Thursday, May 17, 2007

Border Deal: How Bad Is It?

I've been following the news about the Senate's border deal today with alternating anxiety and anger. While Captain Ed doesn't think the bill is all that bad, Hugh Hewitt (subject link) says that the deal would cut the border fence promised in last year's bill in half. That is completely unacceptable.

Although the bill is not yet published -- RedState is concerned that will not happen until after the vote -- the fear seems to be that any employer enforcement or border security provisions have been severely diluted. I am reserving final judgment until we definitively hear what's in the bill, but this evening I'm feeling sold out by both the President and the Republican members of Congress who support this bill.

National Review says "No to Bush-Kennedy." (What is it that causes the President to continue to make bad legislative deals with Ted Kennedy -- a man who obviously loathes the President?)

From National Review: "Bush-Kennedy includes some enforcement 'triggers' that increase resources at the border and establish an employment-verification program before amnesty or the new temporary-worker program can take effect. But there is no requirement that these measures be proved effective before the full implementation of Kennedy’s wish list, and the reform does not include critical provisions to prevent identity theft and the use of fraudulent documents. Granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens without first securing the border and ensuring a reliable system of workplace enforcement invites millions of others to follow their example in the hope of being granted amnesty during the inevitable next round of immigration reform."

More from NRO: "As bad as the status quo on immigration policy is, it is preferable to this bill. Recent improvements in border security have apparently reduced the number of illegal crossings, and well-publicized raids on workplaces can be expected to have a chilling effect on employers who are in violation of immigration laws. But we suspect that this increased enforcement was largely designed to win passage for amnesty and a guest-worker program, and will end once this goal is achieved."

I'll never understand how a President who is otherwise so strong on national security is so oblivious to the threats posed by open borders and illegal immigrants. Did we learn nothing from the recent plot against Fort Dix by a terrorist group including illegal immigrants?

Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney have spoken strongly against the bill. Rudy Giuliani issued a more ambivalent statement.

John McCain strongly supports the bill and is pleased to take some of the credit. As usual, he disdains those who don't agree with him -- if he likes a bill, it's "bipartisan," and the rest of us should just live with it, in McCain's eyes. I believe I can safely say any chance of McCain winning the Republican nomination, if there was a chance, is now finished. The lone bright spot where the Senate Cave-In is concerned? Scott Johnson of Power Line, who had had an open mind on McCain's candidacy, says today "I'm opting for Anybody But McCain."

Michelle Malkin has links and more links.

3 Comments:

Blogger Ugly Naked Guy said...

Didn't even read your entire post. Whatever "good" the bill contains doesn't matter, because we don't ever enforce anything. We are week girly men!

10:59 PM  
Blogger Ugly Naked Guy said...

And we can't spell either! (I meant "weak").

11:00 PM  
Blogger Bag Of Bones said...

Laura says: "I'll never understand how a President who is otherwise so strong on national security is so oblivious to the threats posed by open borders and illegal immigrants."
Strong on national security? By placing an incompetent like Condi Rice as National Security Adviser and then as Secretary Of State?
Strong on national security? By dismantling our industrial infrastucture and shipping it to Communist China?
Strong on national security? By using our National Guard as canon fodder in a useless war in Iraq?
Strong on national security? By trying to hand key U.S. ports to Dubai, which supports radical Islam?
Strong on national security? By refusing a national emergency program to replace Mideast fossil fuel?
Strong on national security? By not adequately inspecting cargo containers, though the technology is available?
Strong on national security? By bankrupting the nation as the biggest welfare spender in history?
Strong on national security? By not investing in anti-missile shields for airlines (though his Air Force One is so equipped)?
Strong on national security? By putting border agents in prison for running down drug runners?
Strong on national security? For allowing Osama bin Laden to regroup for another terrorist attack while spending $500 billion to kill former U.S. ally Saddam Hussein?
Yeah.

11:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older