Immigration Bait and Switch
"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment." --George Washington
A group of eight senators -- four Democrats and four Republicans -- announced Monday their outline for immigration reform. A bipartisan group of House members is likewise working on a deal. On Tuesday, apparently unable to find a microphone in Washington, Barack Obama took a $1.6 million flight (not including other expenses) to Las Vegas to make his own case before immediately returning to the capital.
Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Michael Bennet (D-CO), John McCain (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) released their Bipartisan Framework for Immigration Reform, which has four prongs: 1. A "tough but fair path to citizenship ... contingent upon securing our borders"; 2. reform the current legal immigration system; 3. expand and strengthen the employment verification system to prevent the hiring of illegal workers; 4. and improve the process for admitting future workers. At first read, it sounds reasonable.
The sudden push is thanks to the election. Republicans are facing the fact of once again losing the Hispanic vote in a blowout and are looking for love in all the wrong places. But merely signing on with Democrat legislation isn't going to win the Hispanic vote for the GOP -- not when so many Hispanics in this country are low-income workers who believe in big-government redistribution.
Of course, Democrats are always eager to pretend to make a deal, only to make it so "comprehensive" and unpalatable in the end that the GOP rejects it and, voila, Democrats can scare voters about racist Republicans all over again. They're already signaling to their base that talk of enforcement is just smoke and mirrors to pacify the GOP base. As Chuck Schumer said, "We are not using border security as a block to a path to citizenship. [The trigger] will not be a barrier to giving citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country."
Charlie Brown, Lucy, football.
And we've seen this movie before. In the 1986 amnesty (and similar legislation passed in the 60's and 70's), enforcement was promised and never delivered. So here we are, 27 years later, hearing the same promises -- legal status first in exchange for promised (if that) enforcement later. Schumer admitted, "On Day One of our bill, the people without status who are not criminals or security risks will be able to live and work here legally." Once illegals obtain even provisional legal status, it's game over, and the idea of it being "contingent upon securing our borders" is just window dressing.
The proposal includes some positive enforcement provisions, including better tracking of people entering and exiting the country, which would indeed be an improvement. Eight years after the 9/11 Commission highlighted this dangerous gap in security, it's certainly about time. Restricting the soon-to-be lawful probationary immigrants from receiving federal benefits is also good -- at least in theory. But does anyone think that the same nation unable to keep them out in the first place will successfully keep them off the public dole?
Advocating for the bill in a Las Vegas Review-Journal op-ed, Marco Rubio wrote, "It's not a good idea to have millions of people permanently trapped in an immigration status that keeps them forever at a distance from our society." It would be positive if legal status leads to true assimilation instead of cultural segregation. He added, "[W]hat we have now is de facto amnesty." He is correct, but only because of a lack of enforcement, and it doesn't mean amnesty should become law.
We believe Rubio, a likely presidential contender in 2016, is attempting to negotiate in good faith, looking for a workable solution in a Democrat-controlled capital. He isn't naive or disingenuous, and he promised to oppose the bill if what Schumer says comes to pass. One of his fellow senators, Texas Republican Ted Cruz, said, "To allow those who came here illegally to be placed on such a path is both inconsistent with Rule of Law and profoundly unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who waited years, if not decades, to come to America legally."
Ensuring that enforcement is front and center in a series of small packages is the way we should go. Reject the "comprehensive" approach that leads to all manner of ill conceived and ill-advised provisions that make matters worse, if they have anything to do with the subject at all. Physically controlling the border and clamping down on employment is critical, though it's sure to be thwarted by a lawless administration that has, for example, refused to complete the border fence mandated by 2006 legislation. (A fence might make it harder to traffic gun
Physically controlling the border and clamping down on employment is critical, though it's sure to be thwarted by a lawless administration that has, for example, refused to complete the border fence mandated by 2006 legislation. (A fence might make it harder to traffic guns to Mexican drug cartels.)
Once the border is secure, or even simultaneously with working toward that, we can streamline the legal immigration process so that illegal entry is a less attractive alternative. On the other hand, suffering through another four years of Obamanomics will do plenty to cut off the flow of illegals. Think about it: Who wants to come here now?
"Illegal immigration is a curious subject: It is one of the few domains in which the authorities entrusted with enforcing the law feel obliged to negotiate the most concessionary terms and conditions with those who are breaking it, as though law enforcement were an embarrassing inconvenience. But the rule of law, national security, and economic dynamism are not mere pro forma matters -- they are in fact fundamental, a reality lost on our would-be 'comprehensive' immigration reformers." --National ReviewThe BIG Lie
"When it comes to border security, I think anyone who looks at this honestly will note the tremendous strides we have made in the past four years in protecting our borders. In fact ... our borders now are more secure than they have ever been in history." --White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
Actually, as we noted above, it's the Obama economy that has kept illegal immigration at bay.
The Obama/Feinstein legislative assault on defensive weapons was formally introduced into the Senate this week, albeit without the bold registration requirements that Feinstein originally proposed -- registration being necessary in order to eventually legislate confiscation.
But the gun confiscators have no intention of relinquishing the momentum they shamefully constructed on the caskets of children -- using a genuine tragedy as fuel for an emotionally driven campaign to advance a politically disingenuous gun-control agenda.
Feinstein's bill begins, "To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes." That pretty much sums it up.
Don't miss the rest of Mark Alexander's column.
Two quick notes about breaking news: A 14-year-old student opened fire in his Atlanta school Thursday, but was stopped by an armed school resource officer before anyone was killed.
In Turkey, a suicide bomber attacked the U.S. embassy, killing a security guard at a checkpoint. Where are the calls for capacity limits on suicide vests or bans on assault bombs?
Also, join the critical push for American Patriots across this great nation to pledge: "We, the People, affirm that we will support and defend Liberty as 'endowed by our Creator,' enshrined in our Constitution and empowered by its Second Amendment, against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Please take a moment and join the 36,000 of your countrymen who answered the call. Share it with your family, friends and colleagues via social media and email, as well.
This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award
"[I]t is true that the vast majority of gun deaths in America are not the consequence of the use of an 'assault weapon.' But that begs the question of whether assault weapons have any real utility either in terms of any sporting or self protection needs." --Joe Biden
Because they are not generally used in crime, we should ban them. Got it.