Friday, May 18, 2007

The S.F. Chronicle - Predictably - Supports Immigration Anarchy

The San Francisco Chronicle weighed in on the immigration debate in today's editorial, and, no surprise, has come down in favor of the criminals...

Mending Fences on Immigration

Friday, May 18, 2007

NOTHING LIKE it has been seen in the history of this republic: lawmakers from both sides of the immigration debate agreeing (MORE LIKE SURRENDERING) to legalize 12 million illegal immigrants in a single initiative (COMMONLY REFERRED TO BY THOSE WITHOUT AGENDAS AS AN 'AMNESTY').

The obstacle course laid out for those immigrants to become permanent residents -- let alone citizens -- seems unnecessarily tortuous (GOD FORBID THEY WOULD HAVE HAVE TO DISPLAY EVEN THE SLIGHTEST RESPECT FOR AMERICAN LAWS).

Yet this agreement vastly overshadows the last time Congress seriously grappled (AND FAILED MISERABLY) with the challenge of illegal migration -- the 1986 Immigration and Reform and Control Act, which provided a path toward citizenship for some 3 million illegal immigrants (AND OPENED THE FLOODGATES TO THE 12 MILLION NOW HERE).

This is one of the few instances where the reforms being proposed can be rightly described as (TREASONOUS) "comprehensive." The last occasion such a thoroughgoing overhaul of federal law has been attempted was when Congress ended welfare as we knew it a decade ago (AND SHIFTED THE RECIPIENTS FROM AMERICANS TO MEXICANS).

Our immigration system, which until now has been overwhelmingly based on the principle of "family unification," would begin to tilt toward awarding a larger number of visas to immigrants with job skills to offer. It would introduce a "point" system, such as the one in place in Canada and Australia. In about eight years, some 40 percent of all permanent-residence visas would be issued based on employment skills. That's triple the current number (BUT UNTIL THEN THE CURRENT SYSTEM, ALLOWING IMMIGRANTS TO BRING IN LARGE NUMBERS OF THEIR VERY EXTENDED FAMILIES WILL STILL BE IN PLACE AND PROBABLY ACCELERATED TO HISTORIC LEVELS).

At the same time, it is far too soon to declare "victory" (FOR MEXICO) on any of the agreement's provisions. Despite Tuesday's triumphant announcement, many of the details (OF OUR SURRENDER) are still being worked out.

As Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the Migration Policy Institute, and an influential player in the immigration debate for many years, pointed out, "As we all know, when it comes to immigration, the devil is in the details."

Some of those "details" include the temporary or guest-worker provisions of the agreement, which requires workers to return to their home countries after working here for just two years (A USELESS PROVISION THAT EVEN I FAIL TO SEE THE LOGIC BEHIND - I SUPPOSE THE CONSERVATIVES FEEL IT'S NECESSARY TO COUNTER THE DEMOCRATS' PLANS TO MAKE EVERY IMMIGRANT WORKER PERMANENT). They'd have to stay there for a full year before being allowed to return. The limitations on which family members would be eligible for permanent residence must also be scrutinized (AND COMPLETELY ELIMINATED, MAKING OUR SURRENDER TOTAL).

Other "details" are how the point system will be established -- and who will be the winners and losers under such a system (IT'S CLEAR WHO WILL BE THE LOSERS... AMERICAN WORKERS).

Another key detail will be how to craft the legislation so that it does not invite another cycle of illegal immigration, as occurred after the 1986 reform (WHY WOULD THE CHRONICLE CARE? INVITING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS HAS BEEN THEIR RAISON D'ETRE LATELY).

The details, however, should not obscure the central accomplishment, which was to figure out a way around the "amnesty" bogeyman (WHILE STILL PASSING AN AMNESTY) that has blocked meaningful immigration reform for most of the past decade (ACTUALLY, ONLY THE LAST 2 YEARS, WHEN IT BECAME TOO BIG A PROBLEM TO IGNORE ANY LONGER).

The agreement affirms a principle that has been at the core of America since its founding: that this is a nation of immigrants, regardless of where they came from or how they reached our shores (...AND HOW MANY LAWS THEY'VE BROKEN? IS THE CHRONICLE REALLY ADVOCATING ANARCHY HERE?)

No comments: