Posted on 04/19/2013 3:46:19 AM PDT by markomalley
The Gang of Eight’s “comprehensive” immigration-reform bill contains a number of superficially attractive security mandates: It would require the federal government to have 100 percent “situational awareness” of the border, to catch 90 percent of illegal border-crossers in high-traffic areas, to establish a tracking system to address the problem of those who enter the country illegally but overstay their visas, etc. So attractive are those goals that we have supported them in the past, on the many occasions upon which the government has promised to achieve them. Disappointingly, Washington keeps failing to deliver on its promises. The unspoken premise of the Gang of Eight bill is: This time it’s different. We are skeptical that this is so. And regardless, there is a great deal in this package that is deeply objectionable.
Unfortunately, this is the same amnesty-first/enforcement-later model that has burned us before. Senator Marco Rubio’s admirers like to compare him to Ronald Reagan, and in this case he resembles the 40th president in putting too much faith in the willingness of Washington to deliver border security in the face of opposition from ethnic-solidarity politics and the cheap-labor lobby.
Congress mandated the creation of a visa-tracking system, for instance, in 1996. Since then, Congress has on multiple occasions reiterated its demand that the executive branch comply with the law, and the executive branch has on each occasion failed to do so: Bill Clinton’s administration failed to do so, George W. Bush’s administration failed to do so, and Barack Obama’s administration thus far has failed to do so. The system the bill would mandate is even weaker than the system already mandated: It would apply at airports and seaports, but not for land crossings. If we are being asked to believe that this requirement will inspire President Obama to suddenly get religion on the subject of illegal immigration, we say that the evidence is against such a proposition, and that hoping that whoever follows him will do so is simply an act of faith — and though prayer availeth much, it is insufficient grounds for national-security policy.
Consider the standards already at work: Under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative, some illegals are given a discretionary grant of relief from deportation after what is supposed to be a rigorous screening process to weed out criminals and national-security threats. But “criminals” has a rather loose definition — you can have a couple of convictions and remain golden in the eyes of Obama’s DHS, so long as you pled any felony charges down to misdemeanors — the result of which is a 99.5 percent approval rate. Presumably, we can expect such “rigorous” standards to prevail throughout this process.
There are other, better provisions. We very strongly support mandating the use of E-Verify or a similar system nationwide in order to ensure that businesses hire only those workers who are legally eligible to be employed in the United States. While there are some procedural challenges associated with creating an effective national E-Verify system, doing so would be the easiest — and probably most effective — way of policing those who enter the United States illegally for economic purposes. (Casual day labor would remain a draw.) Mandating E-Verify is so obvious and sensible a move that it should have been done years ago in a standalone piece of legislation, but that bill was rejected — and those who opposed it, including business interests and farm-state Republicans, will have similar incentives to water down enforcement provisions in any compromise bill that passes Congress. There is nothing in this bill’s compliance-and-sanctions provisions that suggests enforcement would prevail over those who would prefer a looser system.
The full implementation of the three main security measures — national E-Verify, the visa-tracking system, and the 100/90 border-control standard — would have to be ratified before the second stage of the program, a “path to citizenship” for former illegals, would be implemented. If those goals were not met within five years, then a panel of border-state governors and attorneys general would inherit the responsibility and authority for seeing to it that they were met thereafter. Our admiration for the border-state leadership is mixed — Governor Rick Perry and Attorney General Greg Abbott are our cup of tea, Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris less so — but at any rate, it is far from clear that the leadership of four states should be entrusted with overseeing a policy that affects the entire country; Virginia and Nevada do not border Mexico, but they have a stake in the illegal-immigration battle, too. Essentially, this bill would give us immediate amnesty in exchange for a DHS plan backed by a border-state panel’s plan to have a plan.
Unhappily, the foregoing observations are among the best things that can be said about this bill. It not only would offer amnesty to the 11 million or so illegals currently in the country but also would readmit many of those who have been deported. The argument for normalizing the status of illegals already resident in the United States has in the main proceeded from the fact that they are already resident in the United States — offering legal status for those who are not living in the United States is indefensible.
Further, the bill would open up the floodgates for unskilled laborers. Many of those unskilled laborers would be brought in under guest-worker programs, which are in and of themselves objectionable. They amount to nothing more than the creation of a caste of second-class workers for the benefit of certain business interests. Congress should be establishing standards oriented toward attracting highly skilled, highly educated workers; this bill would move in the opposite direction, though it would liberalize visa rules for some skilled workers.
I will never understand how rewarding people for breaking the law is a good thing. Their first step on American soil is breaking the law. If they are willing to do that, what other laws are they willing to break?
Everyone needs to call their clowns in DC and tell them this immigration bill is DOA.
Eleven plus years after 9/11 and our border is still not secure.
DC needs to know we’ve had it with them.
Amnesty is not good, and Rush is absolutely right. Rubio is deafer than Rush. Ears to hear and not hearing a word he said in the interview.
Which only reinforces what we should all know. There is no perfection in a world of humans with human nature. Ronnie wasn’t perfect either.
...and any legislation with the title comprehensive, is suspect right out of the gate. There is no such thing. Law is no substitute for common sense, and a moral people, two things in very short supply.
"The [immigration] bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It
will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the
standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose
their jobs."
- Ted Kennedy, 1965
"This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal
aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again
bring forward another amnesty bill like this."
- Ted Kennedy, 1986
"Now it is time for action. 2007 is the year we must fix our broken
system."
- Ted Kennedy, 2007
No promises, they promised we would have a fence by now. Promises from these people are lies. How many times will the STUPID American Public continue to believe this crap?
Ted, I hope your cojones are roasting in that special room they have assigned to you.
If, and that is a big IF, the two terrorist in the Boston bombing broke into this country and came here illegally via the Mexico border, that will be the end to any push for immigration amnesty!
Yeah right how did these Chechean Islamic terrorist get into the country. I hope this kills the bill
I know many businesses want this and in return Dems want the illegals voting so both are making a deal with the devil.
Except we lose in both cases, and when they do eventually vote they will vote against those same businesses who wanted that labor competition.
Try this : 1) pay more for those jobs, 2) cut off welfare and SS disability, and 3) hire US legal workers.
Rubio says at least 10 years wait and the wait will be soooo long for US citizenship that the illegals who apply here will wish they left the country and got on the line in whatever country they were born in. His plan will make them sorry they came here.
And they will get zero benefits for those long 10 to 15 years.
And Shumer and Durbin and Obama agree with all this..
Lets see the bill because this sounds like made up crap.
2 immigrants carried out the Boston bombings, give them Rubiophones I guess.
ack
Why not come up with a 1500 page bill to get rid of all of them? Crazy I know.
I noticed that Rubio is learning the fine art of not directly answering questions and then referencing his prepared talking points.
He will go far in the Democrat party.
This is why we need ‘immigration reform’ to fix ‘our broken system’
Under Rubio’s plan the Rubio background checks would have stopped them after they applied for amnesty and they paid that big fine.
What could go wrong w that ?
Why are we talking about legalizing people who have shown no respect for our country and its laws? Doesn’t the Boston attack illustrate we have more than enough of these anti-Americans living here already?
lol.
They will get the handouts/benefits and the enforcement side will never happen. How many times will people fall for this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.