The gist of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's editorial, "Balance and Humanity," is that President Bush is taking the right approach overall in dealing with illegal immigration by suggesting a middle way, something in between amnesty and mass deportations.
So, the editorial board basically gives Bush a thumbs up on his proposals. They disagree with sending the National Guard to the border, but they are on board with everything else.
Within the space of the relatively short editorial, the board declared Bush to be right on three separate occasions.
"He is absolutely right... ."
"The president is right."
"He's right."
(Did I miss the report that hell froze over?)
The fact that the Journal Sentinel agrees with Bush is a sign that his plan is very soft, and leans toward amnesty.
The answer remains legalizing a manageable flow through a guest worker program rather than criminalizing the presence of migrants who are here without proper documents. This draconian last item, among other things, is what a bill by Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would do.
Senate legislation would create a guest worker program but also includes a path toward legal residency for many of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already here. It has stalled.
The president is right. Enforcement is part of the solution. A nation does have a responsibility to secure its borders. But maybe not against service-sector workers. A better target would be employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. A preferable route would be to give employers the means to verify whether someone is documented. A tamper-proof ID for guest workers, as the president suggests, might help. Building fences at the border, what the Sensenbrenner bill would do for a large portion, won't.
Basically, the board's take on Bush's proposals is that amnesty (AKA "the path toward legal residency") will be granted to the 11 million+ illegals currently in the country. Moreover, the flow of more "guests" into the United States will not be blocked significantly.
Basically, I'd say their interpretation of Bush's plan is accurate.
While the President is offering some steps to hold back the flood of illegals entering the country, he's not taking strong measures to stop it.
In effect, he's tossing a few sandbags on the border. He's not constructing a dam.
The president said the Guard would stand down after a year and at no point, he said, would it be directly involved in law enforcement.
Good, but its presence at the border - in theory freeing up more Border Patrol agents - has too much potential for stepping over that line. Moreover, Mexico, despite the tension between it and the United States over immigration and other issues, is an ally. Allies don't militarize their mutual borders.
Here's a clear example of the liberal belief that we should not maintain the integrity of our borders.
Yes, they pay lip service to the idea of securing the borders, but they object to any measures which would produce results.
Regarding the board's concerns about Bush's proposal to utilize the National Guard, members will do what they are sent to the border to do; and it won't be law enforcement. There's no potential for them to "step over that line."
Implicit in the statement is that it would somehow be wrong to actually enforce the law and prevent people from entering the country illegally. Apparently, upholding U.S. law would be stepping over the line and inappropriate.
Although there is normally no need to have a heavy military presence at the mutual borders of allies, that's because allies normally respect each others' borders. They don't break the laws of their neighbors.
It's a rare situation when a friendly country is allowed to disregard and disrespect its neighbor's laws with impugnity. That could (should) be enough to seriously damage the alliance.
But the board is saying that in the name of friendship, it's an acceptable arrangement for Mexico to send its problems to the United States.
They obviously don't buy into the notion that good fences make good neighbors.
Offering illegal immigrants already here a path to legal residency after paying fines and back taxes, what the Senate legislation proposes, is not amnesty, he said.
He's right. It's sanity.
Realistically, how many of the millions of illegals already in the country are going to volunteer to pay fines and back taxes?
Believing that they will is insanity.
___________________________________
Mark Levin provides a concise account of what President Bush's plan would mean to the American taxpayer and how it would impact our social and government services.
By any factual analysis—costs to public education, the health-care system, entitlement programs, prison systems, etc.—unrestrained immigration is extremely detrimental to our country, as it would be for any country. And when you consider that the Senate bill now under consideration would result in some 100 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years—not including illegal aliens—the threat to this society is crystal clear. The U.S. cannot possibly assimilate such numbers, and the financial strain on federal, state, and local budgets is incalculable.
Those who support a temporary-worker program (yesterday it was called a guest-worker program) expect us to believe that it’s temporary and the workers will be guests. But they have no proof that aliens won’t stay beyond the legal limit and no proof that any agency of our government is capable of registering and monitoring this. Indeed, the evidence is otherwise: Aliens will stay no matter what, and the federal bureaucracy is as bloated and incompetent as we conservatives have always insisted.
This is pure idiocy, and it has the potential of being far more damaging to this nation than any big-government power-grab perpetrated by any previous president and Congress. The social and economic impact would be vast. What is the public-policy imperative behind this? And if it’s such a wonderful idea, why does every other country in the world reject it, including Mexico?
The Journal Sentinel editorial doesn't address these issues. The cost of supporting millions of illegal immigrants isn't even considered. The board approached the problem of funding the Milwaukee Connector Project the very same way, by completely dismissing it.
Damn reality. Full speed ahead!
Would it be nice if we could manage to take in and support anyone interested in coming to America?
Sure.
Is it possible without putting tremendous "financial strain on federal, state, and local budgets"?
No.
No comments:
Post a Comment