"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

CNN.com - Protests against immigration bills widen - Mar 28, 2006

CNN.com - Protests against immigration bills widen - Mar 28, 2006: "Students and other immigration supporters rallied Tuesday against proposed restrictions they view as fundamentally un-American as debate swirled in Washington regarding immigration reform."

However, the "restrictions they view as fundamentally un-American" are not in this article, but here, more on that further down.


"Controversial provisions in the committee's election-year bill would create a guest-worker program and give illegal immigrants the chance to work toward legal status without first returning home." "Controversial," all disagreements can be considered "controversial."

'"It's thanks to us that this country is what it is to this day, and what [it] will be for the future," said Ardaya Barron, a native Bolivian who joined the protest in Washington, where demonstrators chanted, "We are Americans ... We are American."' Might this individual be identified by CNN? I agree, that it is thanks to immigrants "that this country is what it is to this day," but am I agreeing with him as an American citizen and agreeing with what immigrants have done for this country? Or am I agreeing with him "thanks to us" the illegal immigrants and what they have made "this country (is) what it is to this day?" Which is an entirely fair take on the state of illegal immigration.

According to CNN President Bush must do a "delicate political dance," due to "when the Republican-controlled House passed an immigration bill without a guest-worker program or a process for legalization for undocumented immigrants." Which is wise in the sense that we have to grasp what exactly it is we are talking about. Is the article talking about "immigration" or "illegal immigration," there is a difference and that difference should be made clear.

As the article states, one piece of the bill is the 700 miles of security fence along parts of our southern border; this one has to assume goes along with the "illegal immigration" portion of the argument. To which, my response is 'well yeah? do we want to make "illegal immigration" legal? that doesn't make much sense'

The next piece of the legislation mentioned is making "illegal immigration" a felony. Seems to me the court system is overtaxed as it is. Can we realistically expect millions of cases to be heard or are they talking about future "illegal immigrants."

James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin said, '"They'll flood our schools. Our health-care system will collapse, and our social service system will end up being overtaxed. We've got to get control of our borders, because if we don't, we're going to see our economy collapse."'

Based on his comments I have to assume he is talking about "illegal immigration," which doesn't really apply to "legal immigration," does it?

McCain and Kennedy added a twist, "in order to gain permanent residency, illegal immigrants would have to wait six years, pay $2,000 in fines and any back taxes, undergo a background check and learn English." Now we're getting somewhere. I don't know that I agree entirely, but this is about "illegal immigration" for sure.

The remaining bit of the article continues on in the "amnesty" for "illegal immigrants," which certainly is valid in that the "amnesty" granted to those in '86 obviously only resolved who knows what way back when. I guess after we do whatever it is we are going to do this time, will just have to be revisited in 20 years or so.

Back to the article Immigration protests continue in California, you know, the subject of the above article that wasn't actually the above article; "restrictions they view as fundamentally un-American." It all seems to boil down to those that don't want anything done about "illegal immigration," except perhaps handing those that initially broke the law upon entry to the U.S., a free pass.

As the article closes, the logic and wisdom of these "protests" can be summed up by statements from Janet Padron, a 22-year-old Allen Park, MI resident; "we are illegal immigrants if you trace our heritage all the way back, but we are here and we are working and we are living the American dream. Do you see the community?" 'Padron asked, pointing to the thousands of people around her.' "Do you see how many people didn't go to work today?"'


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks