Some folks would like to know why the Senate immigration bill failed last week and others believe they already know. The people who really do not understand why such a bill could fail, when it was a “bi-partisan” effort and given the smokescreen name of the “grand bargain” do not really understand the situation. Of that group one might include the man in the White House who ordered it be done. Perhaps if someone explained it to him clearly, he may get the idea that when he wants something done that important, two things must be present. First, it has to be a good idea to begin with—and amnesty (or whatever it is they want to misname it) is never a good idea. And second, one doesn’t try to ram it down our throats with tasteless propaganda, and insult the Republican base when they spit it out to see what it really is they are being told to swallow.
According to Carol Platt Liebau, attorney, political commentator, blogger, and talk show host near L.A., “A New York Times/CBS poll taken May 18-23 found that 69% of Americans believe that illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported; 82% of those surveyed said the federal government should be working harder to ‘keep illegal immigrants from crossing into this country.’ And according to a Rasmussen poll, by a two-to-one margin (60% to 28%), Americans set a higher priority on gaining control of the nation’s borders than regularizing the status of illegal immigrants, while 75% opined that it’s very important for the United States to ‘improve border enforcement and end illegal immigration.’”
What is it about public opinion that the president and the senators did not get? The priority to the American people, according to the polls—along with the phone calls, letters, emails, bloggers, and letters-to-the-editor—was border enforcement! Were the senators so enamored with their grand compromise that they were willing to keep a totally inadequate and unbalanced bill popping back and forth over the net for another week, watching it become more unbalanced everyday and with every new amendment that plucked two feathers off for one inserted? Finally, even the senators themselves voted it unsatisfactory. Many of the people watching C-Span knew it on Monday. Many of the senators still seemed optimistic Friday morning.
According to Liebau, “Key amendments were voted down. Those who objected to the legislation did so in large part because they suspected that the bill’s supporters were not serious about securing the border and enforcing immigration laws already on the books. Their reservations were justified when a majority of the Senate defeated common sense amendments.” One of the measures she discussed was a measure from Senator Norm Coleman “that would have prohibited ‘sanctuary cities’ from passing laws preventing law enforcement from sharing information about illegal aliens with the federal government.” Another such amendment by Senator John Cornyn “would have ensured that members of terrorist-related organizations, known gang members, sex offenders, alien smugglers who use firearms and felony drunk drivers were either barred from the U.S. or prohibited from obtaining any immigration benefits.” One could prudently wonder why one party is so fond of these types of persona non grata. The American workers could justifiably wonder why such malevolent people are considered more important by one party than the workers of their own country who are losing jobs to them and who are somehow expected to welcome them here with open arms regardless of their own desperate fight for survival.
The ringing in the ears of the Senate does not have to be the death knell of immigration reform. It could also be the announcement of a new approach to the process. The people of this country said that securing the borders and enhanced enforcement should be the first order of business. We do not need a new bill for that; check the 1986 Amnesty Law. It’s in there, in case the senators haven’t noticed. There are hundreds of millions of reasons why we should close the borders and enhance the enforcement, and no reason whatsoever for not doing so! Well, there is one, but it is not a good one--a few elements in this country want those borders wide open! But the Senate could not possibly favor the too few over the so many, could they?
Once the 1986 law is finally satisfied and the people can finally give a sigh of relief, the Senate could then take up the question of how many people we actually need—from all countries from which people apply—and start looking at the best and the brightest. Oh! Incidentally, the Senate also may wish to consider compensation to the American workers who lost jobs in the past and could not get jobs because of failure of the government to maintain the border security they were mandated to do. When one considers that every action has a reaction, failure to act has a reaction also. When you don’t plug the dike and the ensuing flood ruins the crops, whoever failed is responsible. Many people have been hurt by the failure of the government to plug the leak in our borders. The government now owes them.
Read the full text:
Some folks would like to know why the Senate immigration bill failed last week and others believe they already know. The people who really do not understand why such a bill could fail, when it was a “bi-partisan” effort and given the smokescreen name of the “grand bargain” do not really understand the situation. Of that group one might include the man in the White House who ordered it be done. Perhaps if someone explained it to him clearly, he may get the idea that when he wants something done that important, two things must be present. First, it has to be a good idea to begin with—and amnesty (or whatever it is they want to misname it) is never a good idea. And second, one doesn’t try to ram it down our throats with tasteless propaganda, and insult the Republican base when they spit it out to see what it really is.
According to Carol Platt Liebau, attorney, political commentator, blogger, and talk show host near L.A., “A New York Times/CBS poll taken May 18-23 found that 69% of Americans believe that illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported; 82% of those surveyed said the federal government should be working harder to ‘keep illegal immigrants from crossing into this country.’ And according to a Rasmussen poll, by a two-to-one margin (60% to28%), Americans set a higher priority on gaining control of the nation’s borders than regularizing the status of illegal immigrants, while 75% opined that it’s very important for the United States to ‘improve border enforcement and end illegal immigration.’”
What is it about public opinion that the president and the senators did not get? The priority to the American people, according to the polls—along with the phone calls, letters, emails, bloggers, and letters-to-the-editor—was border enforcement. Were the senators so enamored with their grand compromise that they were willing to keep a totally inadequate and unbalanced bill popping back and forth over the net for another week, watching it become more unbalanced everyday and with every new amendment that plucked two feathers off for one inserted? Finally, even the senators themselves voted it unsatisfactory. Many of the people watching C-Span knew it one Monday. Many of the senators were still optimistic Friday morning.
According to Liebau, “Key amendments were voted down. Those who objected to the legislation did so in large part because they suspected that the bill’s supporters were not serious about securing the border and enforcing immigration laws already on the books. Their reservations were justified when a majority of the Senate defeated common sense amendments.” One of the measures she discussed was a measure from Senator Norm Coleman “that would have prohibited ‘sanctuary cities’ from passing laws preventing law enforcement from sharing information about illegal aliens with the federal government.” Another such amendment by Senator John Cornyn “would have ensured that members of terrorist-related organizations, known gang members, sex offenders, alien smugglers who use firearms and felony drunk drivers were either barred from the U.S. or prohibited from obtaining any immigration benefits.” One could prudently wonder why one party is so fond of these types of persona non grata. The American workers could justifiably wonder why such malevolent people are considered more important by one party than the workers of their own country who are losing jobs to them and who are expected to welcome them here with open arms regardless of their own desperate fight for survival.
The ringing in the ears of the Senate does not have to be the death knell of immigration reform. It could also be the announcement of a new approach to the process. The people of this country said that security the borders and enhanced enforcement should be the first order of business. We do not need a new bill for that; check the 1986 Amnesty Law. It’s in there, in case the senators haven’t noticed. There are hundreds of millions of reasons why we should close the borders and enhance the enforcement, and no reason whatsoever for not doing so! Well, there is one, but it is not a good one--a few elements in this country want those borders wide open!
Once the 1986 law is finally satisfied and the people can finally give a sigh of relief, the Senate could then take up the question of how many people we actually need—from all countries from which people apply—and start looking at the best and the brightest. Oh! Incidentally, the Senate also may wish to consider compensation to the American workers who lost jobs in the past because of failure of the government to maintain the border security they were mandated to do. When one considers that every action has a reaction, failure to act has a reaction also. When you don’t plug the dike and the ensuing flood ruins the crops, whoever failed is responsible. Many people have been hurt by the failure of the government to plug the leak in our borders. The government now owes them.
HJS
Read the full text: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CarolPlattLiebau/2007/06/11/why_the_immigration_bill_failed
No comments:
Post a Comment