In The Sigh Of The Beholder
I had another crash last night. Totally zonked on the couch before 8PM, so I didn't get to engage a few of Jennifer's points from yesterday.
First, it's easy for her - and me, for that matter - to scratch our heads and wonder what all the fuss is about vis-a-vie immigration, legal and illegal, because it has never been for me, and I'm assuming for Jen, a front-burner issue. As you can probably already tell from my posts on the subject, I am solidly in the pro-enforcement/anti-amnesty/pro-deportation camp. I would also drastically ratchet down legal immigration quotas as well. That has, in fact, been the status quo over the balance of American history. It's only been in my lifetime that we've thrown open our borders and let everybody in, regardless of immigration law and national interest, for an extended period of time. It's long past time that we called a halt to it, at least to facilitate an assimilatory breather for a decade or two.
Second, though I'm not nearly as passionate about the immigration issue as, for example, Polipundit, I can understand why those who are are so bent out of shape at the President's amnesty obsession. It is, in point of fact, not the first time that we've been sold this bill of goods. Twenty years ago there was a similar bill, called Simpson-Mazzoli, that granted instant amnesty to about three million illegal aliens while merely promising enhanced border control. In practice, while the amnesty was indeed immediate, the enhanced border control, and enforcment of immigration laws on the books, never materialized. Thanks in large part to that swindle, there are now four times as many illegals here now, and along comes the Hagel-Martinez bill, which delivers - shazam! - de facto amnesty for all twelve million of them, and more smoke & mirrors on enforcement. C'mon, Jen, if this was an issue that was near & dear to your heart, wouldn't you be pissed, too?
Third, that is why those like Polipundit are not willing to settle for the incremental approach. Nobody's seriously talking about mass deportation. There's pretty much an across-the-board consensus that some sort of normalization accommodation will have to be reached, just as a practical matter. Where the line is being drawn is on the matter of getting serious about border control and enforcement first. That has to be the prerequisite before any discussion of "guest worker programs" and whatever hand-waving euphemisms for amnesty the open-borders crowd comes up with can be undertaken. Otherwise it's just Simpson-Mazzoli exponentiated, and over the next twenty years America gets completely overrun.
And that, in turn, is why Bush is drawing so much heat from his own lines. He continues to obstinately push a comprehensive compromise where no such thing is politically feasible. Maybe not every word out of his mouth on Monday evening was a lie, but the spirit of his words was less than entirely candid.
And don't forget the 'tude on display from some Dubya kool-aid drinkers. This is a party-splitting tinderbox with sparks flying in every which direction. The President needed to douse the whole kit & kaboodle with decisive action on enforcement. What he did was stir up the pot even more.
The more pertinent question is whether he will veto a bill that includes the Sessions amendment. I hope he won't pop that particular cherry so suicidally. I really do.
UPDATE: Just another thought - d'ya think the Sessions amendment, which builds 370 miles of triple-thick border fencing, would have passed 83-16 if not for right-wing hell-raising?
First, it's easy for her - and me, for that matter - to scratch our heads and wonder what all the fuss is about vis-a-vie immigration, legal and illegal, because it has never been for me, and I'm assuming for Jen, a front-burner issue. As you can probably already tell from my posts on the subject, I am solidly in the pro-enforcement/anti-amnesty/pro-deportation camp. I would also drastically ratchet down legal immigration quotas as well. That has, in fact, been the status quo over the balance of American history. It's only been in my lifetime that we've thrown open our borders and let everybody in, regardless of immigration law and national interest, for an extended period of time. It's long past time that we called a halt to it, at least to facilitate an assimilatory breather for a decade or two.
Second, though I'm not nearly as passionate about the immigration issue as, for example, Polipundit, I can understand why those who are are so bent out of shape at the President's amnesty obsession. It is, in point of fact, not the first time that we've been sold this bill of goods. Twenty years ago there was a similar bill, called Simpson-Mazzoli, that granted instant amnesty to about three million illegal aliens while merely promising enhanced border control. In practice, while the amnesty was indeed immediate, the enhanced border control, and enforcment of immigration laws on the books, never materialized. Thanks in large part to that swindle, there are now four times as many illegals here now, and along comes the Hagel-Martinez bill, which delivers - shazam! - de facto amnesty for all twelve million of them, and more smoke & mirrors on enforcement. C'mon, Jen, if this was an issue that was near & dear to your heart, wouldn't you be pissed, too?
Third, that is why those like Polipundit are not willing to settle for the incremental approach. Nobody's seriously talking about mass deportation. There's pretty much an across-the-board consensus that some sort of normalization accommodation will have to be reached, just as a practical matter. Where the line is being drawn is on the matter of getting serious about border control and enforcement first. That has to be the prerequisite before any discussion of "guest worker programs" and whatever hand-waving euphemisms for amnesty the open-borders crowd comes up with can be undertaken. Otherwise it's just Simpson-Mazzoli exponentiated, and over the next twenty years America gets completely overrun.
And that, in turn, is why Bush is drawing so much heat from his own lines. He continues to obstinately push a comprehensive compromise where no such thing is politically feasible. Maybe not every word out of his mouth on Monday evening was a lie, but the spirit of his words was less than entirely candid.
And don't forget the 'tude on display from some Dubya kool-aid drinkers. This is a party-splitting tinderbox with sparks flying in every which direction. The President needed to douse the whole kit & kaboodle with decisive action on enforcement. What he did was stir up the pot even more.
The more pertinent question is whether he will veto a bill that includes the Sessions amendment. I hope he won't pop that particular cherry so suicidally. I really do.
UPDATE: Just another thought - d'ya think the Sessions amendment, which builds 370 miles of triple-thick border fencing, would have passed 83-16 if not for right-wing hell-raising?
posted by JASmius at 9:08 AM
<<< Home