-
Open letter to Anré Dárel Washington
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Laughing to Keep From Crying
May 17, 2013 | 1 comment
-
I’m Melting, Melting!
May 16, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Delaware’s Unclaimed Property Racket: John Gotti Would Be Proud
May 16, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Rep. Cleaver: GOP Concerns with IRS Due to Obama’s Skin Color
May 16, 2013 | 9 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In my article yesterday (which many conservative readers of these pages were none too fond of) I suggested, as Marco Rubio has, that credible border enforcement is a an absolute prerequisite to anything even vaguely representing amnesty or even leniency for illegals.
The word “credible” is of utmost importance.
Today, The Hill is reporting that “Under a bipartisan Senate framework, Democrats say, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano would have final say over whether the border is secure enough to put 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.”
On the one hand, I understand the initial lean toward the Secretary of Homeland Security having the authority to declare the border “secure enough.”
But thinking about who that person is today, and understanding that even if “Big Sis” Napolitano left during the Obama administration, her replacement would likely be no less feckless and unserious than she is, and leaving the decision to a political appointee will keep immigration a political football which immigration reform should try to avoid.
Republicans should come up with definable metrics for what would constitute a “secure enough” border, and then create a six-person standing committee, a majority vote (4 out of 6) of which would be required to make that declaration. The committee should include a representative of each border state (CA, AZ, NM, TX) along with two non-politician and non-bureaucrat citizens appointed by the House and/or Senate Homeland Security Committees. The committee should at all times include an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.
In the mean time, this seems like starting the discussion with a poison pill. I wouldn’t let Napolitano or this DoJ be in charge of security at my house, and I sure wish we had a choice along our border.
Pecos Pete| 2.2.13 @ 3:39PM
Ross: Agreed!
Indy| 2.2.13 @ 6:25PM
Janet is not to be trusted with anything, Ross this post might be of interest to you and readers here
DHS "rarely strips foreigners of citizenship even when they prove to be national security threats who hustle the system. In fact, DHS has no system in place to examine such cases or weed out future threats.
The alarming details of this inept operation are outlined in a scathing report (“Upholding the Value of Our Citizenship: National Security Threats Should Be Denaturalized”) published this week by an organization that researches legal and illegal immigration into the United States. DHS rarely denaturalizes individuals, even after they have committed serious national security offenses, the probe found."
http://directorblue.blogspot.c.....lized.html
I don't know what the answer is but certainly no more power to DHS, they are too busy conducting drills in major cities such as Miami with chopper firing blanks in populated areas, why isn't this a major news story? If this happened under W, there would be Congressional hearings and screams of imperialism from the Left.
7-08| 2.3.13 @ 1:52PM
Is this committee to have the same viability and clout as the Jobs unit? Does it have authority to supersede congress? Your suggestion is naive and unworkable.
Amnesty bad, Mr. Kaminsky, amnesty very bad.
darcy| 2.3.13 @ 3:02PM
Mr. Kaminsky, please consider the obvious: Obama sued Arizona in his zeal to perpetuate a porous border; he also effectuated the Dream Act, all on his own, in defiance of the people's will as demonstrated in Congress's failure to pass it on several occasions.
It matters not at all what the terms are of any CIR before this Congress: Obama has shown that he is very serious about expanding his base through both amnesty and an open border.