Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Jim Webb Upsets Everyone

By Greg L | 21 December 2007 | Illegal Aliens, US Senate | 27 Comments

Senator Jim Webb has managed to “triangulate” himself into the one policy position on the illegal alien issue that will ensure he enrages the most people as possible, as the Washington Times reports.  While acknowledging that state and local government has a role to play in the problem, which is reasonable, the purpose for doing so in his opinion is so that every locality can come up with its own solution, unguided by any principle that would unite such local actions into any kind of coherent whole.

On the one hand, there are going to be people who don’t like that, but on the other hand, they still want us to vote for such things as the right of a local community to create a sanctuary,” Mr. Webb said. “So if a local community under our system should have the right to create sanctuaries, the local community should have the right to create restrictions when people truly are illegal.

Can you imagine such a scheme on any other policy position?  How about on gun rights?  Under such a philosophy, every time you crossed a local political boundary the rules of the game would entirely change, and what was perfectly legal one moment would become a criminal offense the next.  Take a wrong turn into a different county, and lawful possession of that self-defensive firearm would sudddenly become an unlawful act although you did nothing to break the law.  That’s the sort of problem that results from allowing a local free-for-all with the law.  Without consistency, we create a lot of criminals just because they crossed from one side of the street to the other.

Let’s imagine for a moment that Manassas Park became a sanctuary for illegal aliens, and Manassas City had the most comprehensive approach to discouraging the unlawful presence of illegal aliens possible.  On one side of a street you’d have a day laborer center chock full of illegal aliens, and on the other side of the street law enforcement officials waiting to pull over vehicles that had picked up day laborers.  The chaos that would ensue would be unbearable, and that seems to be what Senator Jim Webb is advocating here.

The left is howling, and doubtless those who favor ensuring that illegal aliens are not encouraged to unlawfully reside in our communities won’t be pleased with this support of sanctuary jurisdictions either as criminal illegal aliens don’t tend to respect political boundaries.  Jim Webb is trying to make everyone happy here and in the process has made no one happy.  It’s just so Clinton-esque.

At least he’s ended his long silence on this issue.  Perhaps with some encouragement from his constituents he can refine his position into something that makes some sense.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

27 Comments

  1. park'd said on 21 Dec 2007 at 10:51 am:
    Flag comment

    We don’t have to imagine that Manassas Park is a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. It already is thanks to incompetent local government.

  2. Advocator said on 21 Dec 2007 at 10:57 am:
    Flag comment

    Actually, I kind of like his position. States’ rights, local control, and all that type of thing. But you’re right, Greg. This is a national security and defense issue and foisting the problem to the states and localities is an abdication of the federal legislators’ and executive’s responsibilities. Rep. Davis would rather focus on roid rage in baseball than deal with it. Rep. Wolf would rather champion the lost children of Darfur than deal with it. Senator Warner would rather retire than deal with it. Now Webb would rather punt than deal with it. Is there anyone out there with a backbone?

  3. Johnson said on 21 Dec 2007 at 11:25 am:
    Flag comment

    Would this be the same Jim Webb that left his assistant hanging in the breeze when he got caught with Jim’s pistol? Loyalty-inspiring, ain’t it? Webb is a low-class jerk with a childish attitude. The sanctuaries are disappearing as we speak. The anti illegal alien movement is growing every day. Our elections will pivot on this issue for the next few years. Pandering to the illegal alien lobby is an admission that the sovereignty of the U.S. is no longer important. Wake up, elected officials! We, the American People, want our country back! We want to choose our new citizens and stop supporting the rest of the Americas!

  4. DennisD said on 21 Dec 2007 at 11:47 am:
    Flag comment

    Webb = Moron

  5. 999 said on 21 Dec 2007 at 12:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    His voting record on immigration “reform” shows that he is all over the place on this issue. He voted “for it” before he voted “against” it. You don’t know where he really stands on the issue.

  6. Rob Smalls (Inspiration of the BVBL 40K Post) said on 21 Dec 2007 at 12:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Every locality can come up with its own solution, unguided by any principle that would unite such local actions into any kind of coherent whole.”

    Because Diversity is Strength!

  7. starryflights said on 21 Dec 2007 at 12:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Webb has got to go!

  8. Batson D. Belfrey said on 21 Dec 2007 at 12:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    “DennisD said on 21 Dec 2007 at 11:47 am:
    Webb = Moron”

    Couldn’t agree with you more.

  9. Peters Danlyn said on 21 Dec 2007 at 12:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    “…We want to choose our new citizens…”

    And which committee, political party, or PAC will you put in charge of this?

  10. Rob Smalls (Inspiration of the BVBL 40K Post) said on 21 Dec 2007 at 1:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Webb said: “So if a local community under our system should have the right to create sanctuaries, the local community should have the right to create restrictions when people truly are illegal.”

    So you have a sitting Senator embracing the fact that these localities reserve some de facto authority to ignore the very laws that he, his colleagues and their predecessors have passed? If so, what is he getting paid for?

    FYI, Senator Webb, there is not and should not be a right to create sanctuaries from laws at the federal level per a locality’s whim. If you believe a locality shouldn’t be forced to observe some portion of federal law, amend or repeal it.

  11. Claire Gastanaga said on 21 Dec 2007 at 1:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    GregL–
    On Webb’s latest, you and I are in agreement. A patchwork approach to a national problem is no solution. And, the gun rights analogy is apt.
    Claire

  12. Advocator said on 21 Dec 2007 at 1:10 pm:
    Flag comment

    @ Rob: “So you have a sitting Senator embracing the fact that these localities reserve some de facto authority to ignore the very laws that he, his colleagues and their predecessors have passed?”

    Not only is he advocating ignoring the laws that he and his predecessors have passed, he’s ignoring the oath to uphold the Constitution that he’s taken ever since his admission to the Naval Academy.

  13. One Voice said on 21 Dec 2007 at 2:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    A patchwork approach is terrible, on the other hand, more unfunded mandates are impossible.

  14. /\/\3|)iç 64 (Winner of the BVBL 40k post award) said on 21 Dec 2007 at 2:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    You are absolutely right Advocator. He raised his right hand and took the same oath that Rob and I took as sailors. Of course, we were not the only three (c; He has a duty to uphold and enforce the laws that he has been sworn to defend and uphold. This boils down to leadership by example, if the pols are going to do this, it will trickle down to the states and counties. The ideal situation here is to have federal enforcement of current laws. Since that is not happening, the local gov’t are trying to do their part. I agree it is not a good thing to have so many different resolutions. However, I am reading where some localities are adopting the language of other area resolutions and laws, which should minimize this patchwork.

  15. gstone said on 21 Dec 2007 at 2:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Webb is doing what Webb is good at, playing both sides of the issue.

    This just goes to show, we are never more than one little Macaca away from stupidity.

  16. Turn PW Blue said on 21 Dec 2007 at 3:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    I think, once again, that Greg has posted a nice little snippet without *any* context.

    Webb was responding to a question about whether state and local governments should respond to illegal immigration. The statement above was made to demonstrate that there are those who think a community should be able to declare itself a sanctuary city but don’t think a community has a similar right to pass an ordinance like the “Rule of Law” resolution in PWC. Again, he was pointing out that there are groups who have no problem advocating a position that local will should win the day when deciding about whether to create a “sanctuary city” but are adamant that the same local will should be superseded by the federal government when that local will calls for cracking down. In other words, Webb was DEFENDING the rights of localities to pass ordinances much like the one you helped draft in PWC.

    When you read the rest of the article, Webb also said, “In a situation of how government services are provided to people who are illegal, I think it is appropriate that local government work that out.”

    And later is quoted as saying, “Here is the problem. There’s two different strains here. One side is not going to be emotionally satisfied unless everyone here is legalized and the other side is not going to be emotionally satisfied unless every single illegal is gone. Between these two emotional extremes is the question of whether you really want a practical solution or not. That’s where I was trying to go during the debate.”

    I don’t for an instant believe Webb was advocating a balkanization of illegal immigration policy. I’d love to see the full transcript of the interview and not just the Times’ cherry-picked quotes.

  17. Johnson said on 21 Dec 2007 at 3:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Peters Danlyn- We have a process in place. I should have been more specific and less enthusiastic. I don’t advocate any sort of special selection other than the legal process that we have now.

  18. Herndon Bob said on 21 Dec 2007 at 3:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ok

    Let’s put this to a test.

    If a local government can declare a sanctuary from Federal Law, let’s have local governments declare themselves as a tax sanctuary where federal taxes do not need to be paid. How long would it take for Webb to demand enforcement of federal law? He says he wants border enforcement. Does anyone know how he voted on the reduction of border fence funding in the continuing budget resolution?

  19. /\/\3|)iç 64 (Winner of the BVBL 40k post award) said on 21 Dec 2007 at 4:29 pm:
    Flag comment

    Herndon Bob, It would take him about as long as a flatulence lasts in a whirlwind. I can’t tell his voting record, maybe someone with more knowledge about those tings can find it.

    CRUDE DISCLAIMER: Flatulence is a medical term not slang.

  20. Vigilant1 said on 21 Dec 2007 at 4:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    Webb’s immigration voting report card.

    http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=VA&VIPID=1211

  21. Batson D. Belfrey said on 21 Dec 2007 at 8:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Claire Gastanaga said on 21 Dec 2007 at 1:08 pm:
    GregL–
    On Webb’s latest, you and I are in agreement. A patchwork approach to a national problem is no solution. And, the gun rights analogy is apt.
    Claire”

    Damn it. Just when I pegged you as nothing but a flaming liberal, you have to go and post soemthing rational.

  22. Jane D'oh! said on 22 Dec 2007 at 5:48 am:
    Flag comment

    Herndon Bob,

    That’s my thought as well.

    This whole “sanctuary” nonsense would last about two minutes if some community decided that it was going to be a haven for people who decided they weren’t going to pay state or federal taxes any longer.

    I’m also interested in how Sen. Webb voted on the lack-of-fence funding amendment since he campaigned on border security and as being tougher on illegal immigration than Sen. Allen.

    “Jim Webb supports fully securing the border. Without border security as our first priority, Jim believes all other immigration reforms will fail.”

    I believe the amendment passed by voice vote. Did his vote reflect his campaign rhetoric?

  23. Junes_Reston said on 22 Dec 2007 at 7:48 am:
    Flag comment

    Translated: Congress isn’t going to do anything, so you’re on your own folks. Good Luck!

  24. NoVA Scout said on 22 Dec 2007 at 3:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Of course no municipality or other local government can establish exemptions to compliance with federal law. I’m not aware of it ever happening, frankly. I assume that Webb was hypothesizing to show the ignorance on both extremes of the policy debate. If that wasn’t what he was doing, his comments make no sense at all.

  25. Turn PW Blue said on 24 Dec 2007 at 12:14 am:
    Flag comment

    Exactly, NoVa Scout. If you say cities can’t declare themselves sanctuary cities, then local governments also can’t put restrictions on immigration through local policy. If you say governments can’t restrict illegal immigration through local policy, then you can support creating sanctuary cities.

    The practical solution is somewhere between the extremes.

  26. Loudoun said on 26 Dec 2007 at 10:16 am:
    Flag comment

    Voting on the FY 2008 Appropriations Bill:
    Warner - voted yes
    Webb - votes yes
    Wolf - voted yes for the first vote, but on the second vote to add war funding for Afghanistan voted no

  27. Michael said on 27 Dec 2007 at 9:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    I don’t see the issue here. Federal laws over-ride, state and local laws. Where not prohibited, states can write their own laws appropriate to the interests of the citizens of that state. Where not prohibited local governments can write laws appropriate to the interests of the citizens of that local community.

    When you travel from one community to another or one state to another, or one country to another, you ALWAYS come under the legal jurisdiction of that community, state, or country.

    Who said laws were universally fair, unless they come under universal jurisdictions, then they are “fair”. The problem happens when federal entities, fail to take action they should take on a federal level and the victums of that inaction are the citizens of the sate and local communities affected by that inaction.

    That’s why we have an “illegal” immigration problem and Webb is correctly pointing out how it will be solved best at the community and state level if the federal government refuses to enforce its own laws, the citizens will. Self-deportation as a result of local citizen action will be cheaper and more effective anyway than anything the federal government will do, because you are bypassing the MASSIVE governent payroll and overhead cost. Local communities have always been able to do far more, far quicker than any federal program.

Comments are closed.


Views: 1900