The Laws We Enforce

My life is in danger. In fact, I’m not so sure it’s safe to leave the house anymore. And the tragedy of it all is that it doesn’t have to be this way. There are already laws on the books to protect me, and yet nobody seems to be enforcing those laws. I’m contemplating becoming a monk and living the rest of my life in a monastery just to ensure a safe existence.

What has me so frightened? Dozens, possibly even scores of people driving on federal, state and local highways while completely ignoring the laws mandating that they wear a safety belt. And considering that nobody enforces those laws, I shudder in fear to think of the homeland security implications of it all.

But wait a minute. Those laws are being enforced. In my state, for instance, we are continually being told to “click it or ticket.” Local and state police are on a vigilant search for anybody violating the seat belt laws that are already on the books. Whew! Maybe I can forego that vow of silence and continue to set foot outside my door every now and then.

My question, however, is this: Why do we spend millions of dollars to go after those who violate seat belt laws but hardly lift a finger to prosecute people who violate our immigration laws?

Not that I’ve got anything against wearing a safety belt; I think it’s the wisest choice every time. But wouldn’t it make more sense, from a safety and security standpoint, to take the money, time and manpower we use to catch seat belt lawbreakers and reallocate it to go after immigration lawbreakers? After all, the laws are already on the books. What if we prosecuted illegal immigrants and those who employ them with the same determination that we display when we prosecute unbuckled drivers? Which laws, if properly enforced, would make our nation safer and more prosperous?

Well, some cities in our country have decided to do the right thing. Hazelton, Pennsylvania, for example, has been enforcing laws that punish those who would do business with illegal immigrants. Their town has grown by 50% in recent years, but the tax base in Hazelton has increased not one iota. Zilch! Nada! None! But then, that’s what happens when illegal immigrants move in and enjoy the benefits of being a member of the community without all those pesky responsibilities that go along with citizenship.

With the city’s resources being stretched to the max by the influx of illegals, the mayor of Hazelton, Lou Barletta, has taken notice and cites some disturbing statistics: “Thirty percent of the gang members we have arrested in Hazelton are illegal aliens. Thirty percent of the drug arrests in the last two years are illegal aliens. I don’t have a magic number that I need to convince me that I shouldn’t be spending taxpayers` money on people who shouldn’t be here.”

So Hazelton did something revolutionary. They got tough on those who break their laws. And what was their reward? A federal judge, with the blessings of the ACLU, has told them they’ve got to quit enforcing these laws. The rationale for the decision by U.S. district judge James Munley is that immigration is a national issue and local initiatives might interfere with congressional objectives. And why wouldn’t he rule that way? After all, there’s no better organization to handle the current immigration crisis than our elected legislators in the U.S. Congress. I’m sure they’ll handle this about as well as they did their checking accounts at the Capitol Hill Bank back in the early nineties.

Judge Munley refused to use the term “illegal” to describe the immigrants in question, choosing instead to call them “unauthorized.” Radio and television personality Glenn Beck, who has an amazing ability to speak basic common sense, made a great observation: “I was thinking maybe we should start saying that bank robbers are just making unauthorized withdrawals.”

And so illegal immigration continues to be a problem in our country, and will probably continue to be as long as we’ve got activist judges and the ACLU leading the way. The message to illegal immigrants in the United States: you can sleep well tonight; secure in a country that won’t enforce the laws that would prosecute you.

Unbuckled drivers, however, had better watch their backs.

Is This Political Blackmail?

Playing politics is nothing new in Washington. In fact, it is something that we've come to expect from both political parties. And I guess there are a few things that get done that way when nothing else will work. But there are some issues where politics should be set aside and doing the right thing should be paramount.

A story appeared yesterday saying that some Republican congressmen have threatened to pull their support of war funding unless President Bush backs off on the illegal immigration bill. Somebody please tell me that they were misquoted; that this was just a big misunderstanding. Surely they're not planning to withdraw funding for our troops in harm's way simply to gain leverage in the debate over the amnesty legislation.

Now don't misunderstand me; I am wholly opposed to this bill that would grant legal status to immigrants who are here illegally. I think I've made that clear in some of my earlier columns. If we're going to do this, why don't we just pronounce all other lawbreakers in our country innocent, as well? Drug dealers, you get a free pass. Prostitutes, you're in the clear. Bank robbers, just keep the money. After all, you risked your life to pull off your illegal undertaking, and you should be rewarded for your bravery. Besides, you did it to help your family.

Our lawmakers in Washington wouldn't dare decriminalize 99% of all criminal activity in this country (well, most of them wouldn't). So why do many feel, along with our President, that illegal immigration is the one crime that's not really a crime? Are they afraid of being labeled a racist or a bigot? With all due respect to our national leaders, this has nothing to do with race or bigotry. It's a matter of what is right and what is wrong (not to mention the national security implications behind it all). With immigration, as with everything else, there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. We shouldn't be rewarding these lawbreakers who are doing things the wrong way.

Having said all of that, I must admit, however, that I don't think this issue is worth sacrificing support for our troops. If the only way this bill can be defeated is by using our troops as pawns in the political process, then the cost is too high. What will be next?

Today we've conveyed to the president our intention of withholding funds for orphaned children in this country. Unless he votes with us, we're cutting off money for the kids. Maybe next time he'll think twice before he supports some legislation that we don't agree with.

Absurd? Not much more so than threatening to hold our troops hostage in a political power play. It's just as wrong when the Republicans do it as it is when the Democrats do it. And all who would participate in such a thing should be ashamed.

You don't have to read much of what I write to get a sense of which way I lean politically. More often than not, I agree with the Republicans. But I'm not going to walk in lockstep with everything they say when my conscience would dictate another direction. I'm deeply disappointed with our president over his support of this amnesty bill. I'm equally disappointed with those Republican congressmen who have shown a willingness to play politics with our troops in harm's way.

Let's just pray that this bill will be defeated without having to use our fighting men and women as tools in the political process. They deserve much better.

A Lott To Think About

With the presidential election coming up next year, it’s time to start figuring out which candidate most deserves your vote. And the only way to do that, obviously, is by tuning in to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to see which candidate they are supporting. We average Americans are clearly not smart enough to make an important decision like that on our own. No, we must listen to talk radio and then follow their particular marching orders without any reservations. It’s so nice not to have to think for ourselves. We just incline our ears toward the radio and process the information like robots that can do nothing but follow their master’s instructions.

Let’s face it; the average American is dumb as a brick. OK, I don’t actually believe that, but that’s what Mississippi Senator Trent Lott seems to believe. He gives the impression that the powerful talk radio hosts are controlling people’s thoughts and actions, so much so that he wants something done about it. Last week, Senator Lott said, “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”

His implication? That Americans aren’t smart enough to make up their own minds, and talk radio is essentially running the country by methodically brainwashing the masses. Therefore, something must be done immediately to deprogram the indoctrinated multitudes and stop talk radio from further taking over America.

Maybe I read too much into Senator Lott’s comments, but it sounds eerily similar to the recent cries from the left to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. I guess when Air America (a liberal talk radio network) proved to be a miserable failure; they had to find some other way to stem the tide of right-wing voices that are so prominent on the airwaves. Should the Fairness Doctrine be revived, it will have a chilling effect on free speech in this country. Talk radio programs would be forced off the air because they don’t meet a certain politically correct standard. Conservative talk radio would become a thing of the past and liberal talk radio would, well, nothing would really change since there’s never actually been a truly successful liberal talk show on the radio.

So why is the conservative senior senator from Mississippi coming out now and attacking talk radio? Well, he’s unhappy with how the industry has framed the debate over the illegal immigration bill. Senator Lott, for reasons unknown, is a big supporter of this amnesty plan. And he seems to think that talk radio, that massive entity that is “running the country,” is having a direct effect on how Americans feel about this bill.

Memo to Senator Lott:

I lived in Mississippi for four years. I even voted for you while I was living there. You’re a good man. You’ve been a good senator. I haven’t always agreed with you on everything, but for the most part I think you’re a stand-up guy. So please know my heart when I break the following news to you:

I DON’T NEED RUSH LIMBAUGH AND SEAN HANNITY TO TELL ME HOW I SHOULD FEEL ABOUT A BILL THAT GIVES LEGAL STATUS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY! I DON’T NEED NEAL BOORTZ AND MICHAEL SAVAGE TO EXPLAIN TO ME THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH PUTTING THESE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ON A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP! I’M PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF THINKING FOR MYSELF AND FORMING A PERSONAL OPINION WITHOUT THE VOICES OF LAURA INGRAHAM OR MARK LEVIN TELLING ME WHAT TO BELIEVE!

There, I’ve said it. Sorry for shouting, but you know how worked up we talk radio listeners can get sometimes. Please senator, if you think something needs to be done about talk radio, don’t join forces with Teddy Kennedy to do it. In fact, don’t do anything. Leave it alone. Talk radio isn’t running this country, and the American people aren’t nearly as uninformed as you elites in Washington seem to think we are.

Respectfully,
Shane Lambert

P.S. Have a nice day!

Anybody think I’ll hear back from him?