The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Reader Mail

(Page 8 of 15)

The Republicans and a few Democrats in the House, all members of the House Immigration Caucus, are all that stand between passing a bill similar to the Senate's Hegel-Martinez amnesty, and securing our borders first. My suggestion is that before you vote, you check out that the members of the House are part of that stalwart group, and hope -- and pray -- that they are re-elected. For as night follows day, the Democratic Party will, if they are in the majority in the House, pass Hegel-Martinez in Conference, and the President will sign it with alacrity.

In the end, Quinn Hillier's attempt to energize the conservative base to vote for Republicans falls short because many (most?) Republican conservatives have given up hoping for effective federal action on this issue. Had candidate Jim Webb broken with his Democratic paymasters on how to deal with illegal immigration, he would, in my judgment, win in a landslide victory in Virginia. The fact that Hillier supports the Pence/Hutchinson/Credible lunacy (see my 8/15 comments in these pages) assures me that he, too, believes that the president can decide which laws he chooses to enforce. Why does he think that this administration has had an epiphany about the danger to our national security posed by open borders? Certainly, no evidence exists that it is so; if anything the opposite is true. I have heard and read that the Texas Republican House members wished to see the president about the issue of illegal immigration. The president refused to meet with them.

If there is hope on this issue, it is to keep the House Republican, and to re-elect those on the House Immigration Caucus; that will keep Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner chairman of the Judiciary Committee. While most, if not all, Democratic Senators are part of the open-borders cabal, too many Republicans, including presidential candidate in 2008, Senator McCain, are, too. That is why the issue of immigration will be, bar none, the most contentious issue of the 2008 presidential primaries and elections. You have my word on that.

As Quin Hillyer announced, the President has signed a law authorizing some fencing along (a meager part of) our border with Mexico. So much for the good news.

Mr. Hillyer goes on to note, "that even though the fence is authorized, it still must be funded through annual Appropriations" (is an 'annual Appropriation' somehow distinct from an 'appropriation', annual or otherwise?) On the general point, let me refer the reader to the work of Dimitri Vassilaros, of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Mr. Hillyer is quick to suppose that "liberals," if given a Congressional majority, will be unlikely to fund the alleged barrier to illegal immigration. He concludes that, "Obviously, part of those promises still remains to be kept -- and the more liberal party will never keep it." Boiling it down, his position is "obviously" that the "less liberal" party will perhaps, maybe, some day, in some dimension of reality, keep the promise and fund the whole fraud, having missed this first, best chance.

I'm no expert on Congressional funding procedures, but am I to believe that all of the porkulent boondoggles of the last six years have been unfunded at inception and relied on "annual Appropriations" to swell the budget as they have? Well, I don't. I must suspect that Mr. Hillyer has been disingenuous.

As an aside, is there some new protocol substituting the expression "more liberal party" for "Democrats"? I didn't get the memo, but then, neither did I get the memo substituting "liberal" for "socialist" and "communist." I didn't get the memo about "annual Appropriations!" What the heck is going on?!

Returning to my point, Mr. Vassilaros, after substantial if not exhaustive efforts to pin down the missing and mysterious funding, found that, "No money is appropriated for the fence. DHS does not know the total cost. There is no start date for construction. No one can say when -- or if -- it will be completed." It should be noted that Mr. Vassilaros queried of those most likely to be able to answer his five fundamental questions about the fence. Even more disheartening than the conclusions quoted is the abysmal ignorance, across the board, of any plan to implement the legislation.

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Education, Trade, Health Care, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Islam, Abortion, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Iran, NATO, Immigration, Oil