Immigration Reform - What's the Rush?

Students at Montebello High School, California

Notice the position of the American Flag

Congress and the President have ignored our county's immigration problems for 20 years, since the last time an amnesty period was granted and the problem "fixed." Now, there is a big rush to address the problem.

The problem with that, though, is that people strongly disagree on what exactly the problem is to be solved. One public truth is that the US has 12 million illegal aliens living here. Mostly from Mexico. I'm not sure how we know that, but I'll go with it. We agree that this is a problem, but what sort of problem?

Some folks see the problem as a bunch of lawbreakers living here with little chance of getting caught, making a mockery of our laws and fools out of the people waiting to immigrate legally. The bill offers conditional amnesty, which sticks in the craw of many people.

Other folks see the problem as a a bunch of undocumented immigrants who scrambled to come here for a better life, being made to suffer because of their illegal status. These people see the illegals as sympathetic characters, which many are. Giving them a path to citizenship would bring them into society and out of the shadows of the underclass. This argument generally ignores the fact that all of these people already have citizenship, just somewhere else.

There is also concern that many immigrants (read Hispanics and Muslims), will not assimilate into American culture, causing an erosion of America's English speaking, Protestant Christian based civilization.

So, after years of doing nothing, our fearless leaders tried to rush this immigration reform law through, with little public debate, calling it a bi-partisan Grand Bargain. But sadly, someone failed to notify the partisans, who are not bi-ing it at all. So the new reform bill is stalled, as many legislators change their minds for political cover, like my own Suntanned Saxby Chambliss, who was booed by his own party right here in his home state for supporting this bill.

Why the brooha? No leadership. No national leader has made a compelling case to the public about why this bill is a good idea, and why we need it now. The President, whose baby this is, has failed to lead, failed to articulate a reason why the Nation should forgive and welcome these illegal aliens.

Meantime, while the President and Congress spend their time on this, our Army continues to fight 2 wars. Remember those? How does this reform bill square with the Global War On Terror (GWOT)?

In the context of the wars, this immigration debate seems absurd. At the aiprort, our luggage is x-rayed, dog sniffed, chemically swiped, and possibly manually inspected while we struggle to get our shoes back on while repacking our laptops and apologizing for packing shampoo in our carry-ons. Meanwhile a million people a year enter the country illegally through our southern border.

We need to prioritize. We need to secure our borders. We shouldn't have to explain why or justify it. It is sensible on its face. Aside from successfully keeping Cat Stevens out, our border security is a joke. Even Tuberculosis Man made it through, and there was an alert out on him.

Once the borders are secure we need time for a national debate on our immigration policy. Immigration policy permanently affects the nation, unlike tax policy or foreign policy or other policies which can be changed if they are not working well. There is a lot at stake and it should not be rushed.

See Republicans Run

So much wackiness, so little time.

I'm beginning to wonder if it's an intentional republican strategy to bury the public in so much wrongdoing that we give up trying to keep track. Well, I'm giving up on trying to keep track of the hard facts (since they don't get reported anyway), and am going to rely on my nose for fishiness as well as frequent application of the duck test for things that are ducked up. (Duck test: If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.)

One might assume that the republicans running for President would be suffering from defeatism, having all of the baggage of Bush on their backs. But one would be wrong. They are full of optimism. Except McCain, who is noticeably grouchy. Because he is going to lose and everyone knows it, including him. We know this for sure because the press is being so deferential to his war hero status.

I still like Mitt. I used to like McCain, even voted for him in 2000. But he's getting nasty in his old age. The sarcasm, what's up with that? The cheap political one liners don't wear well on an elder statesman.

Rudy is getting lots of play, and credit for "winning" the 2d debate, which I missed. Rudy smells like a phony to my knowing nose. A pro-choice Catholic with three wives. A tough guy draft dodger. I don't mind Catholics (used to be one), and I don't mind pro-choosers, and I don't mind divorced folks. What I do mind is hypocrites, and Rudy quacks like a hypocrite. Bringing his girlfriend to the house to meet his kids while he's still married to their Mom? There is something wrong with that. So what then? We have a first lady who thinks it's OK to sleep with married men? For a tough guy, I don't see much self discipline there. His commitment to his church and his family are both too flexible. The draft dodger thing just adds to it. None of these items on their own would bother me so much, but the cumulative effect is to draw a picture of a man who likes to be tough on others but not on himself. We have plenty of those already.

Fred Thompson I'm not buying either. Phony baloney. I'd like some clarity on whether he really owns a red truck. He's not a real leader, but he plays one on tv. Folks are hoping that he'll be a second Reagan. Well, a lot of things worked out OK under Reagan, but I never liked him as President until we had Bush 1, who was a disaster by comparison. But now I like Bush 1 in comparison to Bush 2, who even republicans are now admitting is a disaster by comparison to anyone. Reagan had principles. Not always mine, but generally good ones. Fred just seems to be doing what he likes. But I'll give Phony Fred a good chance of winning. Americans have proved in the last two elections that they'll take style over substance. We have become a bluepill nation.

Mitt is the real deal. Yeah, he's a draft dodger and doesn't really hunt as much as he'd like us to think, but so what? He's still married to his wife, whom he left Stanford to be with at BYU. That's a sacrifice for love in my book. He is loyal to his church and its teachings. We haven't seen any of his kids in rehab. And he's a self-made millionaire. (I know "millionaire" is out-dated, but "self-made rich guy" just doesn't have the same ring to it.) Frankly, I like a guy as President who can go out into the world and be successful.

I also like a guy who will change his mind. The flip-flop tag on Mitt does not stick. Leading takes flexibility. When circumstances change or when new information is received, it means making a new decision. We have a leader now who is incapable of re-evaluating situations. This leads to paralysis in dynamic situations, and the world is a dynamic place. Part of faith is believing that there is always a right path to be found. But we have to be willing to look for it. Put another way, any football fan will tell you that great coaches make half time adjustments to game strategy.

So Mitt has changed his position on abortion, gay rights, and gun control. Well, so have I. Several times. One writer said that Mitt was too slick in the 2d debate, and is a man of positions, not principles. Nonsense. It is just the opposite. Mitt walks the walk while others just talk the talk. He honors his marriage, he follows his faith, he's cleaned up corruption at the Olympics, he's successful in business and in politics. Judge by deeds, not words, and Mitt looks pretty steadfast.

So there is the Mitt lovefest. On the other hand, no military experience worries me. But if we go by that standard our choices are McCain or Ron Paul.

So why republican optimism? Well, it's because they are running against democrats, of course! Don't underestimate the democrats' ability to screw this up.

Some days I really wish Bill Clinton was running again.

Gypsy Postscript

Well placed media sources have informed the worldview that Gypsy propagandists are now claiming that the Supreme Court Justice named in the June 2d post is spelling his name "Breyer" and not the preferred Gypsy spelling of "Bryer." This shrewd media manipulation move is intended to quiet public xenophobia of rising Gypsy influence by driving informed worldview readers away from their computers and to the freezer for ice cream, which will probably also lead to an evening of reality tv. No hard information is available on the apparent Gypsy - ice cream industry connection.