- The Washington Times - Thursday, April 13, 2006

Is the debate on Capitol Hill about immigration a sincere one? Are the politicians seriously pondering the fate of this nation of laws or are they more interested in their political hides?

Those are the very questions American citizens should be asking themselves every time the John McCains use the “I” word. If you’re a card-carrying member of the McCain clan then you believe, as Mexico’s president does and as Mr. McCain recently said, that there “are certain jobs that Americans are simply not willing to do.”

The senator from Arizona stands with the elistists and liberals, whose point of view is: Let the immigrants do the dirty work — cleaning toilets, picking cotton, er, produce, and let them suckle the young ones. Mr. McCain knows he can’t win over the conservatives come 2008.

So what does he do? He gets in bed with Ted Kennedy. As Big Mama would say: “John, the hired help has made your bed, now lie in it.”

If you’re in search of a senator with presidential aspirations who is at least standing on moral, principled ground, look to the South. Sen. George Allen of Virginia, put it this way recently on ABC’s “This Week”: “I think it’s vitally important that we first and foremost recognize that there’s a consensus in America that we need to secure our borders.” The Republican, who is up for re-election to his Senate seat, also said, “I don’t think that we ought to be passing anything that rewards illegal behavior or amnesty. Is that different than the president’s position? Apparently so.”

There are other talking points that the great deliberators and the conservatives and liberals who advise them aren’t talking about. The preamble to the National Governors Association’s position on immigration: “The nation’s Governors recognize the important contribution immigrants have made and continue to make to our nation. Although the federal government has the primary role in directing overall policy regarding immigration and refugees, the effects of such policy on local communities present challenges that cannot be ignored by the states. These challenges include demands for education, job training, social and health services, and other assistance designed to promote the integration of immigrants into our communities.

“Decisions regarding the admission and placement of legal immigrants and refugees rest solely with the federal government. Similarly, the illegal entry of other individuals also is a direct responsibility of the federal government. Therefore, the federal government is expected to accept full financial and other responsibilities regarding illegal entrants, immigrants, and refugees as prescribed by law.”

Now, since the federal government is of, by and for Americans, who, do you suspect, will end up paying the “full financial” costs of tending to illegal aliens?

And how about this. While eyes and ears are focused on organizations that translate what Arab-speaking terrorists are saying, here’s a peek at what’s being said right here at home. These inciteful words are courtesy of the March 30 “We have got to eliminate the gringos” piece in NewsWithViews.com: “The words above were spoken by Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of the La Raza Unida political party. His full comment was: ‘We have an aging white America … They are dying … We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.’ ”

If you’re still in the McCain camp, please, read along: “In a column dated March 25, 2006, by Ernesto Cienguegos titled ‘La Gran Marcha’ surpasses all expectations,” Cienguegos wrote: ‘What does the immense success of “La Gran Marcha” mean to Mexicanos and other Latinos? It simply means that we now have the numbers, the political will and the organizational skills to direct our own destinies and not be subservient to the White and Jewish power structures. It means that we can now undertake bigger and more significant mass actions to achieve total political and economic liberation like that being proposed by Juan Jose Gutierrez, President of Movimiento Latino USA. Juan Jose Gutierrez is proposing that the coalition that organized “La Gran Marcha” meet in Arizona or Texas on April 8 to “organize a mass boycott (huelga) against the economy of the USA” to take place on May 5 or 19.’ ”

Now, if it weren’t for the First Amendment of America’s Constitution — Got that? America’s Constitution — both the professor and his compadre would be in a heap of trouble as seditionists. But the yellowbellies on Capitol Hill and in the White House — and those advising both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — fail to see the clear and present danger because their eyes are trained on the midterm elections and 2008.

Republicans can’t be counted on to do anything about illegal aliens because they want the cheap labor, and Democrats can’t be counted on because they want the Hispanic vote. (Some of them inside the Beltway say I’m being an alarmist, too emotional, to be taken seriously. Others say I’m a racist on a xenophobic mission. I say continue on. Make my day.)

The easiest way to sort out politicians and commentators on the immigration invasion is with keywords. Those who support amnesty, guest-worker programs and the lawlessness on our borders repeatedly use such terms as “undocumented workers,” “hard working,” “misdemeanor,” “nation of immigrants,”“comprehensive immigration reform” and “illegal immigrants.” People who enter our country illegally are not immigrants; they are illegal aliens. On the other hand, those who support securing our borders and stand whole in the name of law and order use terms like “illegal aliens,” “deportation” and “felony.”

Don’t think for a second that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to go wobbly. Republicans will likely cave first since they have the most to lose.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide