominees never should have been filibustered in the first place. · It is also a positive step that signatories of the compromise agreement have agreed not to filibuster judicial nominations in the future except under extraordinary circumstances.

Back Online

The drugs have kicked in and the crud is gone. Now I have a lot of catch up work. I'm not sure where to start. I will probably have some posts that will seem about a week too late, stay tuned.

streptococci

SD63 has been out of commission for last two days. It has been rather unfortunate timing with all that is going on these days. I have my antibiotics so I should be doing better in a few days.

What Is In A Name?

So my brother is a Bush-Hater... OK, that's a little strong, but let's just say he does not think too highly of our President. OK, now that is an understatement. Let's just move on... We have had some interesting email exchanges on topics the last 6-9 months and today he sent me this link. It is a great column by Christopher Hitchens on Slate. Hitchens is ripping on the gray old lady (NY Times) using a column (registration required) by James Bennet as the case in point.

KvM Goodies

The first two posts for today, May 17, are great. KvM is high on my list of places to go. As a busy hard working conservative, I like it because they (Gary, Doug and Ringer) offer posts that are concise, informative and entertaining. Go now!

Washington Whipping

How is George Galloway going to do versus the Senate subcommittee? Will Senator Coleman and his colleagues hold there own against a supposed "brilliant orator"? I hope that Coleman has the ammo (hard evidence) to make this guy look silly. I have the pleasure of working with a Scottish ex-pat, he is a student of history and politics, especially for the UK. When I asked him about the big battle between Coleman and Galloway, here is what his response was:

He is crook and a liar - Please put him in Guantanamo Bay!

Is Galloway set up for a Washington Whipping? Go get 'em Norm!

Pinkmonkey On CD5 Convention

Since SD63 is part of CD5 and I did not attend... let me link to Pink's comments.

STOP Being the Leader Richfield!

Way back in February I commented on a proposed ordinance in Richfield. This ordinance would prohibit the police and other city officials from inquiring about a persons immigrant status. There are two groups driving this issue, Jewish Community Action and ISAIAH. I am providing links so that you can go read their positions. As I said before, I'm all for justice and it is sad that a person would be scared to report a crime because they are here illegally, but if they are here illegally then they must assume the risks that come with being a criminal. Remember, if they are illegal they are acting criminally. If a crime is committed against them they have a choice, seek justice and risk deportation or stay quiet. I'm sorry to be so cold, but isn't this the truth? I'm OK with talking about the problem, I just do not want to put a law like this on the books because once it is there it will be difficult to remove and it could handcuff our cops. Go read my post and this article to learn more. The Human Rights Commission is holding a forum to discuss this issue (the city council sent it to the commission back in February) tomorrow, May 17th. Unfortunately I cannot attend, but I urge all who can to attend this forum and contact council members and Human Rights Commission members to voice your opinion. Here are the details: Tuesday - May 17 - 7 to 9 p.m. Richfield Community Center (7000 Nicollet Ave. S)

Dayton's Position

Earlier this week I asked my senator, Mark Dayton, to support the end of the current tactics of the Democrats in the Senate. I particularly like the remark where he speaks for all Americans. Dear Senator Dayton, rarely, if ever have you ever spoken for me. The response:

May 11, 2005 Mr. SD63 -address removed for posting- Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Dear Mr. SD63,; Thank you for contacting me in regard to Senate confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees. The Senate's Constitutional role to advise and consent is essential to our overnment's system of checks and balances. The Senate must not become a rubber stamp for the President when deciding who will head the third branch of government. President Bush has not consulted with the Senate on many of his judicial nominations. Despite this omission, the Senate has confirmed over 200 – or 95 percent – of the President's judicial nominees to date. The vacancy rate in the federal judiciary is at the lowest level since before the Clinton Administration, and approximately 25 percent of the federal judges serving lifetime appointments on the bench today were appointed by President George W. Bush. In order to protect our fair and independent judiciary, I believe most Americans would agree that all Presidents should nominate judges who can be confirmed by broad bipartisan majorities, not just by two- or three-vote margins. It is my hope that the President will work with the Senate, as the Constitution instructs him to do, so that we can confirm fair and moderate judges with support from Republicans and Democrats alike. My best regards. Sincerely, Mark Dayton United States Senator MD:jke

Reluctant Leader Arising... Finally?

This was delivered to me earlier today. I was busy tracking down a replacement stroller by visiting four separate Target stores.

Snapshot of statment.

Here is the full text:

STATEMENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER

Upon completion of action on the pending highway bill, the Senate will begin debate on fair up or down votes on judicial nominations. As is the regular order, the Leader will move to act on judge nominations sent to the full Senate by the Judiciary Committee in the past several weeks. Priscilla Owen, to serve as a judge for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Janice Rogers Brown, to serve as a judge for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, will be the nominees of focus. The Majority Leader will continue to discuss an appropriate resolution of the need for fair up or down votes with the Minority Leader. If they can not find a way for the Senate to decide on fair up or down votes on judicial nominations, the Majority Leader will seek a ruling from the Presiding Officer regarding the appropriate length of time for debate on such nominees. After the ruling, he will ensure that every Senator has the opportunity to decide whether to restore the 214-year practice of fair up or down votes on judicial nominees; or, to enshrine a new veto by filibuster that both denies all Senators the opportunity to advise and consent and fundamentally disturbs the separation of powers between the branches. There will be a full and vigorous Senate floor debate that is too important for parliamentary tactics to speed it up or slow it down until all members who wish have had their say. All members are encouraged to ensure that rhetoric in this debate follows the rules, and best traditions, of the Senate. It is time for 100 Senators to decide the issue of fair up or down votes for judicial nominees after over two years of unprecedented obstructionism. The Minority has made public threats that much of the Senate’s work will be shut down. Such threats are unfortunate. The Majority Leader has proposed his Fairness Rule: up to 100 hours of debate, and then an up or down vote on circuit and Supreme Court nominations. Further, the Fairness Rule would eliminate the opportunity for blockade of such nominees at the Judiciary Committee. And finally, it will make no changes to the legislative filibuster. If Senators believe a nominee is qualified, they should have the opportunity to vote for her. If they believe she is unqualified, they should have the opportunity to vote against her. Members must decide if their legacy to the Senate is to eliminate the filibuster’s barrier to the Constitutional responsibility of all Senators to advise and consent with fair, up or down votes.

Could It Be?

Much to the disappointment of some, the Red Star has an article which shows opposition to same-sex legal unions is going up. In the quote below, you'll see that "critics" claim that the increase in people against legal unions is because of the nationwide marketing effort to "sway opinions". I'll admit that an effort is being made by conservatives, however could it be that the some people are finally being educated and awakening to the issue? Many other groups have long waged this cold war and the conservatives have finally woken up to the issue. The affect of the events in San Francisco and in the northeast have been the "Pearl Harbor" for this issue to conservatives. OK, the comparison is a stretch, but you get my point. (also I don't intend to compare this issue to the events and times of WWII)

The increase in the opposition to legal unions, which would give same-sex partners many of the same rights as married couples, comes from a 10-percentage-point rise in those who say they are strongly opposed to the idea. The trend, critics say, reflects a nationwide marketing effort by conservatives and religious groups to sway opinions on what has become one of the most divisive issues of the day.

This poll just may support what I mentioned not long ago. I wonder how the numbers would shake out for district 63B?