The Gang That Can't Shoot Straight
As I mentioned below, 3 of the candidates for St. George City Council have banded together to promise everything to everyone who’s ever wanted anything – no matter what it might be. One of their main points is illegal immigration. A worthwhile point. But, to show that they REALLY mean it, they crow that they signed some guy’s pledge on illegal immigration. (To BYU law school grads from the mid-90s, any guesses on who it is?)
Now, a pledge on illegal immigration could be a good thing – as long as it’s not head-spinning stupid. As Rep. Clark and I pointed out in an op-ed, one initial problem with that pledge is that it was signed in response to a promise of money. I’m not sure that’s legal. Another problem is that the pledge itself is ridiculous. By signing it, the Black Helicopter 3 have pledged that, if elected, they will resign on day 1 . . . if, of course, the pledge means what it says.
It says that the signers will promptly resign, if they provide any city services to an illegal alien. I just hope that, if I am drowning in the City pool or running down the street on fire, I have my proof of citizenship on me, so the lifeguards can save me and the fire department can spray me down. (As you might guess, the pledge has provided the community much entertainment coming up with some of its loony applications.) A law school exam question for you: if a police officer were to encounter someone in cardiac arrest who had “do no resuscitate” documents but no proof of citizenship, would he have to resuscitate? (That’s mine, in case you want to try and top it).
Because the fun is spreading, the author of the pledge sent a clarifying email yesterday. The pledge, in fact, does not mean what it says. I quote: “The fourth item in the Pledge has been the most controversial and misunderstood. The Pledge promises to deny all services to illegal aliens, but implementation of this promise was always intended to be rational and reasonable. We have clarified to each candidate who has expressed concern that this provision does not include emergency services, such as police and fire services. The bottom line here is that cities should deny business licenses, grants, contracts, utilities, housing assistance, recreation services, and other non-emergency services to illegal aliens.”
Okay, then. No recreation services. If I go to a city park or the rec center on a Saturday, but forget my citizenship papers, will I be admitted? Will my children have to carry around their citizenship papers to take a dip in the pool? What if an illegal alien somehow does manage to recreate in a city park – would someone have to resign?
I don’t mean to joke about the issue of illegal immigration. I just mean to point out that the pledge in question is an opportunistic joke. The problem of illegal immigration is serious. And, it requires thoughtful actions. I am optimistic that this will be the year for the legislature to take the issue more seriously. But, as this pledge illustrates, ideas and actions have to make sense. Otherwise, we only go backwards.
What are your ideas?
Now, a pledge on illegal immigration could be a good thing – as long as it’s not head-spinning stupid. As Rep. Clark and I pointed out in an op-ed, one initial problem with that pledge is that it was signed in response to a promise of money. I’m not sure that’s legal. Another problem is that the pledge itself is ridiculous. By signing it, the Black Helicopter 3 have pledged that, if elected, they will resign on day 1 . . . if, of course, the pledge means what it says.
It says that the signers will promptly resign, if they provide any city services to an illegal alien. I just hope that, if I am drowning in the City pool or running down the street on fire, I have my proof of citizenship on me, so the lifeguards can save me and the fire department can spray me down. (As you might guess, the pledge has provided the community much entertainment coming up with some of its loony applications.) A law school exam question for you: if a police officer were to encounter someone in cardiac arrest who had “do no resuscitate” documents but no proof of citizenship, would he have to resuscitate? (That’s mine, in case you want to try and top it).
Because the fun is spreading, the author of the pledge sent a clarifying email yesterday. The pledge, in fact, does not mean what it says. I quote: “The fourth item in the Pledge has been the most controversial and misunderstood. The Pledge promises to deny all services to illegal aliens, but implementation of this promise was always intended to be rational and reasonable. We have clarified to each candidate who has expressed concern that this provision does not include emergency services, such as police and fire services. The bottom line here is that cities should deny business licenses, grants, contracts, utilities, housing assistance, recreation services, and other non-emergency services to illegal aliens.”
Okay, then. No recreation services. If I go to a city park or the rec center on a Saturday, but forget my citizenship papers, will I be admitted? Will my children have to carry around their citizenship papers to take a dip in the pool? What if an illegal alien somehow does manage to recreate in a city park – would someone have to resign?
I don’t mean to joke about the issue of illegal immigration. I just mean to point out that the pledge in question is an opportunistic joke. The problem of illegal immigration is serious. And, it requires thoughtful actions. I am optimistic that this will be the year for the legislature to take the issue more seriously. But, as this pledge illustrates, ideas and actions have to make sense. Otherwise, we only go backwards.
What are your ideas?
posted by steve u. at 10/10/2007
Subscribe
8 Comments:
Maybe it's just me, but so much of the illegal immigration debate sounds like something from a western, "we don't want yer kind around here."
There is no doubt that illegal immigrants put a burden on government services, but I often wonder if these were anglo-centric Canadians fleeing south during the next ice age whether we would be so up in arms.
I wonder whether the whole thing is being driven by a caucasian fear of a loss of cultural primacy in our country more than anything.
So well said. I am so disappointed in our citizens who would be up in arms over a state or federal legislator accepting money from a special interest (maybe he plans on defending St. George from all the lawsuits that will be filed). As you so aptly said before, if candidates and sitting elected officials don't sign his pledge, there will be PUNISHMENT; But sign with him and PAYOLA!
sheesh.
Steve -
I'm not a BYU law school graduate, but your reference is interesting. Can you explain? Also, can anyone point me to the actual wording of this "Defend Dixie Pledge?"
The Primary Election with a voter turnout of 19.2% has left us with the large number of WACKOS that we now have to choose from. Shame on St.George City Residents for such a display of apathy. The CRAZIES are not stupid, just crazy. They mobilized through fear tactics. Many of those that voted for the Three Amigos did so with the mistaken idea that they could repel the advancing horde of illegals. Isn't it interesting to learn that NONE of the six candidates are in favor of Illegal Immigration yet it has become the defining issue somehow. It is also interesting that Curly, Moe, and Larry feel the need to brand themselves as a package in order to promote themselves. It suggests to me that they must believe none of them individually are electable (and they just may be on to something here.) My biggest frustration, however, is the fact that out of the 6 remaining candidates, I can only find 2 worthy of my vote and that is truly concerning!
Maybe it's just me, but does anyone else see a problem with 3 candidates banding together? Sure, there are some big issues regarding illegal immigration, city's budget, growth and development, etc., but in this case, none of those issues worry me as much as the fact that there are 3 candidates signing agreements together, campaigning together, and whatever else they may be doing together. When there are only 5 council seats, and 3 of them are teaming together from the get-go, that's when I get extremely worried. What is this, secret combinations? If those 3 get elected, they will control city council! They will control the city government! They will control the city's ability to approved, modify, or reject city ordinances!
I don't care if someone wants to vote for 1 or even 2 of the 3 "banded-together" candidates, but good grief, don't vote for all 3 of them! I remember reading something similar in a book that I really enjoy. This "banding-together" was called "secret combinations". Sound familiar to anyone?
It is great to hear from a straight shooter!
The problem with the group that is running as a "slate" is that there is no venue being provided in the community that would dig below the surface of their superficial positions and reveal more "transparency".
They are shallow, but to the uninformed voter it sounds as if they have the cure for everything wrong with not only the city they live in...but the state and the nation to boot! I am amazed neither the Republican or Democratic National Committees have snapped them up for more formidable races!
Steve, you are "right on target". When Mr. Nickles (front runner in the primary election) answered that the Vision Dixie principle most pertinent to St. George was "transparency" I almost went through the picture tube! Vision Dixie has no such principle! It showed his total lack of credibility...rather he echoed Mr. Baca's droning battle cry, "I will bring transparency in government to St. George!" Mr. Baca brags that he has coached Mr. Nickle for several years....scary!
Mr. Baca would not be asking for such transparency if the public had time to review the countless hundreds of hours he has spent trying to defame and ridicule individuals serving the community in various ways. It is a shame all that energy can't be put to good use. If one thinks the zebra will change his negative stripes if he were in office....they would be sadly mistaken.
Mr. Swann is a fool to have allowed himself to be linked to these two other clowns. But if one digs deeply into Mr. Swann's experience he will also be found sadly lacking although he is definitely trying to sound like governor in his forums.
Sorry, for the long diatribe...but Steve, you have evoked some strong emotion in your blog and I congratulate you on nailing the topic...this was NO bellyflop!
Count me in with the rest of you who see the flaws in three uninformed candidates who have answers for all the wrong reasons. I truly believe the intelligent voters will come out and vote in the General election to defeat these three characters. Ben wants to play ball with the NBA players, but can't quite make it. Ed speaks out of both sides of his face. One minute in City Officials face, the next praising them for a great job on the Town Square. Hey Ed, where do you really stand. Ed and Ben want to have more meetings, to have more meetings, to have more meetings for what? A pay check! Heaven help this city if they are elected, we could become the laughing stock of southern Utah!
I'm no longer a St. George resident and am a senior citizen myself, but let me guess: Retirees with too much time on their hands?
DMc
Post a Comment
<< Home