« Mac versus Microsoft: Shelf presence | Main | Mark Steyn on Memorial Day »
May 28, 2006
Your elected representatives, hard at work (for illegal aliens)
"We've got to do what's right for the American people."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is on Fox News Sunday, and host Chris Wallace is hammering him on the legislation granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
First has said, "We've got to do what's right for the American people," about half a dozen times, and for the life of me, I can't figure out what the hell he's talking about.
"Best for the American people?" Really?
I'm hard pressed to see how granting amnesty to illegal aliens is what's best for me or my fellow Americans. I suppose if I were someone who had overstayed my visa, snuck across the border, was breaking the law everyday I was in the United States, I'd have done a Mexican hat dance when First and his Senate sob sisters passed this bill.
But how does this amnesty help me? Frist says people are dying, walking through the desert to get here. So what? They've chosen to embark on a dangerous -- and illegal -- path; why should I give a rip if a series of bad choices ends up costing them their lives? It's a shame, but it ain't my problem.
Wallace airs footage from this past Fall of Frist condemning the idea of an amnesty, saying he's against giving illegal aliens a path to citizenship, then reminds Frist that he repeated his opposition in March, too.
Frist responds by pointing out what he says are provisions in the bill that prevent it from being an amnesty:
• Illegal aliens have to pay back taxes (but he doesn't say only for three of the last five years).
• Illegal aliens have to pay a fine (but he doesn't tell viewers that it's only a couple of thousand dollars, a pittance).
• They have to have jobs (forcing down wages for blue collar occupations, and allowing them to continue draining money from our economy and sending the greenbacks south).
• And most ridiculous of all, Frist talks about how, "If they've been here two years or less, they have to go home," adding that if they've been here two to five years, or more than five years, there are less onerous requirements placed upon them before they get U.S. citizenship.
Hello? How exactly are they going to prove any of this? With forged documents, perhaps? They didn't come here legally; if they've been "living in the shadows," how can they possibly prove they've been here for X number of years? Can anyone living outside the Beltway explain how these time-based demarcations do anything other than provide an overwhelming incentive to lie?
Madness.
Stupidity.
Infuriating.
Next up, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin defending the provision in the bill requiring us to "consult" with Mexico before building a fence.
I can't believe I actually typed the previous sentence. Your elected representatives in the United States Senate think we can't protect our borders without getting a "Si, se puede!" from Mexico.
"We have to deal with the millions of people living here in the shadows," says Durbin. What the hell is he talking about? Shadows? Did he see the marches? Who were those people, protesting in the streets? The only shadows I saw were the ones cast by the thousands of Mexican flags and posters urging reconquista.
Feh.
The only thing standing between us and this legislative mess -- loved only in El Casa de Blanco and the Senate -- is the august body known as the U.S. House of Representatives.
Oy vey.
Posted by Mike Lief at May 28, 2006 08:09 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
It sounds like an old debating technique. "Do what's right for the American people." Repeat the same mantra over and over, but do exactly the opposite.
Meanwhile, here in the United States of Vicente Fox we're subjected to hometown newspapers that take delight in shoving it to citizens and taxpayers. The Sunday LA Times writes of the "most important voice" today, the Latino kids who embrace both cultures. MTV will now "give them voice" with a new Latino show, Tr3s (MTV Three). Which seems like an unnecessary move, since Acculturated Latinos are already the leaders in cultural impact, music and pop culture, according to the article.
Maybe it's someone else who needs a "voice" right now, like the 45 year old male hunched over his desk ... and the working moms too, packing in 16-hour days. We're supposed to spend more $$ to make things comfortable for the recently-invited incoming immigrants.
The paper argues that "assimiliation is encouraged" and "resistance should be rejected." This is evident, well ... absolutely nowhere. The pro-illegal infestation riots were a success, causing the Times to gloat that Americans here were dumbfounded by the outpouring of protestors. Like lost half-siblings we never knew about.
Wow. Just wow...
How typically condescending of the Times. I think we all see the faces of illegal infestation. On the freeway. In the schools. In the emergency room. Picking up public aid and such.
>>> "They had victims galore back in 1863, but they weren't a victim culture." >>>
Finally, because I'm feeling chatty I'll say that the "victim culture" is also a bore and a burden. Not because victims don't exist. On the contrary. The media decide who may be victims, and deride the rest. It's no secret that the LA Times has contempt for successful, ambitious, self-reliant people of all color. And that should bother everyone. They wield power by annointing victims.
Posted by: Vermont Neighbor at May 28, 2006 09:45 PM
The traitors in Congress act like we are not a real country. They act like we are just one big market that will accomodate anyone who will live here. If thats the way they feel, don't expect me to send my sons to fight for a market. I went to war for the United States over a decade ago. They act like the country I fought for doesn't exist. It must not because it doesn't have any borders according to the bastards in Congress. Once again, I think I'll just pull back onto my own land, live my life and watch what used to be a country go to hell in a hand basket.
Posted by: Red Stater at May 29, 2006 10:08 AM