As we go into a quiet weekend, with all of America comforted by the fact that Paris Hilton is back behind bars, we’re left to contemplate the aftermath of the so-far unsuccessful attempts by President Bush, Teddy Kennedy and others to push through the federal immigration amnesty package.
A couple of weeks ago, it looked like passage through the Senate, while a rocky road, was a likely one. But over the last couple of weeks, despite a barrage of misleading messaging from the White House and other sources, somehow trying to say that amnesty isn’t amnesty, enough GOP Senators came together (whether through enlightenment, impact from an intense grassroots lobbying effort, or a combination of the two) to prevent the matter from coming to a final vote in the Senate.
Second only to the fact that this ill-advised bill was so strongly supported by a Republican President to whom I devoted the 2000 election cycle when I worked as Executive Director of the California Republican Party was the rhetoric coming from the otherwise reliable stable of conservative/libertarian thought over on the Wall Street Journal editorial board.
This fine group of folks were advocates of the legislation (well, I admit that hearing Steve Moore struggle through being a "pro" speaker on taping of the Bill Bennett radio show made me feel like this was not his ideal plan, but that in concept, it was a good one) — which really took me back. Never minding the rule of law, or issues pertaining to the fairness to those immigrants who have been waiting to immigrate here the proper way, or even the weighty security issues, the pages of the Opinion Journal have been filled with many, many articles about the coming train wreck in America over entitlement spending. The WSJ folks know that America has really been shifting more and more towards a welfare state.
Absent all of the dozens of insane welfare programs that take money from hard-working American taxpayers and redistribute it to others, I can actually take seriously a discussion about unfettered (but for security interests) immigration into the country — after all, a country that is an engine for job creation must have people to fill those jobs. But, alas, we are not in a make-believe world, and I have seen estimates that put a price tag at well over $4 BILLION to absorb all of these criminal aliens into our entitlement spending welfare world.
And I would be remiss if I didn’t skip back, and take the WSJ boys to task for the notion that that a presumption of "good intent" somehow obviates responsibility for criminal entry into America. Make no bones about it, this bill was and is an amnesty bill. With the stroke of a pen, countless millions become eligible, after a 24 hour waiting period, for Social Security cards and the other taxpayer funded ‘goodies’ that come with recognition of status. Where is the deportation? Where is the criminal record? When the "punishment" handed out to someone for criminal entry is a fine, it equates the action to a ‘fix it’ or maybe a speeding ticket. The crafters of this bill show a profound disconnect from those, like me, who see every criminal entrant into this country as committing an virtual ‘assault’ on me — a crime against persons, not a crime against property.
Anyways, while I think that my Grand Old Party may have suffered some collateral damage because our Republican President’s name was on this dog with fleas, it is my hope that the President will abandon efforts to revive such an ill-conceived bill.
We all agree that illegal immigration is a problem, and we need to deal with it. And through this debate I have seen a lot of great ideas about how to do that be presented. But if you ask me whether or not I think that there is anything to be done while the Democrats control either chamber of Congress I would say no. And, unfortunately, the status quo in America right now is preferable to the legislation proffered by messers. Bush, Kennedy and Kyl.
On a closing note, I would note that no one was more ‘loyal’ to the President than Florida Senator Mel Martinez, who happens to also serve as General Chairman of the Republican National Committee. That said, I hope that Senator Martinez understands that if this bill had passed, with his vote, there would have been a great deal of angst within the echelons of the Republican Party.
It’s in the best interests of the GOP, Senator Martinez, President Bush, and America, to no longer pursue this concept of amnesty.
Jon Fleischman
Vice Chairman, South
California Republican Party
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.