A Road Paved With “Good
Intentions”
By Chip McLean
********************
On the immigration front, the bad news is that the
scoundrels (including 14 Rinos) in the U.S. Senate succeeded in passing an
amnesty bill (S744). The good news is that in order for their “comprehensive
immigration reform” to become law, it will have to get though the House. Can
that happen? Yes, but it is unlikely to
any time soon, provided enough Americans exert pressure on their congress
critters in the House to reject any and all attempts at forcing amnesty on
their unwilling constituents.
Why do those who perpetually advocate the rewarding of alien
lawbreakers, persist in those efforts, despite such high levels of opposition
to amnesty? In short, they’re doing everything they can to wear down the
public. The last serious attempt at amnesty came at about this time six years
ago, and while that attempt died in the Senate (it was close), this
time they have moved the ball further down the field. Incrementalism is the
game, and unfortunately it’s working all too well for globalist/progressive
forces (think gay marriage, gun control, etc.). These forces will never give up
their efforts to transform the country into something very different from what
our founders envisioned.
The result in the Senate this time was not exactly
unexpected. With the dems voting in lockstep, it took only a few of the usual
GOP suspects (McCain, Graham and new Rino poster boy Marco Rubio to name a few)
to enable this horrible bill’s passage by a 68-32 vote. The margin would have
been considerably less however, had a few more Republicans not been swayed by
an amendment from fellow Republican senators John Hoeven of North Dakota and
Bob Corker of Tennessee – one that would purportedly bolster border security.
In reality it will do nothing of the sort. Logically, if this bill’s intent was
in fact enforcement, securing the border would be its highest priority. The fact that it creates a “pathway to
citizenship” before any enforcement
should be all the proof one needs that the bill is all about amnesty and has zero
to do with “enforcement” or “border security”.
Even if one were to make the very generous assumption that once legal status has been conferred
upon millions of illegal aliens, and that what follows will be “enforcement”,
this assumption flies in the face of all of the evidence…
In 1986, our government “fixed” the immigration system by
passing a bill that allowed illegals to pay a fine, learn English and obtain
green cards. Effectively it legalized nearly three million illegal aliens. The
supposed trade-off was that we would secure the border to stop further illegal immigration.
Sound familiar? Officially, the number of illegals now in the country has grown
to around 11 million, although it is a given that the real number is actually
significantly higher. Obviously after passage in 1986, the government did not
secure the border regardless of the supposed intentions.
Under public pressure to stop the invasion, Congress in 2006
passed the “Secure Fence Act” and the bill was grudgingly signed by amnesty
supporter George W. Bush. The bill called for a double-tier fence to be built
along 700 miles of our southern border. The idea was to help secure our border
and stop the massive invasion by illegals. So what happened? Just a scant year
later, the bill got watered down through language that was slipped into a
spending bill which then left it to DHS to “determine” both the type and amount
of fence to be used. So what has happened to the “fence”?
As of early this year (2013), the
department had built just 36 miles of two-tier fencing, 316 miles of
single-tier fence, and another 299 miles of vehicle barriers that still allow
pedestrians and wildlife to cross, but is meant to keep out smuggling vehicles.
(Source)
The fence legislation had, just as the 1986 amnesty bill,
the “intent” of securing the border. Again, the government failed to do so.
More recently, the state of Arizona wrote their own state
law in an attempt to enforce the immigration laws that were clearly not being
enforced by the federal government. They were subsequently sued
by Eric Holder’s justice department and finally last month even had their
state law struck
down by the US Supreme Court. In this case, the federal government not only
failed to secure the border but used all the power at their disposal to prevent
the law from even being carried out.
Given these examples of “intent” versus reality (there are
many more), do you still think this same federal government would actually
stand behind the “enforcement” provisions of an amnesty bill if ultimately
passed by the House? As they say, the road to hell is paved with good
intentions.
There are many lies being tossed about by amnesty proponents.
In particular there is a very deceptive television and radio ad
that purports to be from “conservatives” in favor of S744 (and is centered
around Marco Rubio) The ad is continuing to run, in the hopes of gaining
support among the gullible in order to help the bill clear the House. The ad
promotes the bill as a “common sense, conservative” solution that will “fix”
the system, and that the bill includes stiff “enforcement”. If not for the
gravity of the situation, this ad would be comical for its utter and blatant
lies. This bill is neither “conservative” nor is it based on “common sense”.
Most importantly, it will “fix” nothing. What it will do is repeat the mistake
made in 1986, except on a much larger scale.
The ad goes on to repeat the greatest lie of all by
proclaiming that “our immigration system is broken”. This mantra is used in
conjunction with the supposed solution - the amnesty bill (which is never
referred to as amnesty). The lie of course is not that the system is broken,
but that the remedy involves legalizing millions of lawbreakers. The plain
simple fact is that the reason the system is “broken”, is because the
government failed to enforce the existing laws that would have helped keep
immigration in check in the first place.
The economic and cultural costs of unchecked immigration
(legal and illegal) are staggering. The drain on social services alone would be
enough to cause most CPAs to search for a tall building from which to leap. The
state of California, for example, alone spends in excess of $10 billion
annually just for services for immigrants. When you add back in the strains on our
infrastructure (electricity, water, roads, etc.), not to mention the enormous
impact of having millions who neither speak English nor wish to learn it or
otherwise assimilate into our culture, this entire thing becomes a recipe for
future third world status.
Then there is the impact on employment – something the
pro-amnesty Washington crowd conveniently ignores. The
June jobs figures indicate that at this point, only 47% of adult Americans
are working full-time. By bringing the illegals “out of the shadows” via
amnesty, the prospects for our own citizens to be able to gain full-time
employment become even gloomier as the job market dries up from an over saturation
of workers in relation to available jobs. Blacks – in particular black youths –
will be hit the hardest. Where is the concern from Obama, Holder, McCain,
Graham and Rubio over their plight?
Finally, why do amnesty supporting Republicans keep pushing
this over the objections of the base? Ostensibly it is because the GOP needs to
do a “better job of reaching out to Hispanics”. We’ve heard that phrase uttered
by a number of inside the beltway politicos and consultants, but does it hold
water? The highest percentage of the Hispanic vote ever received by a
Republican presidential candidate was 44% for George W. Bush in 2004. Even with
Bush having the power of the incumbency, and despite having pushed very hard
for amnesty, he still substantially lost the Hispanic vote – and this was the
best showing ever for a Republican. So will continued pushing of amnesty help
the GOP with Hispanics? Marco Rubio has been all over the news for his role in
pushing S744. In addition, he is
Latino (Cuban-American). So how is he viewed among Hispanics at large? A
recent poll (PDF) conducted by Latino Decisions, shows Rubio’s
favorability/unfavorability rating among Hispanics is barely favorable at
31/29%. That’s not exactly a glowing endorsement. Even more telling is that
when polled regarding their 2016 presidential preference, a direct matchup
against Hillary Clinton shows Rubio losing 66-28%. He didn’t fare much better
against Joe Biden, losing 60-28%. Even Donald Duck should have polled evenly
with Biden. An absolute trouncing - this despite Rubio’s very public “reaching
out” to Hispanics.
While the real reasons why the establishment is doing this
are far more sinister, it is the subject for another column. For now, the fact
remains that supporting amnesty will not improve the GOP’s standing with
Latinos. It will not attract more of their votes. It will however, drive away
even more of what is left of the GOP base. In addition, it will create millions
of new Latino voters who will vote by a 60-70% majority for Democrats –
regardless of what the GOP does. It is political hari-kari. An amnesty bill
passed by the House will render the Republican Party irrelevant and destine it
to go the way of the Whigs.
Chip McLean
***************************
Chip McLean is the
editor/publisher for Capitol Hill Outsider and Capitol
Hill Coffee House. Chip is a
former broadcaster. His interest in politics began at the age of eight, when
his parents took him to a Barry Goldwater rally during the 1964 presidential
election. In addition to his work at CHCH News Publishing, Chip's columns have
appeared in a number of online publications.
VISIT J. D. Longstreet's
"INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!: (Just click
on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other
popular conservative writers!)
No comments:
Post a Comment