"Amnesty Fraud, Part 2"

More from Thomas Sowell on the pending immigration bill.

Sowell's thoughts on the lack of assimilation among recent immigrants are worth noting, I think. Here in Southern California, wording on some grocery store coupons is printed in English and Spanish -- despite the big pictures of the products and the clear numeric value of the coupon. Is it so difficult to learn the word "SAVE" instead of "AHORRE"? What does that say about assimilation, or the lack thereof? That is simply one small example of Balkanization rather than assimilation.

Fred Barnes insisted on today's SPECIAL REPORT WITH BRIT HUME that our country's most recent immigrants will assimilate just as other immigrant cultures have through the decades, but Sowell's column -- and personal experience -- causes one to question Barnes's confidence. We see similar issues along the northern border, such as the push for recognition of "sharia law" in Minnesota, to the extent that taxicab drivers are refusing passengers and grocery clerks are refusing to handle pork products.

That issue addressed, it must be said that the insistence of some Washington elites that opposition to the bill is motivated by "people who just don't like immigrants" (per Fred Barnes) -- Monday's Special Report Roundtable, seen on video at the link, being a prime example -- is incredibly frustrating. These pundits insist that we must either deport illegal immigrants or pass the bill, which is a false choice, and they ignore the very real issues at stake, such as proving to the American people that the borders are truly closed, so that the numbers of illegal aliens don't escalate further. And for those in Washington who insist there is "no amnesty," at the very least why not acknowledge the amnesty on back taxes that the White House wrote into the bill, despite past pledges to the contrary?

Barnes and Co. are surprised by the response to the bill, which to my mind shows they are simply too insulated in "inside the Beltway" thinking. There is an unfortunate snobbery that shows through, too, as these pundits shake their heads over "nativists" -- a term Mort Kondracke has thrown around in the past on SPECIAL REPORT.

The problems which Barnes & Co. refuse to face include overwhelming numbers of illegal immigrants straining our infrastructure; open borders causing a threat to national security; and special privileges for illegal immigrants, such as tax amnesty, which are not available to American citizens or those waiting in line for legal immigration. Rewarding lawbreakers, which in turn encourages others to break the law and enter illegally, is a real issue which also needs to be addressed, rather than shrugging "What are you going to do?" and insisting this bill, which is heavy on perks for illegal immigrants and light on security, is the answer to all our problems.

I heard a fascinating interview on Hugh Hewitt's show today with a reporter who has traced the paths of Middle Eastern terrorists coming across both our Southern and Northern borders. He said it's about 50-50 as far as which border they cross; they will sometimes go to Central or South America, fly into Canada, and cross from the north. Politicians ignore this threat at their own peril. (For more on this topic, see Michelle Malkin.)

Especially given that many politicians are clearly not really fans of securing the borders, Americans have no reason to believe those in Washington who say "We really mean it now" and that the bill will provide a magical fix for all these problems. There's also no excuse for such an important bill to be so many hundreds of pages long that it's nearly incomprehensible. Why can't they write a bill spelling out the new laws in, say, 10 clear pages that average Americans can easily understand and debate? I know that's a fantasy, because I don't think they want it to be easy for average citizens to understand -- rather like the Tax Code?