2007 June 18 Monday
Many Senate Border Enforcement Supporters Lying

Charles Krauthammer argues that while all the Senators say they support better border enforcement many demonstrate their dishonesty by making it contingent on amnesty and legal immigration.

There is only one provision that has unanimous support: stronger border enforcement. I've seen senators stand up and object to the point system, to chain migration, to guest workers, to every and any idea in this bill - except one. I have yet to hear a senator stand up and say he or she is against better border enforcement.

Why not start by passing what everyone says they want? After all, proponents of this comprehensive reform insist that the current situation is intolerable and must be resolved. It follows, therefore, that however much they differ in the details of how the current mess should be resolved, they are united in the belief that such a mess should not be allowed to happen again. And the only way to make sure of that is border control.

So why not pass it, with the understanding that the other contentious provisions would be taken up subsequently? Because for all the protestations, many of those who say they are deeply devoted to enforcement are being deeply disingenuous. They profess to care about immigration control because they have to. But they care so little about the issue that they are willing to make it hostage to the other controversial provisions, most notably legalization.

In a nutshell: our elites are holding border security hostage to their desire to bring in more cheap labor.

People understand they are being lied to. An article in the New York Times reports on Georgians who do not trust or believe what politicians in Washington DC are telling them on immigration.

“It’s all window dressing,” said Mark A. Johnson, a real estate lawyer in this fast-growing suburb of Atlanta. “We don’t believe the government has the will to enforce any of these promises. Everybody can see the folly of it, everybody but the politicians.”


“It really upsets me to find out that my government says, ‘Yes, we can secure the border, we can detain illegal aliens, we can take all sorts of actions to enforce the law, but we will do so only if Congress provides legal status to those who are here illegally,’ ” Mr. Dean said.

Reagan Dean understands.

A majority of Democrats in Georgia oppose the Senate immigration amnesty bill.

Louis S. Hunter, a pollster and political analyst based in Atlanta, said, “Congress and the president are completely out of touch with how people here feel about illegal immigration.”

Senator Chambliss, who is up for re-election next year, was booed last month when he defended the bill at the state Republican convention. In nearby Gwinnett County, the local Republican Party adopted a resolution last week urging both senators to “vote no on this amnesty bill.”

Jane V. Kidd, chairwoman of the Democratic Party of Georgia, said: “This is not a partisan issue in Georgia. A small percentage of Democrats are supporting the bill as it stands, but a majority of Democrats and Republicans in the state do not like it.”

Saxby Chambliss ought to get defeated in his next run for reelection. Some Democrats might try to run his right on immigration to beat him.

Three Democrats who hope to unseat Mr. Chambliss have criticized the bill and his role in drafting it, Ms. Kidd said.

This is what we need: throw the bums out. Among the Republicans who should go down against Republican primary challengers: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Johnny Isakson also of Georgia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and John Kyl of Arizona all should go down to defeat in their next elections.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2007 June 18 09:25 PM  Immigration Elites Versus Masses

dchamil said at June 19, 2007 6:50 AM:

You betcha. Throw the rascals out -- and get some fresh rascals!

Mark said at June 19, 2007 8:48 PM:

The Senate is the easy battle. Even if they win there, they will probably lose in the House.

John S Bolton said at June 20, 2007 11:46 PM:

The amnesty bill has mendaciously been renumbered as S1649, and is trying to fly under a complex camouflage of lies.
Senators will get postcards, e-mails, faxes and calls from me opposing cloture on S1649/1348.
If there is honest or rational support for such a bill, why does it need secrecy, renaming, concealment of the meaning of its provisions, smearing of opponents, and extraordinary parliamentary moves to keep the public's
involvement in it, to the minimum?
Openness-valorization for some odd reason, requires an extreme and most unusual closedness, to get by.
Does this make anyone else suspect that some unspeakable contradiction-in-terms is underlying this process?

John S Bolton said at June 22, 2007 11:24 PM:

Make that S.1639.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©