Monday, June 21, 2010
Senator John Kyl vs Obama
(Red State.com)
It's a case of "he said-he said". On June 18, Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) tells a town hall meeting in North Tempe that he had a one-on-one talk with President Obama in the White House (date not specified) regarding the issue of securing the border. Kyl's statement of what Obama told him comes at about the 3:45 mark.
So the issue is this: Did President Obama tell Kyl that if he were to "secure the border" the (Republicans) would have no incentive to pass "comprehensive immigration reform"? The White House flatly denies the comment.
Since nobody else was present, we may never know the truth (unless of course, those old Nixon tapes are still running). I would concede it is entirely possible that in the give and take of an obvious disagreement, things can be implied or inferred that may be the basis for a misunderstanding, and that nobody is lying.
I will speculate on this point, however. Even if "comprehensive immigration reform" is passed, Obama will never fully secure the border beyond something cosmetic. What Kyl specifically wants is a securing of the Tucson sector, which is a major crossing point for illegal aliens and drug smugglers. There is no reason why that situation should be allowed to continue including the recent revelations about the Buenos Aires National Park. The problem is, however, that this entire administration, from the President to the Attorney General, to the Director of Homeland Security is not committed to securing the border. It is contrary to their political agenda.
But consider this; which is more urgent- securing the border or "comprehensive immigration reform"(amnesty)? Even if you believe in CIR, would you not put securing the border first?
If Obama did, in fact, make that statement, it just shows that he has little to no sympathy for securing the border. It would not be surprising.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
To be credible on "securing the border" and build a sustainable political consensus (which is well over 51% for longer than a year or two, but realistically, among 300 million people, never 100%), we need to carefully distinguish between undocumented workers and armed drug gangs. There is always some overlap, e.g., drug gangs provide coyote services for substantial fees and keep their clients enslaved for years to pay debts, but fundamentally, these are two distinct problems:
1) The U.S. and Mexican governments have a shared concern and interest in quashing drug gangs that are operating as quasi-governments with relative impunity, regardless of whether Mexican citizens are or are not going to be moving in large numbers to fill low paid jobs from U.S. employers.
2) The U.S., preferably with Mexican cooperation, but without it if necessary, needs a comprehensive overhaul of immigration, although no government in the last sixty years has really gotten control of when, where, how, or why noncitizens come across the border to work.
Mixing the two up with each other leaves The American People splintered into too many factions with too many concerns to get behind an effective policy concerning either question.
Siarlys,
I get the difference and understand where we need to set our priorities. I am married to a Mexican and as a I always say, the real villain here are the powers that rule Mexico and siphon off all the wealth.
At some point however we have to stop what has become an intolerable situation for those down on the border.
Post a Comment