16 posts tagged “illegal immigration”

I'm a registered independent in the state of California - which means that I'm unable to vote for the Republican primary nominee, but I am allowed to vote for the Democratic nominee.  As this is the case, I figured it would make some sense for me to do my third candidate analysis on John Edwards, a current contender for the Democratic nomination.

Interesting fact about John Edwards (if not a well-known fact): he ran as the Vice Presidential candidate in 2004 alongside John Kerry for the Democratic party.  Another interesting fact: they are no longer speaking to each other.  Of course, when you'd have to deal with a wife like Teresa Kerry, I don't think I'd want to be stuck hanging around with John after the party is over, either.

Getting right down to brass tacks, the three most important issues facing a potential John Edwards candidacy (besides establishing a national budget for his haircuts) are as follows:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government

As I mentioned in my Fred Thompson post, it's imperative that America reign in the spending of the federal government in order to reign in the ever-growing habit of creating intrusive domestic policy.  John Edwards and I apparently disagree.  This guy has run his entire campaign on the idea that there exists 'two Americas.'  One is privileged and wealthy while the other lives 'from paycheck to paycheck.'  Curiously, it appears that John is under the impression that the latter America, although already supported by the heavy taxation of the prior, needs the federal government to help them change.  Or, to paraphrase, redistribute the wealth.  If you've been reading here long enough, then you are aware of my attitude about the current tax system in America.  Electing someone like John Edwards is only going to exacerbate the problem.  His approach involves 'college for everyone' programs that create scholarships for anyone heading off to college, forcing businesses to supply healthcare to employees, and rolling back tax cuts that happen to be some of the few things that Bush has actually done right in his time in office.
To be honest, Edwards is a complete failure on this point - he appears to be under the impression that the answer to all our ills is to strengthen the federal government and its involvement in your life.  Personal responsibility is a thing of the past.

Next, there's the War in Iraq.
Edwards is the epitome, on this issue, of the type of politician that we absolutely don't need in Washington pulling the strings.  Using Iraq as a platform on which to run with John Kerry back in 2004, likely to prove their support of the military, Edwards made statements like this next one:  "It was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein...I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that's why [John Kerry and I] stand behind our vote on the resolution."  However, upon seeing the negative polls when it came to our work in Iraq, he immediately changed his mind on the matter.  He now, according to his website, wants to have our troops pulled out completely within the ten months of being elected.  Sadly, putting a war into motion isn't exactly something that you can stop on a dime with.  His plan to withdraw troops so completely and so quickly would lead to a total power vacuum in the region - something that we definitely don't want to return to when it comes to cleaning it up.

Finally, on the most important topic that he'd be facing as president, Edwards, again, fails miserably.  According to his campaign website, we need to immediately adopt 'comprehensive immigration reform.'  "It is unrealistic to think that we can deport more than 12 million people. Edwards believes we need to give people here the opportunity to pay a fine and learn English to earn American citizenship."  What's so brilliant about this statement is his pushing of the argument that the only other option would to be deport millions of people.  This makes him either ignorant of the reality of the situation or a liar.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and merely call him ignorant on this point.  As I've mentioned previously, nobody needs to deport anyone.  Illegal aliens who can't get jobs will deport themselves - enforcing laws having to do with who hires who is more important than teaching anyone english or paying a fine.  Adopting the poverty of Central and South America won't help America in the slightest.

John Edwards is obviously unaware of the most important issues facing the next person to sit at the helm of the American machine.  He's not winning my vote, and I certainly hope he's not going to be picking up yours.

I've made an update to the first of my 2008 presidential candidate reviews, the post about Ron Paul.  I was reading through it, boring as it was, and realized that I'd not gone back to update it at all regarding the controversy that has started to come to light in recent weeks regarding his newsletters.  If you're at all interested, it's about three quarters of the way through the post.

The next requested candidate that I'm analyzing is Fred Thompson.  I'll be crossing over into Democratic side of the aisle in the next review post, I promise.  In the meantime, if you've got any input on the content that you find here on this candidate, please speak up in the comments.  The update listed above was actually made in part because of a comment that was made on that post - and I even credited the commenter!  Now wouldn't you just love to have that kind of political power?

As far as interesting facts on Fred Thompson: he has worked not only as an attorney, lobbyist, and senator, but also as a character actor.  Most notably (to me, that is) was his work on 'Law & Order.'  I didn't necessarily watch the show, but I still recognized his face the first time I saw it when it was suggested that he might be running in 2008.  As a matter of fact, it's been speculated that his May 30, 2007 departure from filming was to begin working on his presidential bid.

For those of you who haven't been paying attention, the three most important issues facing Americas next president are as follows:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government

When I refer to 'shrinking the federal government' I mean both in policy and financially.  In all honesty, I think that shrinking the federal government economically should be a higher priority than the current policy structure that involves the slow evolution of a government nosing into every aspect of a citizen's life.  That being said, Thompson doesn't seem to disagree that the current financial growth-capacity of the federal government is getting too advanced.  In an interview on Fox News back in June, he stated that "we have a tax code that's hopelessly out of date and out of step for our times now, punishes the things that we say that we want more of and makes us less competitive in the world."  He went even further with his commentary two months earlier at Lincoln Club Dinner.  "Taxes are also a burden on production, because they discourage people from investing & taking risks. Some economists have calculated that today each additional $1 collected by the government, by raising income-tax rates, makes the private sector as much as $2 worse off. To me this means one simple thing: tax rates should be as low as possible."  Few people seem to realize that higher taxes on those 'evil' corporations that haunt every San Francisco nightmare scenario are actually crippling our nation as a whole.  Want to complain about outsourcing?  Talk to our elected representatives about their tax policies.  If you were looking at higher profits by something so simple as moving your headquarters offshore, wouldn't you make the jump?  I know I would.  Thompson seems to understand that.

Thompson and I share more in common than just a penchant for cutting taxes and the spending that inspires them - he also seems pretty dead-set on finishing the job that's been started in Iraq.  During a debate back in October 2007, he pointed out, correctly, that "clearly...we didn't go in with enough troops and we didn't know what to expect when we got there. But now we're showing signs of progress. I think we got to take advantage of the opportunities that we have there, to turn around and us to stabilize that place and not to have to leave with our tail between our legs. If we did that, it would make for a more dangerous USA."

I don't want to sound like I'm falling over myself trying to come up with reasons not to pledge my vote for this guy, but I kind of am.  He sounds reasonable and responsible, two things that are definitely needed in Washington at the moment.  But what about illegal immigration?  Good question.  In researching this guy, I found conflicting statements.  On the one hand, he appears to be supportive of securing the borders and ending illegal immigration through that means (which, lets have a reality check here, certainly won't end all illegal immigration).  However, he doesn't appear to address the possibility of pushing employers to stop hiring illegal aliens and, instead, just offers vague conclusions that involve self-deportation with little details.  While he opposed the McCain-Kennedy immigration fiasco from this past summer, he does suggest that "you’re going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where they can have some aspirations of citizenship, but not make it so easy that it’s unfair to the people waiting in line and abiding by the law."
On this issue, in particular, I think he's headed in the right direction, but I fear that he's not there yet.

When it comes to controversies attached to Thompson, there was something of an uproar over his role as a pro-choice lobbyist for a short stint back in the 90s.  Personally, I don't see this as a massive problem and really couldn't dig up anything more.

Ultimately, I think that Fred Thompson has a lot of potential.  His stance on other issues, mostly domestic, I have a generally positive feeling about, but nothing concrete.  The portrayal of him as a lazy politician seems to be damaging him slightly, as the people who supported him originally are slowly starting to lose faith in him following his poor performances in both Iowa and New Hampshire.  I definitely like the guy, but he'll have to make it to nomination before I'd ever been convinced to vote for him.

Oh well.

As per the only request garnered from all three of my readers out there, I'm going to be analyzing Ron Paul as a potential candidate for my vote during the 2008 election.  If anyone out there that thinks this guy deserves my vote, please feel free to comment on it and fill in any gaps you may find with what you read below.
And, as always, you are more than welcome to comment with your suggestion on who I should consider next.

First, an interesting fact about Ron Paul: he refused to allow his children to accept federal student loans to pay for their college tuition, nor does he currently accept his congressional pension plan, as both of these are taxpayer-funded.
Now that is someone who sticks to their principles.

As pointed out in my post yesterday, the three main issues that will lend true credibility to the next president of the United States of America are as follows:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government

Anyone who is willing to turn down student loans for their children, let alone a congressional pension plan, based on the burden that the taxpayers of America face is more than likely to fit the bill on the third item on that list.

One of the problems with our ever-expanding federal government is the fact that it is spending us into the poorhouse.  Most politicians cite this as something that needs to be immediately addressed - but rarely do you hear any of them speak as frankly on this matter as Paul appears to.  "When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans."  How, then, are we supposed to make up for the money that we're spending if we can't tax it, print it, or borrow it?  Cut out the spending, of course.  "We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all."
Amen, brother!

If the 2008 election was only about reversing our current trend of growing our government to massive proportions, Ron Paul would have earned this vote in just two quotes.  Unfortunately for him, that's just not the case.

In the past, Ron Paul has stated that he would withdraw our military from Iraq (indeed, from everywhere) as quickly as possible, were he to be elected.  This, of course, only jives with those Americans out there who share his overwhelmingly non-interventionist perspective on foreign policy.  However, leaving Iraq completely isn't going to change the status quo.  In fact, it will lead to further problems.

Of course, most Americans believe the nightmare in Iraq simply cannot get much worse. Wrong-it most certainly could. Advocates of a "phased" withdrawal of our troops must reckon with the certainty of a serial disaster: a full-blown civil war spreading a contagion of violence across the region, with Iran virtually uncontainable. Our enemies, as the president said, would emerge with new safe havens, new recruits, and new resources. The head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, put it starkly: "An al Qaeda victory in Iraq would mean a fundamentalist state that shelters jihadists and serves as a launching pad for terrorist operations throughout the region and against our own homeland." A premature pullout would condemn Iraq and the region to unbelievable horrors. It would be a historic victory for our Islamic enemies. If America is defeated in Iraq, a victory in the broader war on terror will be impossible. And unlike what happened after Vietnam, the enemy will undoubtedly follow America home.

I've pointed it out previously, as well - we can't just pack up and go home.  We need to see this thing through whether it was the best choice in the first place or not.  On this, the second most important issue facing the next President, Ron Paul most certainly fails to face the music.

The single most important issue facing our next elected leader, however, is going to be Illegal Immigration.  Whether the American public, our representatives in the legislative branch, or our bordering nations want to recognize it or not, illegal immigration is threatening the very infrastructure upon which America currently rests.  And what is Ron Paul planning to do about it?  "I see the immigration problem as a consequence of our welfare state. We encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people who come--they get free medical care. They get free education. They bankrupt our hospitals. Our hospitals are closing. And it shouldn't be rewarded. That means you don't give them citizenship. You can't solve this problem until you get rid of the welfare state, because in a healthy economy, immigrants wouldn't be a threat to us."  Again, Ron Paul takes the cake on this issue.

(Update 1/14/08: I don't know why I didn't do this originally, but I think that I should probably consider the controversies attached to candidates as well as their stands on important issues.  The following paragraph has been added to fill that gap.)

Two out of three really isn't that bad when it comes to the political atmosphere that America has thrust itself into.  However, if a politician doesn't have any controversies dragging their name through the mud, then they really aren't a politician, are they?  Ron Paul is no different.  As mentioned by Urban Lenny in a comment to this post, Paul has a series of political newsletters that posed something of a problem for him back in the 90s.  Written under his name with no bylines provided, these editorials were curious insofar as they were written in the first person - leaving one to assume that they had been published under Paul's watchful eye.  James Kirchick over at The New Republic, a publication that I don't normally pay much attention to, did an extensive review of the content of these letters:

In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration..."
Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little..."

I would encourage you to take a look at the article.  I can't vouch for the accuracy of the Kirchick piece, but, unlike Paul and his newsletters, it wasn't originally published under my name.

Now, I haven't really delved too deep into other issues that are less damaging to America as a whole, but from what I gather, I don't have much to disagree with the guy about.  Really, I'd love to hand him my vote, but my apprehension over how he is likely to endanger millions and millions of people following a massive pull-out from Iraq is something truly striking to consider.  Beyond that, the guy doesn't stand a chance of winning the Republican nomination.  If he runs, he'll have to run as either a third party contender or an independent.  Historically speaking, neither of these options will give him any feasible chance at taking the Presidency.  However, if he does choose to run in that capacity, I believe that he certainly could put a Ross Perot shaped dent into the electorate.  I just happen to think that the majority of those votes would be likely Democratic voters, not Republicans.

Ultimately, Ron Paul fails to capture my imagination, despite his principled and logical stands on most of the issues that will define the upcoming presidency.  Too bad.

As New Hampshire ends its primary election counts this evening, I remain completely uncertain about who I'm going to end up supporting in the 2008 election.  Call me indecisive, but the whole lot of the current candidates don't strike me as anything special.  Nor do they inspire me to much more than a general fear about the future of American politics and policy.

To that end, I think I'm going to start analyzing those that I see as the main candidates facing party nominations on a one-by-one basis until I can come up with some kind of decision.  Lucky for me, I don't think that the nominations are going to be that clear until after the February 5th 'Super Tuesday' election coming up.  That seems like plenty of time to start weeding out the politicians that I don't like.

First, a brief introduction to the three most important issues facing America, in this order:

1. Illegal Immigration
2. War in Iraq (War on Terror)
3. Shrinking the Federal Government
   

Illegal immigration gets the top-spot in the list because it poses a threat to America on just about ever level - education, the deficit, taxes, security, the penal system, etc.  I don't have anything against hispanic people or hispanic culture, either.  My problem is mostly with employers who are willing exploit anyone and anything as a means to an ends in their profit margin.  My problem is burdening my children and their children with the responsibility of making right the poverty of our neighboring countries.  If it's not put to a stop, this slow slide that America is seeing is only going to get worse.  And fast.

Then there's the War in Iraq (and the War on Terror, as a whole).  Whether you like it or not, we're in Iraq right now.  Pulling out all of our troops tomorrow doesn't do anyone any good, and just about everyone in their right mind knows it.  So what to do about it?  Start setting deadlines on the Iraqi government when it comes to American financial support and slowly start settling in as a long-term military force.  If the Iraqi government fails to meet their deadlines, the money may dry up, but we need to remain there.  Let the country go to hell on its own if they can't lead themselves, but an American military presence there, acting as a deterrent for potential Husseins in the future, is essential.  End of story.

Originally, I thought about including civil liberties and whatnot into the third portion of the list, but then settled on shrinking the federal government, instead.  The reason for this is because all of the people running around and screaming about their precious civil liberties don't seem to realize that the slow constriction of civil liberties is inevitable when you have trained your government to grow at an exceptional rate.  A government that's been handed control over things like retirement planning and health care likely won't see a reason why it shouldn't begin meddling in how/when you get on a plane to fly.  The American public has been conditioning our government to spend more and more money while taking over more and more control for far too long.  It's time that we started to shrink the beast down to a more manageable size.

So, there you have it - the three most important topics up for grabs when it comes to my selection for president.  It's not that I don't care about things like abortion and gay rights, but these three things are obviously far more important.  If you disagree with me, please, feel free to post some commentary.

In the meantime, I'm going to be trying out my first candidate tomorrow.  Any suggestions as to whom I should be looking into first will be gladly considered.

Orson Scott Card, the author of sci-fi works such as 'Ender's Game,' is a smart guy.  Granted, I've only recently started to take interest in his political musings and I've never had the chance to read any of his books, but he seems like the kind of guy that I could share a couple of beers with and muse over the state of the world for a couple of hours.
That is, if you could convince a Mormon to split a six pack with you.
(Mormons don't drink, you see.  Despite the fact that both Jesus and Joseph Smith enjoyed alcohol, old Joe was something of a control freak when it came to his followers, and alcohol never fit well in that picture.)

However, when I saw one of Card's recent columns, 'Ethnic Cleansing or Amnesty,' on the del.icio.us front page the other day, I had to take offense.  For those of you too lazy to read through the entire column, the point being made is a simple one: the people opposed to the Senate's Amnesty Bill (S. 1639) back at the end of June are near-sighted and ignorant at the best, xenophobic racists at the worst.  Doing what he does best, Card fictionalizes a world where immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants in the United States becomes a reality.  And, really, it's a pretty good read - just like most of the things I've read by him.
However, it's not entirely honest.

What Card has overlooked in his column is the possibility that people who were opposed to the 'path to citizenship' proposition by Ted Kennedy/John McCain/George Bush don't want immediate deportation.  Personally, I've not met anyone who really finds the idea to be attractive, let alone feasible.  What I keep hearing about is the simple implementation of a strict employer crackdown.  That is, if you hire an illegal immigrant to do work that a legal immigrant/American could do for a better wage, you get to pay some kind of fine and possibly spend some lonely nights behind bars.  In time, such a move would illustrate that the Federal Government is actually serious about the laws that they're passing in Washington, thus deterring other employers from engaging in the hiring of illegals and, eventually, drying up the job market that has been sheltering so many millions of illegal immigrants who are living 'in the shadows.'  Thus, Card's entire column becomes a statement of exaggeration in painting opposition to the bill (a majority of Americans, by the way) as seeking out an immediate deportation of all illegals.

Consider, for a second, the possibility that the illegal immigrant population in America - the same population that currently costs the federal government a net fiscal loss of $10 billion a year - might slowly trickle south back across the border into Mexico as businesses slowly close up their job availability for illegals.  Imagine, likewise, the jobs left unfilled by such a slow migration.  Now by this point, assuming that you've read Card's fictionalization of an America without the permanent indentured servitude of illegal immigration under it's boot, you might think that all of those jobs would go unfilled - thus resulting in the rise in produce prices that doomsday prophets like Card envision.  Unfortunately for Card, the reality would be a little bit different, as illustrated by the abandonment of the Bracero Program in the 60s:

"And of course the theory was that...ending the program would end the industry.  And it was a farily important industry in parts of California.  And there was lots of testimony in Congress about why the program has to be continued, because there's no other way to get the work done.

For better or worse, the program ended.  And I think the important thing to take away is how fast the industry changed:  in the early 1960s, 85 percent [were] braceros picking the tomatoes.  By 1970, the industry had completely mechanized and roughly doubled in size.  It's now since increased in size.

What happened?  Well,l they made a tomato that was not round but instead oblong.  They made a machine to harvest and sort them.  And the two together wound up lowering costs." - Philip Martin, Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Davis

I was opposed to the so-called 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform' that the Senate attempted to push through back at the end of June - and the reason I was opposed was because I'm as tired as you are of federal deficit increasing year in and year out.  I'm also sick of American business practices resulting in third-world quality labor practices when it comes to corporate farming.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the free market - but only to a point.  The exploitative practices that you see when it comes to illegal immigration are the direct result of a couple of key industries that have been allowed to maintain 19th century business practices in a 21st century world.  And merely legalizing all of the illegals being taken advantage of wouldn't stop the next generation from crossing the border to take their place in the fields - it would only further encourage them.  And what do you do with millions of unskilled workers who are now legal and, therefore, aren't legally eligible to work for pennies on the dollar anymore?
You replace them with the next wave coming up from the south.

Mr. Card, I'm afraid that you've got this one wrong.  Big time.

There is no constitutional right to good parenting in the United States.  Sadly, there are children everywhere in this country who suffer the burden of abusive and neglectful treatment at the hands of their parents on a daily basis.  In America, you are granted the liberty to raise your children in whatever way you see fit, just so long as their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not infringed upon.
Elvira Arellano doesn't seem to understand that.

For those of you who might've missed the big news over the weekend - professional child-exploiter, fraudster, and illegal alien, Elvira Arellano was deported back to Mexico amongst much fanfare and media play.  Over the last year, Elvira has been holed up inside of a church in Chicago in order to avoid being deported, claiming sanctuary so that her son wouldn't have to go back to Mexico with her.  She went so far as to suggest that her son's constitutional rights would be violated by her absence, were she to go back to her country of origin.

What's really surprising about Arellano's story isn't so much that she's hypocritical enough to jeopardize her son's childhood by putting him in the same position that millions of other anchor babies are now in while simultaneously painting herself as the doting mother who would do anything to protect her child - what's surprising is how many people are actually taking her seriously.  In the last few days I've heard her compared to famed civil rights activist, Rosa Parks.  Yeah, because the plight of a segregated African American who's forefathers were forced to come to American and sold as property has anything to do with a woman who came to American willingly, got paid to work here, and committed identity theft.  Somehow, there are people out there who see this as a decent comparison.

Yet I haven't heard anyone mention the striking similarities between this woman and the airhead that is Cindy Sheehan - yet another child exploitation expert.

Ultimately, I'm anxious to see what comes of this story.  Mostly, I'm anxious to see this woman continue to fight for her son's imaginary right to good parenting.  And, if she wins, I certainly hope that they do something to punish her for being so neglectful of his rights by putting him in this position in the first place.

My second exam didn't go quite as well as I had originally planned, but at least Mr and Mrs Scrambler Biggs arrived in southern California with no major troubles.

Just interrupting my brief hiatus to celebrate the fact that the Senate finally did it's job and actually listened to their constituency and blocked the Kennedy-McCain Immigration Bill this morning.  I find it interesting that the bill in the last week, and especially now that it's failed, is being referred to as the 'Kennedy-Bush' immigration bill - completely ignoring the fact that John McCain was the actual co-writer of the bill with Ted Kennedy.
Funny how McCain has managed to distance himself, if only ever so slightly, from this monstrosity.

'See you at the signing,' indeed, Mr. President.
Looks like Bush has finally managed to get even the hardiest of republican support to question his grasp on reality.

Ripped straight off the Drudge Report to your Vox neighborhood:
Trent Lott: 'Talk radio is running America.  We have to deal with that problem'...

My thoughts on this later.

Update:
Trent Lott is wrong.  Talk radio isn't a medium that is self-supporting.  You don't have talk radio without listeners.  You don't have listeners unless they agree with the commentary.  Thus, logically, one can surmise that Trent Lott might consider altering his statement by saying 'the talk radio listeners are running America.  We have to deal with that problem.'  However, Lott won't openly admit that because, well, he'd be out of a job.
In fact, as I recall, talk radio was the only outlet that bothered to defend him during that messy Strom Thurmond incident back in 2002.

Ultimately, though, the boogie-man that talk radio has become in the capital isn't the reason for all of the push-back on the McCain-Kennedy bill being pushed by Lott&Co. right now.  The reason that the McCain-Kennedy bill is such a failure is because the public doesn't support it as a whole.  Really, there's a lower support rating amongst the public for this bill than there is for the Iraq War.  That's a significant amount of opposition and it just doesn't make sense to argue that there are that many talk radio listeners out there.  You'd think our representatives in Washington might take a hint.

When the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform bill was pulled from the floor of the senate last week, I could almost hear the collective sighs of relief from across the country.  What was originally celebrated as a bipartisan compromise, carefully crafted by only those most egalitarian senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy behind closed doors (you can see an embarassingly glowing Washington Post review of it here), went down in flames because there just wasn't any support for it.  So it goes.

The manner in which the bill failed, though, is what's really interesting to me.  Originally, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acted as a co-sponsor of the bill while he had full faith that the American people would passively sit by and watch the legislature pass the horrid thing.  However, when things had proven to be more difficult that he'd originally planned, he then attempted to distance himself from it.  As with all failures in the last six years in Washington, Reid started to push this off on President Bush on Thursday in suggesting that it's up to Bush to bring more Republicans in on the bill.
What's more, Bush seemed to be more than willing to step up to Reid's challenge and start pushing for the bill.

Ultimately, I'm curious about the motives Reid has in trying to pin this on the President.  Is it because he recognizes that the majority of the public is against it?  And what happens if Bush does gain the votes needed?  Will the Democrats be able to continue to support it if it will not provide a victory for the President?

Strange bedfellows, indeed.

I recently read an article about the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform coalition and then heard an interview with one of their founders yesterday on the radio.  I can't say I'm too impressed.  While touting values like compassion, justice, and family values for illegal alien working families in the United States, they seem more than happy to ignore these values in relation to the legal American working families.

For example, here are the principles that they claim compel them to take up the activist cause for 'comprehensive immigration reform' (that is: 'earned amnesty'):

• We believe that all people, regardless of national origin, are made in the "image of God" and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6).
• We believe there is an undeniable biblical responsibility to love and show compassion for the stranger among us (Deuteronomy 10:18-19, Leviticus 19:33-34, Matthew 25:31-46).
• We believe that immigrants are our neighbors, both literally and figuratively, and we are to love our neighbors as ourselves and show mercy to neighbors in need (Leviticus 19:18, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:25-37).
• We believe in the rule of law, but we also believe that we are to oppose unjust laws and systems that harm and oppress people made in God's image, especially the vulnerable (Isaiah 10:1-4, Jeremiah 7:1-7, Acts 5:29, Romans 13:1-7).

Personally, I have no problem with anyone holding the tenets listed above.  In fact, if more people pursued these ideas, I suspect that the world would be a much better place.  However, I don't quite follow their reasoning that these beliefs warrant any political mobilization in support of earned citizenship.  And, while I know Christ said to forgive and forget, I don't think he ever asked his followers to blatantly ignore history.

In 1986 when the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed, 2.7 million illegal aliens were granted citizenship in America in an attempt to 'bring them out of the shadows.'  This amnesty provided the impetus for four times as many illegal aliens to enter our country in the twenty years since the IRCA was originally passed.  However, groups, like the CCIR, who support new rounds of amnesty for the current illegal alien population in America tend to ignore the effect that previous attempts had in compounding the problem for us today.

Furthermore, when businesses are hiring illegal aliens specifically because of the low wages that they can get away with paying them, turning those illegal workers into citizens overnight will only turn them into American wage earners - thus costing them the jobs that they came here seeking.  The results of such a move would only turn businesses to a newer crop of illegal aliens, the likes of which are still willing to work for the original lower wages.

Ultimately, I don't see the connection between what I understand to be the christian model of personal responsibility, morality, justice and any earned citizenship whatsoever.  I was always under the impression that Jesus' call to 'do unto others as you'd have them to do unto you' was more of a personal principle than a declaration that the government should be the one doing unto others in your place.

(On another note, I don't know if I should be surprised that there are several Nazarene church officials listed as supporting the CCIR initiative.  I was raised in the Nazarene church and have been pretty uninvolved in the last five years, but it looks like now I've got a direct political reason to avoid going back.)
(As if I needed an excuse.)