Foxy yokels
'The tragedy is that the compromise bill was written to bring these restrictionists along, with punitive, detestable provisions that many supporters of comprehensive reform agreed to endorse for the sake of a “grand bargain.” The bill was badly flawed but fixable, as long as there was the possibility of leadership and courage in Congress.'
Gee, you mean the racist yokels wouldn't go along with the detestable, badly flawed, fixable compromise? You mean they, too, thought it was fixable, only they didn't like the fix? That sounds a lot like the immigration plan itself. "Yeah, yeah, shut the border, pay a fine (oh, how detestable). Can we issue the visas now?"
posted by ColumbusGuy @ 3:31 AM
1 Comments:
I'm in favor of immigration reform, but the Times editorial was incomprehensible.
Even they find the bill detestable, but then they complain the Senators who stopped it offered nothing better. I see, stopping a detestable bill in an area where laws should be passed is a bad thing.
Then, mindlessly, they keep claiming the Republicans killed the bill with their amendments. Forget that the Democrats also included amendments (supported by Senate leader Harry Reid) they promised they wouldn't. It all doesn't matter anyway, since it was a cloture vote that failed, not a vote on any amendment--they only got 45 votes to start the voting! You can't blame the Republicans when the Democrats are the majority.
Then, of course, there's the fact that the public, when properly polled, opposes the bill about 2-1--even though the Times states Amercans support the bill "in principle."
And why do we support the bill, allegedly? Because of "restoring the rule of law [by declaring breaking the law is no longer illegal], enhancing security [by encouraing those who break the law], easing the pressure on the border [easing pressure? I thought we were going to enforce the border] and giving immigrants hope [I want to give Americans and legal immigrants hope, not those who flout the law]."
If the Times wants a bill passed, they can support a true compromise--five years of enforcement, and if that works, we'll talk about what to do with the rest of the comprehensive plan.
Post a Comment
<< Home