.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Heavy-Handed Politics

"€œGod willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world
without the United States and Zionism."€ -- Iran President Ahmadi-Nejad

Saturday, September 16, 2006

This is not a serious party anymore, Part 2

The House just recently approved building 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. "The time to address the border-security emergency is now ....." said House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. The border-fence bill passed fairly overwhelmingly on a 283-138 vote. A large majority of House Republicans voted in favor of it and were joined by 64 Democrats; only six Republicans voted against it.

The bill (called the Security Fence Act) calls for a double layered fence along 700 miles of the southern border. In addition, the bill also changes current Border Patrol policy and would allow agents to use force to disable vehicles along the border, trying to evade border patrol. The measure also incorporates approval to make use of cameras, ground sensors, and UAV's to observe the border.

The 'Not Serious Party' brushed aside the vote calling it "another political gimmick" by House Republicans. Yep, monitoring, patrolling, and controlling the border to keep Americans safe, is nothing more than political gimmickry to the Democrats.

House Dems called the 700-mile fence a new "Berlin wall." This argument is so disingenuous. I don't know if it is intellectual dishonesty or mere ignorance. We all know that the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in; many of whom wanted to get the hell out. This proposed wall is to keep people out, specifically those who might want to do us harm. Our government is constitutionally bound to do this – to keep us safe.

The Dems also wailed that it would drive illegal crossers “deep into the dangerous desert” looking for an unobstructed crossing. Here the Dems are using a page right out of the left's play book – emotion. Not just emotion, but an over reliance on compassion – to the exclusion of everything else. We're compassionate, you're not. You're mean. End of story. Nothing else matters. Forget the facts. Our possible safety, the social and economic costs of illegal immigrants do not matter. Compassion trumps all.

Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a California Democrat, argued, "It does nothing to secure our northern border." I have heard this type of argument before, and frankly, it causes me to go crazy. Let's hope local law enforcement does not fall into this mind numbing paralysis. If they come across someone getting raped, I pray they don't choose to ignore it because there are several more rapes going on somewhere across the metro area, and because we can't stop them all, we are going to allow this particular rape to continue. What kind of argument is this?

As Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr., Virginia Republican, who strongly supported the measure, said, "It's about a thousand miles short of where it ought to be," he said, "but I'll take 700 miles."

He is exactly right. We cannot allow the search 'for the perfect solution' to become our enemy.

Earlier when the House approved another similar border-security legislation, the proposed fence came to symbolize what many Democrats said “was an unforgiving bill”. It was proof, they said, that “Republicans harbored a hostility toward immigrants.” Again, emoting, name calling, lack of compassion, i.e, 'unforgiving bill' and 'harboring hostility'. No real substance here, just feelings.

More than 20 Dems switched their position. Earlier, they opposed the fence on the first piece of legislation, but voted in favor of it this time around. Several of those who changed their position, face tough elections this fall. One such example is Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-TN) who is running for a Senate seat this election cycle. He said, “For the country to be secure, we have to have control over who gets in and who's allowed to stay.”

Mr. Ford became a bit prickly when he was asked why he changed his mind and if it had anything to do with his upcoming election. State polls show support for tough immigration policies.

Another example is Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, a West Virginia Democrat. When a reporter found him waiting in a remote set of hallways (a coincidence, I'm sure) waiting for an elevator, the reporter asked him why he changed his vote. What was his immediate response? "How did you find me?" Hmmmm.......what a nice guilty-sounding response.

“After gathering his thoughts for a moment, he said he supported yesterday's fence bill because it 'makes a statement for consideration' of increased funding and even tougher illegal-immigration enforcement measures. Mr. Mollohan, who faces a challenge from the right this fall, not only voted against the fence last year but also voted against the entire House border-security bill.”

A third Demo who changed his mind is Rep. James P. Moran (D-VA). He voted against the first bill, but voted for this most recent measure. Why?

He reports that during the August recess, he attended four different town hall meetings and illegal immigration dominated the topic of conversation. "The people who spoke up were almost unanimously opposed to illegal immigration," he said. However, the upcoming elections have nothing to do with his change of heart, he claims. Oh, really?

"Voting against the fences would have helped me more politically," Mr. Moran said.

Huh? Nice try. Well not really.


Post a Comment

<< Home