The Immigration Bill: Comprehensive or Incomprehensible?
By Fred Thompson
Saturday, May 19, 2007
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.
I'm not hearing a darn thing from any of the other "first tier" candidates on the republican side except "it's not amnesty" & nothing @ all from the democrat side - though Sen. Clinton last year spoke to the illegal alien rallies.
Location: On an Island in the west coast of New England
Posts: 13,132
RE: Enforcement First - Fred Thompson
Plain and simple. When farming and you have a problem with your cows getting in/ out you fix the hole in the fence first. Of course there is another answer..... you can sell the cows to make the problem go away! He gets it and will get my vote if he runs.
__________________
Too busy with fishing to spend much time here.
If most of them would vote to absolve criminals for their crimes and allow them to stay here then most of them should lose their jobs and possibly their freedom for awhile as well. The fact is that these aliens have committed a crime by coming here without undergoing the same process that millions of genuine immigrants before them endured, and those that would fast track them into citizenship are just as guilty.
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
Ifferd, it's no done deal @ all. The senators are feeling the heat, & the heat must continue to be applied! It seems debate will take place in June, & the heat from us will need to be continued & ramped up!
I'm not hearing a darn thing from any of the other "first tier" candidates on the republican side except "it's not amnesty" & nothing @ all from the democrat side - though Sen. Clinton last year spoke to the illegal alien rallies.
Fred Gets It!
Gingrich was saying the same thing a couple days ago on O'Reilly... He thinksthat agreeing to thisimmigration bill may be one of the worst mistakes the Republicans have ever made.
Location: On an Island in the west coast of New England
Posts: 13,132
RE: Enforcement First - Fred Thompson
Quote:
ORIGINAL: ipscshooter
Quote:
ORIGINAL: Whitehorse
I'm not hearing a darn thing from any of the other "first tier" candidates on the republican side except "it's not amnesty" & nothing @ all from the democrat side - though Sen. Clinton last year spoke to the illegal alien rallies.
Fred Gets It!
Gingrich was saying the same thing a couple days ago on O'Reilly... He thinksthat agreeing to thisimmigration bill may be one of the worst mistakes the Republicans have ever made.
Thompson/Gingrich, or Gingrich/Thompson '08
Newt is a nut and with a face like that would hurt Thompson.
__________________
Too busy with fishing to spend much time here.
Enforcement First - Fred Thompson
