Mar 24 2006
Republican Moron of the Week: WI Rep Jim Sensenbrenner
Update March 27 2006: If you’re wondering who authored hr4437, it was Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin’s 5th congressional district. If you disagree with his position on this bill, consider supporting his Democratic challenger, Bryan Kennedy!
Tens of thousands of Milwaukee residents, most of them latino, marched in town yesterday to protest proposed immigration laws that they feel are too harsh. They also wanted to send a message to one of the major backers of that proposal, Wisconsin’s own Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner.
His reponse?
“The illegal alien rally held in Milwaukee today was an impressive show of force. But I do not believe that illegal aliens should receive legal government documents such as driver’s licenses.” - Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner
The fact that Rep. Sensenbrenner considers anyone with dark skin as an illegal alien pretty much says it all, and for his bigotry, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner is this week’s Republican Moron of the Week.
The fact that Rep. Sensenbrenner considers anyone with dark skin as an illegal alien pretty much says it all, and for his bigotry
I think you misinterpretted his comments … I read the article. He is not referring to the people who marched as illegals, but restating his argument.
His argument is not against immigration, it’s against illegal immigration. Don’t confuse the two.
I see where you could get that, and it could go either way, agreed. But if he was talking about illegal immigration, why not say that, instead of referring to illegal aliens twice in as many sentances?
It could go either way if you wanted to change what he said, I agree. If you read what he said, though, you can only interpret it one way.
i’m sure the competition is tough every week!
What? I didn’t ‘want’ to change anything about what he said, and I did read what he said too. In fact, I posted a direct quote from him. Anyways… if you want to talk about what I’m saying vs. what he said, rock on..
Sensenbrenner is going at this the wrong way anyway. Drivers’ Licenses should not be ID cards. Unfortunately in the U.S., Driver’s Licenses say little about people’s ability to drive and have been used as a way to encourage citizens to carry internal passports without having to call them that.
People who want to go to bars or get themselves abused while flying should be able to get a separate identity card.
People who want to be able to drive cars should get a separate card that has their driver’s license number, name and address on it. It doesn’t need a thumbprint or picture. It will be even nicer if as part of your renewal every 8 years you got to sit through a refresher safety course. (The WI DMV actually has some safety advice and rules of the road information on their web site, but I bet not many people look at it.)
Oh Oh oh … I have to apologize Dan, I see now how you read the first sentence.
It could be interpretted either way.
Since HR4437 only concerns illegal aliens, and since news reports refer to many or most of those marching as illegal aliens, I suggest you review what’s actually involved here before making claims that only reduce your credibility:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=Milwaukee+march+undocumented&btnG=Search+News
TLB - to whom are you “talking”?
15,000 people marching to protect lawbreakers and Sensenbrenner is the moron. You moonbats are always good for a chuckle.
“Moonbats”… That’s so original and is a great tip off that you’re really interested having a serious conversation about the issue.
His comment, sans the “moonbat” comment, does raise a good question … how is Sensenbrenner at fault here? He is trying to curb illegal immigration, not legal immigration. It is being misrepresented in the media, of course, but nonetheless, the bill is slated to stop illegal immigration. Why is that a bad idea?
The only reason this idiot proposed this legislation is to gain favor with tin-horn bigots like you. Hiding behind “status quo” advocacy will get you nowhere.
Please, let’s keep it civil.
Josh - good argument … call anybody who proposes to discuss an issue an “bigot”.
You and RAFE should get together and call each other names. In the meantime Dan, JB Baby, mwarden and co. will continue to discuss the issues like adults.
Anywho … Dan, can you answer why the proposal is a bad idea?
The part that made anyone who helped illegal aliens was probably the biggest problem I had with it. It looks like the Senate will be passing a version of the reform without those provisions though, so I’m happy to see that. I also have problems with erecting huge walls between countries for a number of reasons.
Criminalizing churchs for helping people out just doesn’t seem morally correct to me.
Thanks Dan … next time could you just call me names instead of maturely explaining your position? ;)
Excuse me if I missed something so obvious, but didn’t the title of your article start out name-calling? Again you “progressive” folks only hear what you want. This legislation targets ILLEGAL ALIENS. Which part of that do you have trouble with? If you go through the proper immigration channels, no one has a problem with that. Why is common sense so hard for some of you on the “enlightened” side to grasp?
RAFE - philosophically I agree with you. The problem is that you just came in here calling people names and providing no substance to the discussion.
You state a great point in pointing out that Dan started the name calling by calling Mr. Sensenbrenner a moron. I guess you could have stated that and pointed out how immature that was. Instead you stooped down and got into a name calling argument instead of explaining why the name calling was wrong and how his position on this issue is failed.
I am not sure why the “progressives” like Dan feel we should allow criminals a free pass on this issue. Moreover this is the first time I have ever heard Dan say something positive about churches which confuses me even further.
Thing is, we can agree to disagree and move on to the next topic because Dan will have another issue to discuss - you can bet on that! ;)
Up until you started posting here I was pretty much arguing “our” side all by myself - so it’s good to have you here. Stick around and present your point of view (I could use the help ;) ), but refrain from calling people names.
First off, my ‘moron’ term has always been slightly tongue in cheek, but even when I do think politicians do ‘moronic’ things in my opinion and point that out, it’s a lot different than just waltzing in to someone’s website and throwing around terms like ‘moonbat’, again, whatever that’s supposed to mean.
I stand by it though would like to reaffirm that I think Pat Roberston is a moron for suggesting we should kill a foreign head of state, that Jim Sensenbrenner voting against Katrina relief was a ‘moronic’ thing to do. Just two examples of people/actions that I think are pointless, foolish, careless, poor decisions, etc, etc… Any of the words you can substitute for ‘moron’. So now that I’ve fully explained what I mean and why I say it for the world, lets move on…
Re: Church. I’m in no way anti-church. In fact I’m a member of our local Catholic congregation, although in true Catholic form not as often as I probably should be. I’ve made numerous references to the relegious right and extremeist evangelicans though, so maybe that’s what you mean.
Finally, who said anything about a free pass? I just stated my opinion above that doesn’t make any mention of a free pass, so it’s not really fair to say that I feel that way when I’ve given nothing to prove that I do.
One last thing.. I’m always happy to have new faces talking about the issues in a mature manner.. Sometimes things get heated around here, and there’s nothing wrong with that either. We may not agree on things, but I like having the opportunity to explain where I stand on things and why I stand for them.
in fact I’m a member of our local Catholic congregation
Now I’m confused even further. ;)
Good to hear, tho.
I’ve made numerous references to the relegious right and extremeist evangelicans though, so maybe that’s what you mean.
Yes, you’ve made several negative comments and not many (any) positive ones. You’re right, that’s what I meant / how I understood your position. No worries.
The free pass comment? I just feel you are not being hardline enough with the illegal aliens. I know you haven’t commented on it, but I guess that’s the point. You’ll rip on Sensenbrenner (I feel because you want his congressional seat), but won’t comment on the illegals. Again, no rebuttal needed, that’s just what I felt.
We can talk about the ‘illegals” all you want, but who employs them? Do you know how many businesses were shut down for these protests? The fact is I would not know who was an illegal and who is here legally.
Legislation like this tends to breed hate not protect the country. Last time I checked, there were no Latino involed in 911. We start out enforcing against one catagory of people and then another, and where does it stop? This has been proven time and time again through history. Is that why we are also going after gays? Hate crimes are up in this country. Good work!
Had any yard work done? Eatten in a restaurant? Stayed in a hotel and had your room cleaned? Eatten any fruit or vegatables grown in this country? Hey, chances are, you helped pay an illegal or was a legal worker? Was it someone who did a job no one else wanted to do? Or did they take a job that an American wanted?
Hey, I went to the protest. It was peaceful and full of families. Crazy. All this moral talk and Latinos place family first. My familiy came from eastern Europe and we have found no evidence of legal entry into this country. Imagine. I am white and from illegals!
Right, I always like to tell people who are against illegal immmigration to stop supporting it! First thing you can do, stop eating most iceberg lettuce you find in the supermarket. It’s harvested by “illegals” after all!
Better yet, instead of punishing people who’s only real crime is wanting a better life for their kids, how about we punish the companies that exploit illegal labor to begin with?
Making felons of people who only want a better life for themselves and their families doesn’t seem appropriate to me. If that makes me ’soft on crime’ so be it.. it also makes me a second generation American citizen though.
Dan - I completely disagree with your logic. If somebody mugs you because he is trying to make a “better life for his kids”, they are still breaking the law. So, just because someone is trying to better their family’s life does not mean the get a free pass.
If one is breaking the law, s/he needs to be punished. Whether it is the criminal that is hiring illegal labor or the criminal who is sneaking across the border s/he is still a criminal. There are no “lesser of two criminals”. Punish both if need be.
It does make you soft on crime, a common trait of Democrats, although Dems always try to say they are not.
I don’t get your “second generation American citizen” comment.
tsperko - your post is incoherent.
I’ll try to break it down and answer, but it is difficult.
We can talk about the ‘illegals” all you want, but who employs them?
I have no clue.
Do you know how many businesses were shut down for these protests?
No. How many?
The fact is I would not know who was an illegal and who is here legally.
Me either, but authorities have the ability to find out. I guess I don’t get your point.
Legislation like this tends to breed hate not protect the country. Last time I checked, there were no Latino involed in 911. We start out enforcing against one catagory of people and then another, and where does it stop? This has been proven time and time again through history. Is that why we are also going after gays? Hate crimes are up in this country. Good work!
Huh? *shakes head* What does 9/11 have to do with this? We are enforcing our immigration policy against ALL categories of people, not just Latinos so what are you talking about? Gays? How did this enter into the equation? I have no clue what you are trying to say here. Proven time and time again? What? When? Where?
Had any yard work done? Eatten in a restaurant? Stayed in a hotel and had your room cleaned? Eatten any fruit or vegatables grown in this country?
I do my own yard work. Yes. Yes. No idea.
Was it someone who did a job no one else wanted to do? Or did they take a job that an American wanted?
I hate this argument. We have people complaining about the lack of jobs, then we have the same people complaining that there are jobs “nobody” wants. I am pretty sure those jobs could be filled.
Hey, I went to the protest. It was peaceful and full of families. Crazy. All this moral talk and Latinos place family first. My familiy came from eastern Europe and we have found no evidence of legal entry into this country. Imagine. I am white and from illegals!
What do the protests being peaceful and full of families have to do with anything?! So what if you’re white and from illegals!? What does that have to do with anything? If your family member(s) came here illegally they were criminals, what does that have to do with this legislation?
Sorry, but coming to America to work an honest job for below minimum wage to provide a better life for your kids just doesn’t compare to mugging people to do the same.
Your ’soft on crime’ regarding immigration is my ‘compassion for people’ I guess.
The ‘Democrats are soft on X’ thing is a nice talking point that Republicans try to use against Democrats, but it doesn’t hold water. See last weeks attempts by Democrats to increase border security funding that were repeatedly shot down by Republicans.
The second generation reference was to my family. If my recent ancestors hadn’t chosen to come to America illegaly, I wouldn’t have the opportinities I have today.
You need to be careful about lumping all crimes together. There are a lot of bad laws on the books. In a number of cases things done by people in the past were considered to be crimes that today are recognized as legitimate activities. In other cases the government is trying to ban (or over regulate) activities that it shouldn’t be.
In the particular case of illegal immigrants, I don’t think there should be any such thing. Just like U.S. citizens can live any where in the U.S. they can afford, I think think anyone who wants to move here should get the same opportunity. This will cause some issues for current residents, but I think it is better to deal with those issues (as well as for the issues of why people would rather live in the U.S. instead of Mexico) than to make it artifically hard to move to the U.S.
Sorry, but coming to America to work an honest job for below minimum wage to provide a better life for your kids just doesn’t compare to mugging people to do the same.
The point is this … you do not get a free pass for breaking the law just because your reasoning is that “you are trying to better your family”.
Your ’soft on crime’ regarding immigration is my ‘compassion for people’ I guess.
I think you can be compassionate and also tough on crime.
Bruno - No such thing as illegal immigrants?!!? What?!
I think think anyone who wants to move here should get the same opportunity.
They DO have the same opportunity - they just have to go through the proper channels.
The point you are missing is that there are certain requirements immigrants must meet in order to be considered American citizens. They need to learn English, learn about the constitution, how our government works, etc. This was all spelled out by our Founding Fathers.
You forgot to mention quotas. Those block people for arbitrary reasons. There is also a difference between coming here to live and becoming a full citizen.
Also the country the people are leaving can prevent them from going to the U.S. as well. I was told by a citizen of Jamaica (who may not be a reliable source) that the government (of Jamaica) told the U.S. people responsible for letting people go to the U.S. that they should only consider people making above a set amount of money, trapping the poor in Jamaica. The person I was discussing this with stated that he wanted to work in the U.S. for a couple of years while saving up money so that he could return to Jamaica and start up a business. My memory is that he wanted to start a produce business because current businesses in that realm tended to provide poor service.
It’s too bad our own elected officials aren’t required to know the constitution. We seem to have a lot of elected officials trying to pass unconstitutional laws or just plain ignoring the constitution on a regular basis.
Yes, quotas were also designated by our Founding Fathers. They do block people for reasons, although, I would argue they are not arbitrary. They are reasons decided upon by Congress at the time and they are subject to change. Arbitrary though???
There is also a difference between coming here to live and becoming a full citizen.
Good point. Coming across the border is still illegal whether you just want to live here or become a full citizen.
Your Jamaica story is herese and thus rejected by the judge as such.
It’s too bad our own elected officials aren’t required to know the constitution.
I agree.
We seem to have a lot of elected officials trying to pass unconstitutional laws or just plain ignoring the constitution on a regular basis.
You can’t make a claim like this without examples ….
The common example is laws prohibitting desecration of the American flag. This one seems to come up every election season.
The current example is Bush authorizing wire taps without judicial review.
The common example is laws prohibitting desecration of the American flag
Oh yeah … … the “right” to desecrate the American flag is in the constitution where?!
The current example is Bush authorizing wire taps without judicial review.
hmmmm
Hey everyone… I’ve been lurking for a while and quite enjoying your political debates. This thread has gotten a lot of comments, and I feel like adding one of my own. Not necessarily about the proposed bill to make the penalties for illegal entry into the country much harsher, but on the topic of immigration in general.
There have been laws restricting immigration for quite some time now. All this proposed legislation would do is make the penalty for breaking those laws harsher (along with a few other provisions, of course). Nothing much will change one way or the other. I think the real problem here is that neither side seems to have its head on straight.
*** Pro-immigration folks: Instead of protesting the increased penalties for illegal immigration, why not protest the basic illegal immigration laws themselves? I know you probably have expressed your contempt for them in the past, but really - it took this to actually get people into the streets. And those people in the streets aren’t even protesting the fact that immigration is restricted and policed, they’re protesting the heightened punishment. Brilliant!
*** Anti-immigration folks: Instead of shouting the need for increased penalties to deter illegal immigration, why don’t you shout at the president and his predecessors for failing (miserably) to enforce the original laws in the first place? Here’s a bad analogy: you show a lollipop to every kid you see, and hit them if they reach for it. For some reason they keep reaching for it… so your solution is not to just hit them, but to hit them with a baseball bat. Brilliant!
Seriously, though, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and all the way down, have failed to do their constitutional duty: to enforce the laws of the United States. The situation has gotten so bad that the governors of the borders states, and private vigilante groups within them, have felt the need to take the matter into their own hands. The actions of the presidents on this matter are technically impeachable offenses.
Desecrating flags is clearly protected by the first amendment.
Desecrating flags is clearly protected by the first amendment.
You mean THIS first amendment??
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
I guess I don’t see the part about desecrating the American flag.
Regarding flag desecration:
The Bill of Rights is obviously not meant to be taken literally. If it were, there could be no law against shouting fire in a theater (in the last century, only Justice Black has consistently taken a truly literal approach to the Bill of Rights and would aruge that this is protected).
If we agree that the 1st Amendment is not to be taken literally, then the scope of the 1st Amendment can be expanded beyond mere “speech.” The 1st Amendment, taken as a whole, can be said to protect not just speech, press, religion, or petition - but can be said to encompass “expression” generally.
In this sense, flag burning is protected, but only when it is legitimately done as a form of political expression. See Texas v. Johnson (even Scalia joined in this opinion, agreeing that flag burning is protected political expression).
There are certainly places where it isn’t safe to burn flags, and laws regulating burning things in those locations should be appliable to flags. However any law that specifically prohibits burning flags is most likely not based in safety, but rather in blocking protected ’speech’.
I am a latinamerican and I don’t see anything wrong with the fact of trating the problem of illigal inmigration as what it is… a disregard for the laws of this country which a lot of us (latin americans) love sometimes more than a lot of americans. I wish I would have been born in this country and be a native citizen, but I am ok with being a naturalized one. Sensenbrenner is only trying to make the laws in this country to be respected and we need to respect taht.
Passing laws that significant fractions of the population think are wrong creates disrespect for laws in general, not respect. I think Sensenbrenner is doing just the opposite of what you are claiming.
Bruno - If I understand you even a little bit, you are saying that if a fraction of the population disagrees with something it is bad to pass a law in opposition of that opposition?? So, you would ignore the 80% that agrees with the law to appease the 20% that disagrees with it?!?! How is that respecting laws “in general”?
If you pass a law that 20% of the population disaggrees with (not just a minor detail of, like the exact penalty) that is a bad law.
When you pass laws that people believe are bad, it is harder to convince them that should obey laws in general, just because they are “the law”.
Similarly, using laws incorrectly (such as using stop signs as speed bumps) has a similar effect.
If you pass a law that 20% of the population disaggrees with (not just a minor detail of, like the exact penalty) that is a bad law.
Not necessarily. I guess I still do not follow. So, you are saying that if “we” pass a law and 20% of the population disagrees with it, it is - by your definition - bad law? What about if 1% disagrees? What is your “cutoff” percentage as to how you define a law being bad or good?
When you pass laws that people believe are bad, it is harder to convince them that should obey laws in general, just because they are “the law”.
There are a million laws I obey simply because it is “the law”. It comes with being part of an oderly society.
Similarly, using laws incorrectly (such as using stop signs as speed bumps) has a similar effect.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I didn’t have a particular percentage in mind. But 20% is clearly too much disaggreement for a “good” law. I think 1% would be borderline.
There are definitely good aspects of having people obey the law. That is why having lots of unjust or just plain stupid laws or even unenforcible laws is a bad idea. If people see enough of those, they are not going to obey the law just because it is the law.
Drive through Shorewood some time. That have lots of 4 way stops that don’t have anywhere near enough traffic to justify a 4 way stop. These are used to slow down traffic, because people are less likely to run stop signs than speed. However this trains people to start rolling through stop signs.
“20% is clearly too much disaggreement for a “good” law.”
Since we live in a representative democracy, then by this logic wouldn’t any bill that passes the Senate by an 80-20 vote be a “bad” law in your opinion?
A law isn’t “good” or “bad” based on the number of people who agree with it. It’s goodness is determined by its actual content.
But, just in case some “bad” laws were to gain majority support, we have a few safeguards built in. Unfortunately (I guess) there are no safeguards protecting people who aren’t citizens of this country.
I think that for a lot of bills that are passed by slim margins, most people won’t strongly object to the bills. Even so, I think we would be better off if it took a super majority to pass new laws instead of 50+ % of the votes cast.
I disaggree with your statement about good or bad laws. I think if 20% of the population strongly disaggree with a law, that in itself makes it a bad law. At the very least, this fosters disrespect for the law in general.
Unfortunately the current administration, at the federal level, thinks that the primary documents safeguarding minorities (not specifically in the racial sense) from a majority is tissue paper.
Bruno - you are not making sense. You say if 20% of people disagree with a law it is bad because that in itself is bad or something like that. Then you say a super majority is a good percentage to use to pass a law. A super majority is 2/3, so that means 33% of the people can still disagree with the law, which is over 20%, so by your definition means it’s a bad law. So that doesn’t jive. Then something about a stop sign!?!?
And another thing … 1%?!
Dissenting votes in the legislature do not automatically translate in to people strongly disaggreeing with the law. The dissent can be about minor aspects of the law or it may be a law that has little effect on the vast majority of the population so that few people are strongly for or against a law.
The stop sign example was an example of a law used inappropiately in some cases and then further clarified when you claimed you had never seen them used in that manner.
If over a million people in the U.S. strongly disaggree with a law, that is a problem. And it is worth going to some effort to try to change the law to get additional buy in.
If over a million people in the U.S. strongly disaggree with a law, that is a problem. And it is worth going to some effort to try to change the law to get additional buy in.
Bruno - I couldn’t disagree more.
young wife wife upskirt