Monday, April 22, 2013

Paul Backs Away, Rubio Doubles Down on Comprehensive Immigration Reform

There has been a coordinated attack against opponents of so-called comprehensive immigration reform.  They have been derided by the very same people hoping to use the Sandy Hook massacre in order to enact gun control for politicizing the Boston Marathon bombings to stop immigration reform.  They have colluded with the mainstream media to try and counter fiscal analysis of the negative effects of the Gang of 8's plan, evening attacking members of their own party.

Howard Kurtz of the Daily Beast writes, "The attacks have nothing to do with immigration reform, but partisans are rushing to exploit them anyway."  But, then goes on to praise President Obama for being moved by Sandy Hook, "Sometimes this is legitimate—the Newtown massacre clearly convinced President Obama to mount a passionate push for gun control—and sometimes it’s a stretch." [1]

What Kurtz calls a stretch, I call taking a play from their book and it is clear the statists do now like it.

The said fact is the Boston Marathon bombings have everything to do with immigration policy in this nation.  Proponents of Comprehensive Immigration Reform want to double down on the policies of the last two administrations by turning a blind eye to the ills of mass immigration.  Simply put, had the U.S. had a sensible immigration policy that prevented mass immigration of nations that are known hotbeds or terrorist activity, in a time when we are fighting those terrorists all over the world, the bombings would have been prevented.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), once a vocal proponent of the Gang of 8's immigration reform plan, is starting to back away.
We should not proceed until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system. Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism? Were there any safeguards? Could this have been prevented? Does the immigration reform before us address this?
Meanwhile, Rubio (R-FL), who is being pushed on in front to support immigration reform by Sen Chuck Schumer (D-NY), is doubling down on his call to rush through the legislation.  Rubio and other proponents of CIR know the Boston Bombings threaten their efforts because they know their plan and current policy would not have prevented the attacks.  So they have taken to trying to spend the terrorist attack in their favor:

“These terrorists came here under the existing system, the one opponents of reform want to leave in place,” Sen. Rubio wrote in his first talking point.
The second Rubio talking point argued that the terrorists “didn’t cross the border” to get into America.
In his third talking point, Rubio argued that authorities only know who the terrorists are because they came here legally to begin with.
“The reason we know who they are is because they were here legally,” Rubio wrote. “If they were here illegally, living in the shadows, it would have made them much harder to investigate. "
You know when a politician resorts to straw-man arguments he is working overtime to hide his true motives. Rubio claims opponents of CIR want to leave the current system in place.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  (You can read the comprehensive immigration reform plan I'd like to see put in place here).  For starters, opponents of the Gang of 8 would like to see existing laws enforced.  If they had been, the Boston terrorists, who had been previously investigated by the FBI for links to known terrorists would have been deported back to Chechnya, far from Boston.

Rubio then says they didn't cross the border.  Really?  Did then just materialize here?  Of course not.  They crossed the border like any other immigrant does.  Because they did so legally are we to take that as evidence our immigration policies work and that there is something in his plan that would have stopped them from entering the very same way? I think there are 4 dead Americans and up to a hundred other who were maimed that might take exception with that idea.


He finished by saying that because they came here legally, we were able to investigate the attack much more easily.  Immigration reform should not be making it easier to investigate attacks, they should be making it easier to prevent attacks.  To quote Sen. Paul, "Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism?"

The sad fact is the Gang of 8's immigration reform plan has nothing to do with securing America.  It is a compromise written in hell where the converging greed of diametrically opposed world views have conveniently intersected.

One one side stands Rubio, McCain, Bush, Graham, the GOP establishment, the CATO institute, Grover Norquist, and the chambers of commerce who all want to open America's borders to a virtually unending supply of cheap, low-skilled laborers for the purposes of replacing America's native unskilled workforce and driving up profits for unscrupulous and inefficient businesses.  They care not that those workers will become a burden on the country's welfare systems, will drive up medical care costs, education costs, and overflow our prisons.

On the other side stands those on the far left like President Obama, La Raza, the NAACP, SEIU, AFL/CIO, and SPLC who want to replace what they call the privileged class, white Christians, with uneducated third-worlders who will be much more apt to voting them the power to redistribute wealth and enshrine their rule.  They care not that those immigrants will bring with them their hatred of America and the west and that they will drive down wages for their union worker supporters.

In both cases greed drives their motivations.  The right side wants to redirect wealth from the low-skilled workforce to the 1%.  The left side wants to take wealth from the middle-class and redistribute it to their protected classes.

Opponents, on the other hand, want to allow the US labor market forces to go to work by bringing up wages to meet what the market demands and to lower the already sky high unemployment rate among low skilled workers, which sits at 12% for those with no high school diploma and 8.8% for those with a high school degree but no secondary education. [2]  They also want to protect the safety and welfare of America's native population by preventing potential terrorists from being allowed to legally or illegally enter the country. Finally, they want to preserve America's unique culture and ideals which have given rise to the most prosperous nation in history, one that has brought more people out of poverty than all others before it.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Don't forget, 9-11 was an immigration issue too. So Boston should not be taken as an isolated case.