Simplifying the immigration debate
Most of the time, one way you can tell an issue is "complicated" is when religious spokesmen are on opposing sides. And when the words "Deepens Split Among Evangelicals" appear, well lord have mercy on the mariner we're gonna need us a Solomon, and fast.
Yet we might be overthinking this illegal immigration thing. Dealing with the problem in all its many facets is a doozy, I'll admit. (And be sure to read John O'Sullivan's doozy of a letter outlining the Woes of Rove. Heh.) But let's just smash this hydra-headed little beast flat on the table for a second so we're only looking at one side: securing the southern border.
All this whoo-hawing over guest worker status, how many years for such-and-such, who gets which papers, nationalities, vocations, employers, deportations and WHAT IN THE NAME OF GOD ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT THE CHILDREN! THE CHILDREN!!! is about secondary stuff our lawmakers, with typical Solomonic precision, can sort through in the coming months and years if necessary.
Border security is, comparatively speaking, pretty darn cut-and-dried. Get many more boots on the ground along our southern border, detain and deport ALL who trespass, and start putting up a friggin' fence along the border NOW already.
For $2 billion we could have highway sound barrier-type walls 10 to 16 feet high the whole way. (Note: the U.S. is spending $3.9 billion a month for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan).
The fence will make a HUGE difference. Then, less military or border patrol will be necessary in the south, and can be repositioned to the northern border if the, uh, Canadian influx has reached crisis proportions by that time.
Yes, the other problems such as legal status of those here already will have to be solved. But here's the kicker: instituting "guest worker" status in any fashion only makes sense AFTER the border is sealed. Announcing "guest worker" now, regardless of the accompanying rules, can only increase the number of people continuing to stream in from the south. This seems so obvious it's amazing so many of our elected leaders either don't realize it or hope WE don't realize it. In either case, they must be suffering from power-induced myopia to not see what will happen at the polls in November if we end up with "guest workers" and no fence.
Can you say "third party?" I knew that you could. (And for cryin' out loud, does anyone even remember what issues gave Ross Perot his opening? Ross Perot's candidacy was just a test of the concept, and in the process established some important guidelines: 1) Don't be weird. 2) If you are, select a running mate who is not weird at all rather than one who is a little less weird. Today...well, I was going to roll out the "fertile ground" analogy, but that's not even really accurate. Today, the situation makes a viable third party candidate as inevitable as tomorrow's sunrise. Memo to GOP leaders: Earplugs are for the range, boys, when you go to work you gotta take them out.)
A fence on our southern border: Build it and they WON'T come unless they do it legally. The entire solution to America's illegal immigration problem begins with this simple truth.
UPDATE: Just saw this on Neil Cavuto. Rep. Tom Tancredo on the 'Tancredo for President' phenomenon:
If no one else will take up this issue, and make it the centerpiece of their campaign, yeah, I'll do it.
You could unite this party around an issue America cares about....
There are going to be people out there trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo. And if there are, I'll be out knocking on doors for them.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Simplifying the immigration debate.
TrackBack URL for this entry: