This morning, I was watching part of the Senate goings-on on CSPAN. Speaking first was Senator Bob Hoeven (R-ND) talking about all the great border security that was going to be put in place. He was followed by Bob Corker (R-TN), who had been trying to get a border security amendment attached to the Senate Immigration bill. Both were praising each other to the skies for their work and cooperation. Then came Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who lavished praise on the two Republicans for their cooperation in trying to reach a deal. I didn't see enough to get the total details on what kind of compromise had apparently been reached, but according to Schumer, the bill was "going forward".
(Uh oh.)
Here is the Boston Globe's report on the agreement.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2013/06/21/senate-immigration-bill-boosted-border-deal/5GrGKpvc3u3deNjIDxWtUO/story.html
Here is a report from today's Breitbart that adds to my suspicions that the Republicans are caving.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/21/Aides-Kickback-filled-Corker-Hoeven-still-not-published?utm_source=contentsharing&utm_medium=linkexchange&utm_term=postion1&utm_content=Aides-Kickback-filled-Corker-Hoeven-still-not-published&utm_campaign=foxnews
Aside from the backroom deals and pork issue, my concern is still whether the border will, in fact, ever be secured. This is a ten-year projection that will, of course, require funding. Those 20,000 new Border Patrol agents will not materialize overnight. Of course, this was all supposed to happen back in 1986 when Reagan was convinced to sign that amnesty deal. The Democratic promises were never kept and 3 million people in the country illegally grew to 11 million-or so.
So are we going to legalize the status of 11 million people on Day One with a plan to have the border secured in ten years? And why are we talking about pathway to citizenship? It seems arrogant to assume that these people all want to become US citizens. The idea should be a pathway to regular and legal status in the US for those who are working and not engaged in criminal or gang activity. I am not opposed to eventual citizenship per se after a period of a certain number of years of complying with the laws, but I don't even understand why the word citizenship is even in play here. (Actually, I do. The Dems consider these folks future voters.)
Let's face it. We cannot round up and deport 11 million people. We can stop the flood, however, and that must be our first priority. Why not use the National Guard units in our border states to augment the BP? For that matter, we could use military personnel stationed in bases like Ft Huachuca, Arizona. We can also take steps to eliminate the incentive to come here to work. We can force cities like LA and San Francisco to abandon their "safe city" policy for illegals and have their police gang units work in tandem with federal immigration authorities to identify and deport illegal alien gang members. When our borders are secure, and we have stopped the flood, then we can all agree on how to deal humanely with the ones already here who have truly come to work and escape the grinding poverty and lack of opportunity in Mexico and Central America, and who otherwise have committed no crimes.
Ah but alas, we just don't have the will to do all that, do we?
Instead, what we will probably get is another bill filled with kickbacks in exchange for votes, amnesty, and a promise that Janet Napolitano's DHS will come up with a "plan" to secure the border over ten years.
The only plan I have heard from her mouth is to pass the Dream Act.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The idea should be a pathway to regular and legal status in the US for those who are working and not engaged in criminal or gang activity. I am not opposed to eventual citizenship per se after a period of a certain number of years of complying with the laws
Well, that's precisely what the bill establishes, so what are you griping about?
(If there isn't an EVENTUAL path to citizenship for those who comply with our laws, then the 11 million people we can't realistically deport become a distinct community of unassimilated noncitizens, like Germany is dealing with now. Is that what you want?
I think I made my point about citizenship clear. I just ask why the rush to talk about citizenship? Shouldn't we get them legalized first?
I just heard that one of the lawyers who is supporting a Democrat Senator in the creation of the immigration bill is from the La Raza (the land) group. I think that the La Raza group is the one who wants to return California back to Mexico. The immigration bill may do that.
Squid
As I understand it, the La Raza motto translates into something like "Everything for the Race. Nothing outside of the Race". The racism speaks for itself.
Main problem with the citizenship thing is that it just encourages more and more people to sneak in, hide in the bushes for a while, and then get what amounts to the prize without touching all the bases.
And we can realistically either deport or incarcerate them (try doing that for a change and see how the flood lessens). They managed to get here in those numbers. It took many years for all of them to get here, same thing if necessary for going back home, or to jail, their option.
Think of all the jobs and revenue building and then manning the prisons, and the resultant permanent boost to the local economies.
As elwood correctly points out, La Raza means "The Race," not "The Land." Squid is probably half remembering the Tierra Amarilla land grant movement initiated by Reies Lopez Tijerina. Not that this has anything to do with what is going on in the senate.
Gary: there is no "rush" to "talk about citizenship." There is a comprehensive bill that lays out the entire process -- and citizenship is some ways down the road for those who eventually qualify. Again, you have left yourself with no stated reason to oppose the bill.
Post a Comment