MVM is hiring. The government contractor is seeking qualified nationwide transport specialists on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security to escort “Unaccompanied Children” by ground and air.
The company, boasts of “provid[ing] specialized services to both public and private sector clients. From protecting the children of King Hussein of Jordan, to supporting U.S. Embassies throughout the world, MVM has performed with distinction.” That distinction, especially for a “secret contractor” that has been embroiled in controversy, is no doubt enhanced by a leadership that includes politically-connected former careerists from the Secret Service and the U.S. Marshal’s Service.
The thing is, transporting these children, sheltering them, feeding them, clothing them, bathing them and dealing with the waste they generate will all have an environmental impact, and while seemingly negligible compared to the totality of things, that’s added to the millions of heretofore illegal aliens already in the country now empowered to stay, and to those on their way, attracted by seeing “migrants” who came before them rewarded for lawbreaking. Their long-term impact as an aggregate on the environment and on the resources needed to provide energy, sustenance and disposal, can hardly be considered negligible. Nor can the immediate and continuing impact of environmental destruction left in their wake.
Add to that the infrastructure burdens from bringing millions of new “beneficiaries” into the Social Security system, and to ensure healthcare, and particularly the private and public sector activities that must be conducted to finance both, and the strain on a system that is already struggling to provide necessities is significant. That strain is further exacerbated by “progressive” policies that not only add more demand on domestic resources, but actively work against water delivery and food production, and the energy needed to sustain it all via environmental regulations.
As long as the environment is used by the administration and its supporters to justify rules and laws requiring citizens to modify, curtail or halt activities, especially when that also infringes on gun rights (such as by banning lead ammunition), those behind such policies ought to at least be consistent.
Case in point: Back before federal law was changed to allow guns to be possessed in national parks, the George W. Bush administration issued an Interior Department rule change ending the prohibition and bringing rules into conformance with the states in which the parks existed. The Brady Campaign filed a lawsuit to thwart the change, and U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued an injunction against the change taking effect.
The reason for the injunction was that an environmental impact study for the effects of allowing guns in national parks had not been completed as required by law. The judge’s ruling stood until Congress approved a rule change as part of a rider to a credit card bill important to the Obama administration, and the president then signed the total bill into law.
How much more of an impact will the president’s immigration directives have on the environment than the off-chance a person defending their life may (or may not) need to fire off rounds of ammunition that may (or may not) leave traces within national park boundaries? If the law and judicial precedent for halting executive actions on environmental grounds pending an impact study exist, why not employ the same legal tactics as anti-gunners and environmentalcases do, and use them?
If the Brady Campaign had standing to sue on such flimsy grounds, it seems likely a different advocacy group would have standing to sue on more substantial ones. Citizens who oppose an imperial presidency fundamentally transforming their Republic and their rights didn’t start this, but they still can’t escape the personal impacts, so an “Any chair in a bar fight” response would seem more than justified.
Why not figure out the best jurisdiction to get an injunction halting Obama’s action until an environmental impact study can be completed (and the newly-elected majority can be seated)? And why not tell MVM and other opportunistic “access capitalists” their rope-selling will be delayed for a bit?