Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Immigration Bill or "How to Eat an Elephant"

Scenario...There is a rogue elephant in the room. First step is to identify the elephant. Second step is to formulate a plan on how to deal with said pachyderm. Next thing needed is a plan on how to properly dispose of the animal for the good of all. The only way to eat said elephant is one bite at a time. What does this have to do with Immigration and the bill that won't die? Instead of insisting on an all or nothing approach, euphemistically called a "Comprehensive Approach" let's start over with nothing, show the country that they (the Government) is willing to enforce the laws that are already on the books, build the fence that was overwhelmingly approved last year, increase border security, stem the flood and enforce employer laws, cut off federal money to
Sanctuary Cities" and then we can talk about dealing with the illegal immigrants already here and maybe a guest worker program. The bill that is under consideration is so gangrenous and rotten that is smells from its core.

If President Bush is successful in his attempt to revive this fiasco as part of his legacy, it will indeed go down as part of his legacy and it is not the kind of legacy most people would find attractive. He and several of his party, formerly my party, in collusion with many of the Democratic party are willing to spit in the face of 73% of the American people. As low as Bush's approval rating is, it is almost twice what Harry Reid's approval rating is at the time. That may not last. There are a few heroes in the GOP. Among them are Cornyn, Hutchison, Coburn, Demint, Sessions and others but there are also a perfidious few that are in a race to the bottom. This elephant is down but not out and remains indigestible in its present state.

Why is the Senate and Bush so enamored with this bill? Why does it need to be 'comprehensive" and try to address both the enforcement and the amnesty at the same time. Why not separately? Because this puts them on both sides of the issue which is what most politicians want. Plausible deniability depending on the audience and set of voters they happen to be addressing at the time. They can say that it was the best they could get and had to compromise to do it. Expect to hear various forms of the canard "We just could not sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect." In fact what they have done is settled for the bad rather than pursue the good or at least much better. I'll say it again, better no bill than this bill. This may be a watershed moment for some of the GOP Senators when it is time for the primaries. Voltaire said it best. "Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres" In this country, it is wise from time to time to kill an admiral to encourage the others. Some of these Senators may indeed face a career ending primary firing squad.