It appears that CNN.com has a guest "commentator," and oddly enough, wouldn't you know he's a liberal - Ruben Navarette, member of the editorial board for the San Diego-Union Tribune.
I took issue with a Navarette piece when I cross posted "The Ism-Schism" from CommonSenseAmerica on June 21. Navarette was very concerned how a "reporter" Lou Dobbs in this instance, could actually report all the facts; when Navarette works it the "biased" way and only includes what he deems appropriate.
Well, Ruben is doing what he does best and that is commenting. He sees the immigration hearings the GOP is having as "cynical and cowardly." Which, to a certain degree I might agree; but agreeing would require how it all ends out and we don't know that yet. I don't know for sure that they will duck and cover, I have my suspicions, but that's it.
Navarette at CNN says:
Why hold public hearings on bills that have already passed? Unless the goal is to rile the GOP base before the November election and create political cover to allow House Republicans to do what they want to do anyway: oppose President Bush and Senate Republicans in their bid for comprehensive reform, which includes guest workers and legalization for some of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States."Why hold public hearings on bills that have already passed?" It might be that a "comprehensive" reform is an overburdened and overworded piece that will do nothing to tighten border security or actually fix the problem.
Navarette seems to be missing a piece of the puzzle when he says:
When most people think about border security, and their blood boils, it's not because they think al Qaeda may sneak in through the southern border. It's because they think the country is being invaded, and that the invaders are changing the language and the culture, and that we shouldn't give amnesty to lawbreakers. That's what people expected this committee to talk about. Not terrorism.We think the "country is being invaded," "invaders are changing the language and culture," and we shouldn't give amnesty to lawbreakers."
The "country is being invaded." Certainly not by a country's military, but there is no respect for our laws and borders. Is our language and culture being changed? I'm not sure, the jury is still out on this however, we do bend over backward to smooth things for people that supposedly wish to be part of this country. How many languages do voter info packets need to be in? How many different languages does the federal or a state government need to communicate in so as not to offend? Amnesty for lawbreakers? NO!
Ignore the border and we have more of the problems that we have now. Ignore the border and the invasion will continue. Ignore the border and those al qaeda-type "invaders" will have an easier time changing our language and culture. Oddly border security would effect those guys too.
Elsewhere, CNN quotes New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg testifying at "the roadshow" as saying:
believing that increasing border patrols alone will achieve that goal is either naive and shortsighted or cynical and duplicitous. No wall or army can stop hundreds of thousands of people each year.I don't believe that do you? Is this all we're asking for? The idea behind the non-"comprehensive" border security bill is to make sure the border is taken care of before we waste any time on what else to do. Give us "comprehensive" and we'll show you "comprehensive," multi-tiered/layered, indecipherably bureaucratic garbage - that will ultimately leave immigration un-reformed in any useful sense.
Our politicians cannot honestly tackle this issue with one fell swoop. Get the important pieces out of the way first - then move on.
**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**
