Thread: We cannot afford to procrastinate on this any longer

We cannot afford to procrastinate on this any longer
By BOB McALISTER, For the Herald-Journal
Published June 10, 2007


The immigration crisis and Iraq war have one thing in common: How we got to where we find ourselves is not pretty, but we are forced to deal with both issues to avoid more bedlam.

Conservatives supporting President Bush's surge strategy in Iraq say the Democrats' cut-and-run strategy would lead to disaster. Quitting, they say, would make a bad situation much worse.

But many of those same conservatives appear quite comfortable to quit trying to fix the nightmare of illegal immigration, which is as much a national security issue as airline passenger screening. They're ready to criticize the efforts of conservatives who refuse to quit struggling with the issue, but they're not disposed to do much else.

Three of the accused Fort Dix Six conspirators are said to be illegal Islamic immigrants who allegedly wanted to blow up the base and the Americans in it.

How many more are out there? No one has a clue, and no one will ever have a clue unless a comprehensive immigration policy stressing border protection is adopted - or until more Americans are blown up on our own soil.

I've been all over the place on this issue. The low point came last year when unions helped organize a national protest on behalf of immigrants, some of whom marched in the streets of America waving the Mexican flag.

I pretty much decided, to heck with them - round 'em up and send 'em back.

Viscerally, it feels good to say that. But it's not about making conservatives like me feel good or giving politicians the chance to get a cheap sound bite ("It's amnesty") in the headlines.

The country is left with one question: Does it make sense to fight terrorists half a world away while failing to secure our country that might as well have a red carpet and a "Welcome, jihadists" neon sign at the Mexican-American border?

Conservative critics of the Bush plan being debated in the Senate correctly say we could do better. But there's one problem: we Republicans got our rear ends kicked in the November elections and no longer control Capitol Hill.

That leaves us with two choices: Negotiate with the Democrats, which means crafting an imperfect bill, or do nothing. As FOX News' Bill O'Reilly said, "If the bill doesn't pass, another 10 million illegal aliens are going to come here in the next five years. So the chaos we have now will double."

There isn't a third choice.

Conservatives can take heart in the legion of liberals opposing the bill. The New York Times calls it shameful. The AFL-CIO and Nancy Pelosi don't like it.

But what about Ted Kennedy? I don't have an answer for why he supports it except to speculate that the old boy might be trying to do something decent for a change.

A remarkable concession that White House negotiators, Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain and other conservatives, got from the Democrats is that the entire immigration package hinges on improved border security benchmarks.

The Z visa and temporary worker programs don't go into effect until 200 miles of vehicle barriers and 370 miles of fencing are constructed and 18,000 border security agents are in place.

So is it amnesty? Not if the dictionary's definition of amnesty as "a general pardon" is applied.

For all practical purposes, amnesty was unspoken U.S. policy until Bush took office as illegal immigrants by the millions came, married, had babies and found work. They did everything here but learn to speak English. Employers hired them with impunity; government looked the other way. "Don't ask, don't tell" was immigration policy long before it was military policy.

If anything, the bipartisan bill declares that unofficial U. S. policy of benign amnesty is over.

It requires tamper-proof identifications cards, a key to preventing future illegal immigration.

Undocumented workers would be required to pay $5,000 in fines, pass background checks, learn English, go back to their home country, demonstrate merit in the new merit-based green card system and go to the back of the line behind those who applied lawfully. Their path toward citizenship will be longer and more costly than those who do it legally from the start.

A point system for immigrants would place less emphasis on family connections and more on education and job skills, and rogue employers who continue to hire illegal immigrants would suffer heavy penalties.

Critics rightly point out flaws in the ability of big government to do much of anything efficiently and question whether it's possible for government to implement the complicated policies required in the legislation. Yet they have no problem believing that the same big, incompetent government is capable of tracking down 12 million people in the shadows, rounding them up and sending them back home when they don't want to be tracked down, rounded up and sent back. Remember, this is the same government that couldn't handle 200,000 Katrina victims who wanted to leave.

There are no easy answers; it's a problem confounding conservatives and liberals alike. But politicians from all across the political spectrum have ignored the problem for 20 years, granting de facto amnesty to every Tom, Jose and Mohammed willing to walk a few miles from the shadow lands into the Promised Land.

Supporters of the president's immigration bill have developed a package that, for the first time, puts border security first. Nothing else will happen until the border is fortified.

It's not perfect, but it's better than doing nothing, which is exactly where conservative and liberal critics are heading because they have no plan that can pass Congress.

It is not good enough to just say no.

"Pandering for votes on this issue, while offering no solution to the problem, amounts to doing nothing," said Sen. John McCain. "And doing nothing is silent amnesty."

Bob McAlister, owner of McAlister Communications in Columbia, was chief of staff for Gov. Carroll Campbell. He

has been a consultant to Sen. Lindsey Graham and is a consultant for Sen. John

McCain's South Carolina presidential campaign. He can be reached at bob@mcalistercommunications.com.

http://www.goupstate.com/article/200706 ... 08/-1/LIFE

This guy is forgetting there is a third option. Build the fence, not just two or three hundred miles all of it. Go heavy on employers of illeagals, fine and jail time will dry up the jobs and they will leave. Any terrorists who are here illeagally, need money to live, no job, no I.D. they leave. Problem solved.

Conservatives supporting President Bush's surge strategy in Iraq say the Democrats' cut-and-run strategy would lead to disaster. Quitting, they say, would make a bad situation much worse.

While I disagree on the reasons on why we invaded Iraq, in the here and now, I have to agree with the Reps on the situation in Iraq. If the Dem plan was in effect, I believe it would make this situation much worse by simply pulling out our troops. Did we not learn anything from View Nam? We all know what happened to View Nam after we left, and Iraq would face the same problem.

I wish I had an answer to this crisis, but pulling our troops out in the manner suggested by Dems is simply not an option.

First off, "conservatives" have been against Iraq from its inception. Ask Pat Buchanan. Neocons are not conservatives - you know that. You made a lot of mistakes that those who have not studied the issue have made based on empty rhetoric by its proponents. But you have had time to look at the issue more thoroughly so why are you still repeating the same lies about this bill? The only answer is your own personal bias.

This bill weakens key enforcement provisions - including shortening the border fence.

Democrats want a secure border, too. So, there is nothing that needs to be NEGOTIATED AWAY in order to get it - especially our sovereignty, security, and culture.

You think Kennedy, the man who said they would never offer an amnesty again in '86 or that the '65 immigration changes would not change the country, is trying to do something good suddenly? You should have gone with your gut on that one, too.

Again, you calling Lindsey Graham and McCain "conservatives" is an insult to conservatives. But we know your intent is really just to muddy the water.

It is amnesty. No amount of doubletalk can disprove it. There is already a fine for crossing the border illegally, so imposing a fee is no punishment. That seems to be the bit you advocates want to gloss over.

There is no requirement to learn English....unless you call some undefined test (and proctored by whom?) that they would have to take TEN YEARS in the future a requirement. Most don't.

Go back to their home land? That isn't going to happen. Even those in Mexico won't - do you think those from China will? Just more bait-and-switch provisions that would be silently removed later or gutted in other ways. Democrats would cart out some sob-story cases of illegals who would have to go back to their countries and it just wouldn't happen.

Being legalized, even provisionally, at the end of a 24-hour period is not going to the "back of the line." Nor does it help security as that is not enough time and even known gang members are eligible - something the Kennedy crowd fought for. Still think he is just doing the right thing for no reason????

Border security is not placed first. Contact Senator Session's office to set yourself right - if you want to get it right and not just blowing smoke. Again, SHORTENING the fence from 700+ to 370 miles hardly calls for the use of "fortifying."

Plenty of others have plans that WILL put enforcement first including one from former Border Patrol agents. If you were sincere in your tough talk you would be backing those plans.

McCain is pandering for votes as well as on the take from special interests. Same thing for all the proponents of this bill.

The costs alone of legalizing 20 million low-wage earners who will qualify for social services ranges in the TRILLIONS of dollars. You failed to mention that. I guess that was just an error of omission.....

How does this look?

The bill is "not perfect" huh??!!

This amnesty bill is TERRIBLE & will just make the problem worse!!

Instead we need to do attrition through enforcement:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/back406.html