STRANGELAND.NET

Last night the Senate once again failed to reach cloture on the Bush-Kennedy Immigration reform bill.  This is a good thing.  The bill as it existed was a farce and would have been detrimental to the US.  Of course, its likely that this same bill will come up again in the near future (say a month or so), but I think that the members of Congress will find that there really is a large group of people that are opposed to amnesty for illegals in the US.  Those are the ones that have been calling their Senators every day to remind them that they want this bill killed.

Does this mean that immigration reform is dead?  No, and it shouldn’t be.  There is a need to fix the system that we currently have.  It has huge problems and needs to be fixed, but this was not the proper fix.  First off, one of the biggest problems with the current bill was the automatic granting of effectively permanent legal work status to anyone.  When Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) attempted to attach an amendment to block convicted felons from being granted permanent temporary work status (and eventually the ability to apply for citizenship) it was defeated.  When Senator Coburn (R-OK) brought up an amendment that would have reaffirmed the commitment of the US government to enforce existing immigration laws, it also was defeated 54-42.  I called Senator Hutchison (R-TX) to try and find out why she voted against it, but her office said that she had not commented on why she would oppose enforcing our laws.

Immigration reform is complex, but not impossible.  What might make it impossible is that you have various groups that all want something very different.  You have the free marketers (usually Republicans) who want open borders so that they can get cheap labor, you have the labor unions (usually Democrats) who foresee a huge influx of new members.  Both sides want this Z visa to be created thinking it will benefit them without realizing that it benefits neither in its current form.  They say that politics makes for strange bedfellows…but immigration reform has made for some of the strangest.

One of the main complaints with the Bush-Kennedy bill is that it further emasculates the fence that was provided for last year.  Congress authorized 700 miles of fence, then failed to fund it.  Then the funded 375 miles of it…and now with only a few score miles actually under construction, this bill would reduce that number even further.  But the fence, and with that the enforcement of border security so that thousands of illegals from terrorist nations are not able to enter into our country.  The other reason that enforcing our own border makes sense is that we make it hard to enter illegally to encourage people to enter legally.

So, once we have a legitimate border, how can we encourage people to enter legally?  Well, they have to have the ability to do so.  This will require an overhaul of the immigration system as we know it.  We can certainly handle more immigrants coming into the US.  If we are dealing with roughly a million illegals each year, then we can certainly deal with a million legals instead.  One big reason for opening up our visa levels is to allow for people from countries other them just Mexico and Central America to enter the US and work here.  There are certainly lots of people from Africa, Asia, or Eastern Europe who would love the opportunity to come to the US and work.  Right now the Mexican immigrants are getting all the press because they, much like squatters, can get here first and easily.  There are significant advantages to pushing for immigrants from other parts of the world and we are missing the boat by not allowing them entry.

Then there is the problem of the 12-22 million already here.  What do we do with them?  My response is nothing.  We don’t give them free schooling, we don’t give them public assistance, and we don’t give them work.  Get much tougher about penalizing employers that hire illegals.  It means that we need a tamper resistant ID card, and yes that means that we likely end up with a national ID.  Then, that ID is used, along with a database, to validate employment status.  When an employer knowingly hires illegals, then we hammer them.  Without work, there is little incentive to stay.  With a nice fence, entering illegally becomes harder then entering legally.  And then, if we are feeling generous, and I am today, we go ahead and provide anyone who requests it a free ticket home.  So, when an illegal can’t find a job, and can’t get welfare, they can get a free ticket back to their country of origin, heck we can even throw in a few hundred dollars for spending money.

Once we can make the border hard to cross,  make it easy to enter the US legally to work,  ensure that only those here legally can actually work, and provide a route home for those here illegally of their own volition will we have finally reformed immigration.  Of course all of that is incumbent upon an Executive Branch that will actually enforce the laws, which every administration since Ronald Reagan has been evidently unable to do.  This is one big plus that Rudy G has going for him.  Even laws he claims to not agree with he enforces.

dbroussa Uncategorized

I will direct you to Ron Paul’s abysmal performance in Tuesday night’s Presidential debate.  Its worth watching the clip to see the response by Rudy G.

You can read the transcript instead, but here are the important parts.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.

We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.” They have already now since that time — (bell rings) — have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don’t think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)

One thing that the transcript doesn’t do is show the level of applause.  It lists that Rep. Paul was applauded for his statement,  It then lists Rudy G as getting Applause, and Cheers for his statement.  You can hear some applause for Rep. Paul, but it is tepid and very limited.  Rudy’s applause stopped the debate to runs its course.

I heard Rep. Paul on the radio a while back (KSEV) and while I had known that he was a former Libertarian and knew that he was likely an isolationist…I had no idea he was a moonbat.  The guys on KSEV decided then and there that they would work hard to find someone to oppose Rep Paul in the CD-14 race in ‘08.  It looks like after last night someone has taken up the drive to unseat Rep. Paul.  I wish him well.  The GOP has a big tent, and I always figured that Libertarians had a place in the tent…but this kind of Republican we don’t need.  Heck this kind of Congressman we don’t need (we have enough of them…they have D’s after their names).

dbroussa Uncategorized

Recently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stated that the war in Iraq is lost and it is impossible to win.  He was talking in defense of the Congressional plan to put into spending authorizations a mandatory withdrawal date for US troops in Iraq.  Putting aside the concept of Congress attempting to take the role of Commander in Chief upon themselves, let us ponder two issues that arise from this declaration.

First, let us examine the idea that the war is lost and we should start bringing the troops home starting in October.  If this is true, then why should we wait until October?  Why should we maintain any US troop in harms way for even a single day if the war is lost and unwinnable?  Obviously it takes time to disengage from a conflict while in contact with the enemy, and it is the most difficult maneuver to accomplish successfully (to whit the withdrawal under fire from Viet Nam).  Still, one wonders why we would delay the withdrawal until October with all troops to be gone in mid 2008 if we have lost and cannot win.  What would we say to the families of those soldiers that die from now until October?  Unless of course we are waiting to see if we can turn things around, but the proposed legislation offers no way of measuring success.

Which leads to the second question that arises from Senator Reid’s remarks.  If we lose in Iraq, then who has won?  In a war there are winners and losers.  If we are the losers, then who are the winners?  Logically it would appear that the two main forces that oppose us in Iraq would be the winners.  One would be the forces of Islamic Jihad in the form of Al Qaeda, another would be the destabilizing forces in Iraq that want to grab what power they can for themselves.  Theoretically there will be regional fallout but it is very difficult to foretell what the effect on Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other countries would be from an Iraq that fell into chaos.

Coupling the two arguments and you get even more of a reason to withdraw right now.  If we have lost and cannot win, then the sooner that we get out and allow the chaos to settle into whatever form it takes afterwards the better off we will be. 

There is of course one other group that wins if the US looses in Iraq…and that would the the very group the Senator Reid speaks for. 

dbroussa Uncategorized