According to Miguel Perez at the Chicago Sun-Times:"Many politicians, mostly Republicans, gambled that a get-tough stance on illegal immigration would win votes."
In case you didn't realize, Miguel just wants to make sure you remember history the way he wants it to be remembered. He holds the recent election results as a threat or warning to future politicians; you make the news and we write it. The "anti-immigrant" Republicans were bitch slapped for trying to scapegoat "illegals," only wanting the cruel "enforcement" pieces of the puzzle in immigration reform. But as with the supposed "mandate" the Democrats feel they earned from the election; how does one know anything when you are not honest in the debate to begin with. Is it, what we said "it" is, or is it what "it" is?
"Partly as a result of their cruelty against immigrants, they were sent packing, not just by Latino voters who voted overwhelmingly Democratic, but by many other Americans who are tired of seeing the way immigrants have been scapegoated by Republicans seeking re-election."
In the following quote I'll just make the necessary adjustment in red, a very simple adjustment, but one that supporters of "illegal" immigration fail to recognize; likely consciously, as it is somewhat difficult to argue logically when arguing in favor of something illegal.
"Before Nov. 7, the debate was between Bush's moderate guest-worker immigration proposals, and his fellow conservative Republicans who wanted tougher, enforcement-only measures," FIRST.See how simple it is for me to say like it is/was with only one word? But Perez, and those of his stripe don't really want to make that small word part of the debate as this would make it more difficult to paint that Republicans and those in support of enforcement FIRST, as practitioners of "cruelty against immigrants."
You see, we've been through this before and everyone knows it, at least anyone that pays attention to what is going on in their world. The "enforcement first" crowd wanted to hold feet to the fire this time. No more talk about enforcement only to have it fall by the wayside as it would with a "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Obviously, and ultimately, something of a comprehensive nature must happen, just not in the same package. What I think particularly bothers columnists like Perez, is that enforcement pieces of any reform might actually have the desired effect. What he and others would prefer (think most politicians that want it both ways), does not really include any serious border enforcement language. Which, would result in our need to revisit this issue in a few years when an estimated 12 million more illegals have entered the country.
If there was nothing up the Perez's sleeves, he and others wouldn't be that concerned about buttressing enforcement. But he and they know that going with "enforcement" first would hold their feet to the fire and actually make good on step one before moving on to the rest of a "comprehensive" reform. Just because reform begins with enforcement and accountability does not mean the end product will not be comprehensive in nature. Like I said before, we've been through this before and there is still a problem. Had enforcement been more at the top of the list decades ago we wouldn't have a perfect border scenario, but it would have had an effect on the numbers entering illegally. Talk is cheap and often just talk.
It's all quite the joke when you stop and think about it. The 12 million estimated, is just that...an estimate. How does one repatriate or grant citizenship to an "estimate" anyway?
CAII: Check out what Stik has to say with, "Hazelton gets a cheesesteak and a hand...you can help too."
**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.**
