- The Washington Times - Sunday, May 28, 2006

The Senate’s ‘shamnesty’

So the Senate has labored long and hard to bring forth the 1986 illegal-alien amnesty bill, or at least a reasonable facsimile (“Senate OKs citizenship for illegal aliens,” Page 1, Friday). What train of logic would lead them to believe that a failed policy passed during Ronald Reagan’s presidency would work any better today?

Some of the verbiage seems to come straight from the 1986 bill. In twenty years, the Heritage Foundation predicted, the country will be flooded with 66 million new immigrants.

What would make these honorable senators believe that the American people would want to bestow citizenship on a bunch of Mexican flag-wavers? By waving those Mexican flags they acknowledge their loyalty lies with Mexico, not the Constitution of the United States. And I am supposed to agree to agree to give 12 million of these fifth-columnists the right to vote?

Perhaps I am expecting too much. After all, they are voting illegally in our elections already. Of all the crimes illegals are committing in this country, voting illegally should get them deported immediately.

I don’t care what party you hail from. Illegal immigration is the most important issue of the coming congressional and presidential elections. Conservatives currently considering leaving the Republican Party should wait until the presidential primaries are over so they can vote for Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican. He is the main opponent of uncontrolled borders and illegal immigration and will finally do what the American people are demanding — to close the borders.

We as a people and a country had better wake up or weare going to get what we deserve.


Helendale, Calif.

As Rep. Dana Rohrabacher implies (“The ‘shamnesty’ legislation,” Thursday, Commentary), given the Senate’s recklessness on immigration, there appear to be some real, concrete advantages to being an illegal alien these days. Just look at the goodies in the Senate’s bill.

In-state tuition: You have to pay more if you’re a citizen from another state. Higher pay: You get the prevailing wage if you’re a guest worker. Job security: You can’t be fired except for cause if you an agricultural worker. Retirement: You, your spouse and dependent children get Social Security and survivor benefits even if you’ve never paid a dime into the program. Taxes: Having taxpayers fund organizations that will advocate for even more taxpayer-funded programs for you and your fellow illegals.

I’ve thought of a few more benefits that come with “illegal-alienhood.” Greater privacy and anonymity: You can get a driver’s license in the state of Maryland without having to prove you’re in the country legally. You can receive government benefits without having to give up personal information or risk identity theft (like the poor veterans whose data was stolen courtesy of sloppy government bureaucrats). Get support from sympathetic politicians and media: Citizens who advocate for America’s sovereignty are labeled racists, nativists or xenophobes. Taxpayer-supported care for the elderly: Those receiving amnesty get to bring their elderly parents into the country and enroll them in Medicare even as it verges on bankruptcy.

Yes — it appears from Mr. Rohrabacher’s comments that, thanks to the Senate, American citizenship really is overrated.


Montgomery Village

Imperial Japan and today’s Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s view on Iran can be paraphrased: Human indifference would allow Iran enough time to develop nuclear capabilities to carry out Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threats of annihilation (“Olmert offers ‘bold ideas,’” Page 1, Tuesday). Tensions over this possibility prompted discussions toward a common front at the U.N. Security Council — discussions which were unsuccessful.

The diplomatic posturing between Iran and theworldis reminiscent of that between Japan and the United States in the autumn of 1941. As Japan was preparing for its covert attack on the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, it was leading America into a false sense of security — the belief that its intentions were peaceable. Is this the same tactic now being used by Iran? Iran could well be trying to the wool over the West’s eyes as it builds its nuclear program.

Israel’s June 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, Operation Opera, occurred only after months of diplomacy failed to halt the construction of this reactor facility capable of creating bomb-quality fissionable material.

We are now stuck between a rock and a hard place. How does one defeat a nation ready to die in a nuclear Holocaust as it brings down the rest of humanity with it?

We must learn from history to jointly oppose theocratic rulers who wish to decimate our planet for their religious beliefs and not kowtow to them.



Republican base’s foolhardy threats

Of particular interest in columnist Suzanne Fields’ Op-Ed on Sen. John McCain’s commencement addresses and the rude response was her observation on how Mr. McCain’s reconciliation with a former enemy (“The ‘shared ideals’ of a hero, Thursday) with whom the senator ended up working “together for [their] shared ideals.” She concludes: “That’s the lesson we must hope the noisy students one day learn.” The same could be said for the conservative political base of President Bush.

The immigration debate in Congress is a case in point. The president supports a comprehensive approach that addresses border security and eventual citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants already in our country. Many Americans, including much of the president’s base, believe his plan to control the border is too weak, and his plan for the resident illegals is nothing short of amnesty.

Unhappy with the president’s approach to immigration, absenteeism from the polls on November 7 is being threatened by many of those who previously supported him. This reaction by so-called Bush loyalists is an example of cutting off your nose to spite your face, not to mention overlooking shared ideals. It also reminds me of the childishness of the graduates who turned their backs on Mr. McCain.



Motives, lies and expertise

I read Patrick Michaels’s Commentary “Gore’s Inconvenient Lie” (Wednesday) with interest because it lays bare the choices we have to make every day. What urgent exaggerations should we answer? I think we are all familiar with recent appeals that used exaggeration, even outright mistruths, to create a sense of urgency. Why shouldn’t scientists and their allies use the same methods when urgency is called for?

I find it interesting though that this writer used the failure of the New Orleans levees as an example of things that lead to growing public mistrust of the scientific elite. After all, before Katrina, there were those arguing for the urgency of building up the levees in New Orleans. The article paints a picture of how those proponents might have been met with deaf ears.

Like the environmental scientists described in the piece, their motives were probably called into question. Why listen to folks who are dedicated to their jobs and benefit in someway from this sense of urgency? And, let’s not forget, if they succeed in their arguments, we will have to shore up the levees, and that will be expensive. Of course in this case, inaction was still expensive. Should we now mistrust the scientists or engineers even more, or should we start mistrusting a bit more those who make a career of casting suspicion on their motives?



Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide