Webloggin » The Problem With Labeling Those Who Oppose The Senate Immigration Bill

Ok, the smoke has cleared a bit and people (i.e. conservatives) are apparently turning on each other over the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill. This has to be something like winning the lottery to Democrats and I hope cooler heads prevail as the debate continues (including my ability to do such myself).

Labels are a funny thing because they can actually do more damage than the what is being opposed itself. Recall back during the Dubai Ports deal that those who opposed it were called racists by none other than Republicans who were in favor of such a deal. The label was an unfair attack and proved to be no more than an unjustified attempt to shut down debate.

Tonight those who oppose the latest Senate Bill are being labeled as hardliners. Yes I know that Ed Morrissey was using this phrase earlier when I tracked his article but I often link to him and others when they have opposing views because it is debate after all. We are nothing if we can’t disagree and still learn from each other.

But the term hardliner has already had a reverberating effect. The Anchoress, whom I love for her writing style, insights and values, is using the term albeit she is including the good Captain’s text as well. But the label is being applied. Big Lizards brushed aside the phrase hard liner and reached straight for “the boys who cried ‘amnesty!“. This is a bit derisive and serves little purpose other than to chastise those who oppose the Senate bill. After having read his compilation of sources and others that seek to explain exactly what this bill means the picture that is emerging is hardly amenable to everyone. Opposition should be expected without the need for labels.

Unfortunately many comments on these other blogs indicate that some readers will no longer support them. That is unfortunate and I hope it is just idle blowing of steam because blogs are about opinion and we all have different points of view (although we here at Webloggin are always looking for more traffic, hint, hint :-). Don’t be afraid to read those who disagree with you or even fear being wrong in your own opinions, it happens and the purpose of debate is to enlighten others as well as yourself.

Opposition to this plan shouldn’t come with a label and I suppose support for it shouldn’t either; for that I am guilty but only with scorn for people in Congress and not for my fellow bloggers. And therein lies the difference to me. For many of us it appears that Congress is once again acting out of allegiances that are not in line with the specific party base. It’s as if the voice of the people does not exist. The only way to get them to pay attention is to get a little worked up. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.

Appropriate Opposition

I am hardly a hard liner on immigration although I vehemently oppose some of the provisions of what we are being told about this bill. Let’s be clear, none of us have seen the actual text of the legislation, by all accounts that may take days. Be that as it may I am a realist. I understand that compromise will be needed on immigration and that we are not going to send back most of those who are already in this country illegally. That isn’t even close to what I am upset about.

Much of tonight’s discussion is focusing on the amnesty provision without really discussing what amnesty means. There are degrees of amnesty, down from the chain immigration and how many people are considered under the umbrella of family and the various perks being given to those who are allowed to stay. This is where I become labeled as a hard liner. All of a sudden people are not discussing the Dream Act provisions that will give these people in-state tuition; something I am not even sure I understand. Why do we need a special exemption for illegal immigrants when our own legally residing citizens a mere state away aren’t awarded such a privilege? This makes no sense.

What does make sense is that those who are here legally, that means by having gone through the various enforcement and documentation requirements of whatever comes out of Congress, get to pick a state where they intend to seek residence and apply for in state tuition at those schools. By no means should we be using American taxpayer money to fund those that are here illegally. Spare me the “they pay taxes” speech. I have worked along side them and know for a fact that most do not. I do not begrudge them because it is the businesses that have set it up this way. Regardless, illegal immigrants should not be afforded the perks of American citizens.

But this discussion goes way beyond University tuition. Our public schools are overburdened by a lack of resources. I have heard many a politician and Board of Education member state that schools need more money. If they need more money now what will happen when the influx of Spanish speaking immigrants flood our schools? Well we don’t have to wonder; it has already happened and our children are paying the price. If the chained immigration exemptions take affect we can probably expect more children in our schools and not less. There is no mention about how this bill plans to solve that issue. We are just being told that all is good. Don’t worry they will pay a fine and everybody can harmoniously get along.

But we all know that this is lip service. The Democrats and the ACLU will make sure that we don’t treat these people any differently; we will have to find a way to adjust to their needs instead of it being the other way around. This is a fear based on precedent.

The other problem is that the current state of the United States immigration system is in complete disarray. Who in their right mind believes that a new layer of bureaucracy will do what previous “reform bills” have failed to do? Which leads us to the problem of preventing a new wave of illegal immigrants.

Big Lizards correctly notes that 370 miles of additional border fence are required before either regularization of illegal aliens or enactment of the temporary-worker program can occur. This is the same talking point that Senator Kyl made when he appeared on Hugh Hewitt this evening. That may sound all fine and dandy but he is talking about this in terms of 18 months or so. In other words we will not even get half of what was originally planned for another year and a half! Does this seem right?

How in the world are we going to stop another wave of illegal immigrants if we can’t control the border? There is no mention as to whether or not the border patrol will be able to actually enforce the border with clear cut rules of enforcement or if it will be more of the same where we prosecute our own law enforcement personnel. The trend is to do as little as possible to control the situation. I have yet to see how this will change.

It seems to me that Congress is running away from the issue of border security in their haste to normalize the existing population of illegals. There is much talk about getting the existing pool of illegals documented on the path to citizenship but it seems that there is a bit of a hole where border security is concerned. So I guess the border is all secure and that the threats of lax security are just a figment of my hardlined imagination.

Call me a cynic but I think that any plan to reform immigration should be centered around border security first for many reasons; the least of which being stopping the next wave of illegals and the highest priority being potential terrorism and gangs.

So for me it is a necessary opposition. The government has done little to convince me that they mean business in the past so why should I trust them now? Especially considering that the politicians are a bit standoffish on the details.

Today’s immigration problem is a creation of previous lies courtesy of people such as Ted Kennedy all the way back to some of the first attempts at reforming illegal immigration. So excuse me if I am a hardliner. For that I do not apologize. It is up to the government to show me that they actually mean business and up to now I have seen nothing to make me feel comfortable about this bill.