GOP, Dems, Illegals and Iraq
Posted in Money Matters, Bush, Terrorism, Iraq, war, wordpress, Politics, campaign, election, McCain, GOP, Democrats, Rumsfeld, Immigration, Tancredo, Kennedy, Kyl, Clinton, Waxman, lobbyist, ethics, Afghanistan, Specter, U.N., United States, Law, Justice, Safety, Public, Sensenbrenner, obama, kerry, romney, Freedom, Cheney, Pelosi, Murtha, Hoyer, Feingold, Edwards, Foreign Affairs, Dingell, Grassley, Congress, Silvestre Reyes, Tony Blair, Border Control, Minimum Wage, Business, Gingrich, Hagel, Legislation, Military, David Obey, Colin Powell, Mitch McConnell, giuliani, durbin, Halliburton, Sen Dianne Feinstein on May 17th, 2007 by Stanford Matthews 
The extreme peaceniks and others expressing less venomous opposition to the Iraq war often begin their arguments with reference to inherent characteristics of war as their central theme. Aside from the obvious death and destruction that accompanies armed conflict, they stress the loss of troops and civilians as their largest concern. But they will never accept the fact that this same expression of opposition has prolonged the war in Iraq by strengthening the determination of the enemy. In other words, opposition prolonging the war shares responsibility for the death toll that the anti-war crowd views with such disdain. How’s that for irony?
Each day that politicians seek political cover on the war in Iraq from these same anti-war critics also causes more loss of life. A prudent and practical human being regardless of ideology would sacrifice their own selfish interest in favor of the valiant contributions by those actually at risk of death. To express the realities of politics is simply more rhetoric and of little consolation to those who shoulder the real burden. If you are not now nor have ever been in Iraq, shut the hell up and get this thing done so those who are can satisfy the demands of both sides of the issue by achieving victory in Iraq and coming home that much sooner.
To a much less dramatic issue but with equal potential for serious injury to the United States is illegal immigration. The reason for addressing it at the same time as the Iraq war is the focus afforded these two issues will distract from attending to other matters until resolved. The sympathy argument for illegals is another ploy that compels politicians to seek political cover rather than face the reality that this is simply an economic or financial issue.
The open borders crowd claims that illegals are merely seeking a better life is really describing a better income. The business community’s scare tactics about economic disaster without illegals is really describing lower costs and higher profits by exploiting artificial wage competition. Trying to solve the world’s problems by eliminating border and immigration control only exacerbates the symtoms.
Not securing the borders or controlling immigration is a national security risk we cannot afford. Allowing amnesty for lawbreakers only encourages its continuation. Not enforcing existing laws is a violation of the oath of office of all or most elected and appointed officials in the executive branch. Both sides of the issue, again, can be satisfied by effective control and management of the flow of people in and out of this country. Conceding to the demands of selfish special interest is not an option. Common sense demands this issue be solved now. The guiding force should be the rule of law not the whim of personal preference.
As a personal note, if you truly believe open borders are a good thing, I suggest this. Leave all your locks unlocked 24/7 from now on. Then let us know how long it takes before you experience something really bad. It is nice to think the best of people but that does not suggest ignoring the worst. They invented security because both exist.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Congressional Democrats Negotiate With Bush Aides on Iraq
Congressional Democrats and President Bush’s aides meet again Thursday to negotiate on funding for the Iraq war.
Senators Work With White House to Craft Immigration Deal
Bipartisan group of senators and White House officials work to craft an immigration agreement.
It may sound outragious to the casual observer or typical apathetic or bleeding heart version of American, but the laws against treason should have a section that addresses politicians who sell this country by accepting money from every special interest and who do their bidding regardless of the negative impact on this nation.
Why do some people believe that every person who enters this country illegally has this country’s best interests in mind? How stupid is that? It is equally stupid to think that this is not what open borders proponents think. Why? For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the assumed plight of illegal immigrants, those who favor amnesty and other perks for illegals continue to claim they are only looking for a better life. And how did they come to that conclusion?
The proponents of open and uncontrolled borders continue to describe this country as a nation of immigrants as a central argument for their position. Does that mean those who immigrated here before, legally, and those who were born here from legal immigrants, are required to surrender the protection and welfare of this nation to uncontrolled borders and immigration?
Slow, methodical, managed and controlled immigration is necessary for protecting and securing this country while honoring the time tested tradition of an immigrant nation. Abandoning those safeguards because some criticize the time required to enter this country legally, is all the evidence you should need to understand the fallacy of the open borders crowd. Protecting this country trumps the interest of anyone wanting to enter this country. Saying immigrants have rights greater than the need to protect this country is more evidence to deny entry. Entering this country is a privilege not a right. To demand entry as a right is the strongest reason to deny entry because the entrant or applicant has put their own interests above that of this country.
This is an open trackback linkfest. The Secure the Borders theme is held over another day. We have no reason to think it is necessary to provide any disclaimers, warranties, discounts or warnings. If you have any suggestions, criticisms, questions or just feel the need to communicate, trackback or let us know in the comments. Please donate a minute of your time for the QotD, you can answer the question of the day in the comments section.
This is not the time to rely on elected officials to protect this country or enforce the rule of law. Congress will again take up the issue of illegal immigration. Recent reports indicate failure of Congress to pass HR4437 in 2005 was the result of a plan to appear concerned about illegal immigration while knowing the House bill would never pass in the Senate. Again, the Senate is the focal point of deciding this nation’s course on illegal immigration. This chapter on illegal immigration comes complete with typical back room deals as shown in the following article.
Another reminder of the practical side for all in favor of uncontrolled immigration is displayed in the following link. Most of what immigration is about is not the altruistic motive of freedom and democracy. The United States and the lax enforcement of law or liberal policies on immigration provide financial opportunity for all involved. While life long citizens continue to take things in stride and for granted, newer arrivals are actively supporting agendas that will affect this country’s future in alarming ways. As at risk as this country is from lack of national security, those alarming changes are already here.
Will the voices opposed to illegal immigration and lax security and enforcement be enough to protect this country? Most arguments in favor of open borders, increased visa quotas, guest worker programs are centered around the proponents’ economic ambitions. Money is central to this issue as it is in most others. Corporate interests increase their profits with cheaper labor. Illegal immigrants increase their options for generating income, legal and illegal. Businesses see profit in a new market of illegals. Politicians see votes and lobbyist money. Taxpayers see another drain on public money. The cost of illegal immigration is shouldered by the public while the profits of illegal immigration are distributed among its proponents.
So how did the United States Congress do in the first month of the 110th session? You be the judge. First, a little review of the fact that posts here have sometimes asked why we get so focused on what Congress does. After all, they legislate. That’s it. They legislate. The can pass laws. Whatever the House passes must be passed in the Senate also. So both Houses of Congress must pass the same version of a bill before it can become law. Then it goes to the President. He can sign it into law. He can veto it and send it back to Congress. He can pocket-veto at the end of the session. Or he can pretty much ignore it and it becomes law. All you expert legal types out there, feel free to refute this if you must.
So six bills and one joint resolution have the term “on passage” next to them in the voting record in the House. Being that it is joint and includes the Senate, that’s the only thing showing up on their completed list. Then there are the six bills. You’ll remember them from the daily reminder of the 100 hour agenda. Here’s a take on that.
One law was passed to rename a park. And the other bills have many hurdles to cross before they can become law. Even if they become law there is no guarantee they will have any positive effects. No one, with any regularity, will follow up on them. So the Congress has done nothing for one month. They have solved nothing. There is only one item as law and it is not critical. 21 Senators are worried about 2008 due to re-election. Other Senators are worried about running for President. And the rest have passed one joint resolution and participated in renaming a park.
As of 130am this morning, AP’s political news headlines confirmed an earlier post has it right on the fact that politicians are off topic amid the Mark Foley story press domination. The first headline has Foley stating he was abused by a clergyman. True or not it is off topic and hinders the discussion of top issues near the mid term election. Since both parties are impotent, they likely prefer Foley in the news rather than themselves. The media likes the Foley story so they can increase sales and ratings and whatever else due to the public’s insatiable appetite for sleaze.
