| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Fred Thompson: "Immigration" Bill is Lipstick on a Pig! |
| 2007-05-18 |
| Most Americans know that we have an illegal immigration problem in this country, with perhaps as many as 20 million people residing here unlawfully. And I think most Americans have a pretty good idea about how to at least start solving the problem – secure our nation’s borders. But there’s an old saying in Washington that, in dealing with any tough issue, half the politicians hope that citizens don’t understand it while the other half fear that people actually do. This kind of thinking was apparent with the “comprehensive” immigration reform bill that the U.S. Senate and the White House negotiated yesterday. I’d tell you what was in the legislation, but 24 hours after the politicians agreed the bill looked good, the Senate lawyers were still writing what may turn out to be a one thousand page document. In fact, a final version of the bill most likely will not be made available to the public until after the legislation is passed. That may come five days from now. That’s like trying to digest an eight-course meal on a fifteen-minute lunch break. We’ve tried the “comprehensive” route before to solve the illegal immigration problem with a bit more care and deliberation, and the results haven’t been good. Back in May 1985, Congress promised us that it would come up with a comprehensive plan to solve the problem of illegal immigration and our porous borders. Eighteen months later, in November 1986, that comprehensive plan was signed into law. Twenty-two years and millions of illegal immigrants later, that comprehensive plan hasn’t done what most Americans wanted it to do -- secure America’s borders. Now Washington says the new “comprehensive” plan will solve the problem that the last comprehensive plan didn’t. The fact is our border and immigration systems are still badly broken. We were reminded of this when Newsweek reported that the family of three of the men, arrested last week for allegedly plotting to kill American military personnel at Fort Dix, New Jersey, entered the U.S. illegally more than 20 years ago; filed for asylum back in 1989, but fell off the government’s radar screen when federal bureaucrats essentially lost track of the paperwork. Wonder how many times that’s been replicated? Is it any wonder that a lot of folks today feel like they’re being sold a phony bill of goods on border security? A “comprehensive” plan doesn’t mean much if the government can’t accomplish one of its most basic responsibilities for its citizens -- securing its borders. A nation without secure borders will not long be a sovereign nation. No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it’s not going to win any beauty contests. In fact, given Congress’s track record, the bill will probably get a lot uglier -- at least from the public’s point of view. And agreeing to policies before actually seeing what the policies are is a heck of a way to do business. We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway. That would give proponents of the bill a chance to explain why putting illegals in a more favorable position than those who play by the rules is not really amnesty. Added emphasis mine. Go to the link and LISTEN to his podcast of this. |
| Posted by:OldSpook |
| #16 With a wife like this, I see two good reasons to vote for this man. Clearly knows how to pick winners. |
| Posted by: Lampedusa Glaimble2526 2007-05-18 22:29 |
| #15 OTOH, HANNITY AND COLMES > GUESTS > dichotomy is btwn OBEYING THE CURRENT LAW = LAWS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE; versus OBEY THE PROPOSED NEW LAW BUT NOT THE OLD/PAST LAWS??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-05-18 22:11 |
| #14 O'REILLY [paraphrased] > Iff there are approxi 20.0Milyuhn new citizens in 5-10 years, mostly HISPANIC?, it will utterly change everything in America. MOST ILLEGALS OR HISPANICS, ETC. VOTE DEMOCRAT - in FIVE YEARS, wid 10.0Milyuhn illegals, etal. now new voters in the ranks, O'REILLY BELIEVES AMERS WILL WAVE = SAY BYE-BYE TO THE GOP, AS THE DEMS WILL TAKE CONTROL BY SHEER WEIGHT OF NUMBERS ALONE, AND AMER WILL HAVE A ONE-PARTY GOVT. AND NATION. ONE-PARTY GOVT. AND NATION. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-05-18 22:08 |
| #13 In theearly 19th century most countries didnt even have passports, movement from country to country was barely regulated. LH, your comparison is wholly inadequate, as in apples to oranges. In the early 19th century, movement between nations was horrendously expensive, very risky to one's life (one in seven ocean going ships never made it back into port) and heavily discouraged due to extreme xenophobia on the part of rural populations (watch the movies Jean de Florette & Manon des Source sometime). In an age of international air travel and institutionalized human smuggling, your observation no longer applies. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-05-18 21:41 |
| #12 yes id disagree with that. In theearly 19th century most countries didnt even have passports, movement from country to country was barely regulated. There also wasn't welfare, mandates to provide healthcare, education, free college tuition, providing identification documents, patronising special-interest groups, WMD... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-05-18 21:29 |
| #11 LH I am for as you say "deport them". Talk about "immigration" after the border is secured and and every US citizen who wants one has a living wage job. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2007-05-18 20:59 |
| #10 LH, Refuse them benefits or permission to work, and place draconian penalties on those who would hire them, and they'll deport themselves. BTW, my congresscritter has cosponsored H.R. 1940, which is a bill to make the "anchor baby" concept illegal. If they can get that passed it would make a tremendous difference. |
| Posted by: Mac 2007-05-18 20:30 |
| #9 elarson there have always been non-Mexicans coming across. if this one guy of the fort dix trio was actually a Rio Grande comer, hes the first terr thus far to do so, AFAIK. and hes hardly first rank terr. but again, im all for improving border security. I think it should go along with the other changes. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-05-18 20:27 |
| #8 yes id disagree with that. In theearly 19th century most countries didnt even have passports, movement from country to country was barely regulated. I wouldnt say there were no nations, there certainly were. The decision of how much effort to put into controlling the border is a policy decision to be based on costs and benefits. Not an emotional one. And I certainly agree that post 9/11 we should control the border better. I think we have. Look at the absence of terr acts in the US, despite thousand of Islamist loonies abroad. These guys at Ft Dix were rank amateurs, not trained AQniks, who came over years before 9/11. Now should we improve border control further - sure. But should we hold immigration reform hostage till the BP gets its act together? Does the BP even care about reform of the status of current immigrants? Do you agree that a country that has millions of inhabitants, who are not registered, who are living on the lam, who dont have the same access to education and health care, who can be victimized by unscrupulous employers, has a big problem? But that leaves two options - legalize them, or deport them. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-05-18 20:23 |
| #7 Some of them came in via the refugee debacle, some came in over the border. Pay attention, LH. Besides, do you disagree that a nation that doesn't control who is within it is no longer a nation? |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2007-05-18 20:08 |
| #6 It can't change the past. But it can prevent OTMs of potentially nefarious intent from entering to try again in the future. Here's some photos of items found near Three Points, Arizona, for example. You think Juan Pablo y su esposa were vacationing in the Middle East prior to coming to El Norte? |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-05-18 20:06 |
| #5 "entered the U.S. illegally more than 20 years ago; filed for asylum back in 1989, but fell off the governmentÂ’s radar screen when federal bureaucrats essentially lost track of the paperwork" not via the Rio Grande, then. How would fortifying the SW border change this? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-05-18 19:59 |
| #4 In fact, a final version of the bill most likely will not be made available to the public until after the legislation is passed. Star chamber, anyone? Thompson continues to bat a 1,000. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-05-18 19:18 |
| #3 I think he is doing a guerrilla campaign run. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-05-18 19:07 |
| #2 None whatsoever. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2007-05-18 18:56 |
| #1 Any doubts THIS is the right guy for the job of President? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-05-18 18:40 |
