Criminals threaten to strike: why is this considered bad?

With the mass protests against the proposed immigration reform, we see once again President Bush’s trademark political tactic: find the difference between what your opponents SAY they want and what they REALLY want, then offer them exactly what they ask for. Then the fun begins: the delight of watching them promptly toss aside everything they had been demanding and revealing their true agenda.

For years, we’ve been hearing from the “immigration advocates” over and over again that they don’t want an amnesty program, that there has to be a crackdown on those who hire and exploit illegal aliens, and that the existing laws are unenforceable and unworkable. So Bush put forth a plan that said no to amnesty, eased enforcement, and put penalties on those who hire illegal aliens. And as a sop to the right, a plan to build a wall along a small portion of our southern border.

And will you just look at how the “immigration advoates” react? Huge protests. Massive rallies denouncing the idea of strengthening and enforcing existing laws. And lo and behold, a demand for amnesty for illegal aliens.

Several “immigration advocates” all cited the same generic sob story: the poor illegal alien who has lived and worked in the United States since 1986, simply trying to support themselves and their families, never getting into trouble, and now they find themselves targeted by a draconian law.

But why 1986? Why did several of the “immigration advocates” all come up with that magic year?

Because in 1985 the United States did grant amnesty to illegal aliens. And despite the insistence of some that there would never be another amnesty, and the pledge of “immigration advocates” that they would never ask for another amnesty, here it is again — just as I and so many others feared.

The fundamental question behind all this is stunning in its simplicity: does the United States have the right to maintain and secure its own borders, to regulate and control who comes into the United States, when, how, and why?

I think the answer is yes, we do have that right. And the “immigration advocates” agree with me — in theory. They just want to carve out exceptions, special cases, exclusions, and enough other loopholes to render the whole concept meaningless. They are willing to live with the appearance of actual border security, as long as it doesn’t actually involve anything beyond symbolic gestures and vague platitudes.

The “immigration advocates” are planning a one-day “work stoppage,” a day when no illegal aliens will show up for work. I hope they extend it indefinitely, because I suspect their claims of just how dependent we are in illegal alien labor are vastly overstated. And I’d really, really like to find out.

Quote Of The Day - Pot Call Kettle Black Edition
The Case Against Abdul Rahman to Be Dropped


  1. cubanbob March 29, 2006