Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Tancredo is correct . . .
President Bush has always been out of touch with his base on immigration issues. In fact, some of Bush's earliest disputes with the conservative base were over immigration policies, such as the "temporary guest worker" program that many conservatives (including this writer) saw as little more than a "delayed" amnesty program. Most conservatives prefer the President simply enforce existing laws.
Recently, Bush attempted to reconnect with the base by announcing a "zero tolerance" policy on illegal immigration. The impression the administration gave was that we were finally going to get serious about keeping illegal immigrants out, and were going to begin deporting those already here.
That impression was highly misleading. The fact is, Bush's immigration plan ignores the greatest source of illegal immigrants to the United States: Mexican nationals crossing our southern border. Those illegal immigrants would apparently be eligible to stay in the United States under a "temporary worker program".
What, again, is the difference between a "guest worker program" and a "temporary worker program"?
Thankfully, conservatives have not been fooled by the administration's semantics. Unfortunately, that has not deterred those in Washington from acting against the desires and best interests of the American people on immigration issues.
The latest outrage is the recent enactment of a law shielding religious organizations from prosecution for knowingly transporting, concealing, harboring or shielding an illegal immigrant, so long as that immigrant is volunteering in a religious capacity (which includes working soup kitchens, doing mission work, or, presumably, any other sort of outreach work for the religious organization) (warning: .pdf file). The provision in question is on page 46, Section 796 of the measure (ostensibly a bill dealing with Agriculture and related appropriations).
At first blush, the law may seem benign, or even benevolent. I mean, Christian missionary work is a fine and noble thing, right?
Well, consider the fundamentalist Islamic jihadist who can be brought to the United States illegally and be harbored, fed, and sheltered by a radical mosque. Yes, we may be able to get the illegal immigrant out, but there is no repercussion on the fundamentalist mosque for its role in subverting federal law.
Or, consider the church group that believes it is a crime to keep non-citizens out of this country, and thus decides to begin actively helping illegal immigrants cross the border (for free) and delivers them to nearby metropolitan areas where they can try to blend in with the local population. Suppose they even use church busses to increase the efficiency of their operations?
They can now do so without fear of retribution or repercussions.
The sponsor of the measure, Bill Bennett (R-UT), says that it is a narrow exception to immigration law and that it could not possibly help terrorists in any manner.
Tom Tancredo (R-CO) puts the lie to that rather outrageous assertion. Read it all for yourself; then read Tancredo's own proposal (which is still flawed, but markedly better than Bennett's free pass).
Hi there, We are currently having a debate on immigration and the wall Rep Duncan Hunter wants to build. We'd love to hear your opinions...Post a Comment
The Latin Americanist
The Latin Americanist