John Kyl's taking heat, and rightly so
John Kyl is an senator from Arizona, the state Marcie and I reside in. He's attached to this boodoggle of a legislative nightmare known as "bipartisan immigration reform." And brother, is he taking some heat over this ...,/li>
Angry calls poured into Senator Jon Kyl’s office this week by the thousands, expressing outrage beyond anything he said he had witnessed in his 20-year political career. The callers were inflamed by Mr. Kyl’s role in shaping the bipartisan immigration compromise announced May 17, which lawmakers continue to debate.
“Yes, I have learned some new words from some of my constituents,” Mr. Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said at a news conference on Thursday, drawing titters from those in the room.
Mr. Kyl, 65, who garners top ratings from conservative groups every year, is the unlikely linchpin to the fragile alliance of Democrats and Republicans trying to push the sprawling immigration bill through the Senate.
Labeled by its backers as the “grand bargain,” the measure has the potential to be the most far-reaching piece of domestic legislation taken up by the Senate this year.
An ardent foe of the immigration bill that passed the Senate last year but was later stymied by House Republicans, Mr. Kyl is seen as essential to attracting conservative Republicans to the new proposal. As his party’s conference chairman, Mr. Kyl is the third-ranking Republican in the Senate and a fervent spokesman for conservative principles.
Although the bill’s backers have praised Mr. Kyl for his political courage, his about-face was not ushered in by either a high-minded refusal to demagogue on the issue or a conscious summoning of historic compromises from the Senate’s past.
A technocrat who has labored in Arizona in the shadow of his much more visible colleague, Senator John McCain, Mr. Kyl has traditionally shunned the spotlight and worked behind the scenes immersed in the details of legislation. It was that affinity for working in the trenches on policy, and pragmatism about the art of legislating, that led him to become a legislative partner of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who has been a major voice for immigration overhaul.
After winning a bruising re-election battle last November in which immigration featured prominently, Mr. Kyl said he returned to the Senate convinced that something needed to be done on the issue. Inaction was no longer an option, he said.
“The situation in Arizona is horrible today,” he said in an interview.
Mr. Kyl said he also realized that his approach needed to change, now that Republicans were a minority in the Senate. With or without him, Mr. Kennedy and others in the new Democratic majority were poised to draw up immigration legislation that Mr. Kyl knew he would dislike.
OK, before the nutter go off half-cocked here, let me just say that we recognize that something has to be done about those here illegally. Amnesty, especially the sort that is being pushed in the Senate, isn't a viable option. The Heritage Foundation has reviewed the bill draft. Hugh Hewitt dissected the snot out of it. We spent the first weekend it was available printing and reading the thing. We agree that if this bill goes through as is with only minor corrections, this will be a disaster for the nation.
YES, we need some sort of regularization of the illegals here in America right now, but amnesty isn't the answer. Granting them amnesty on back taxes owed isn't the answer, and allowing them to have social security benefits, bbased on their past work in this nation, isn't the answer. That portion of the bill needs to go through a complete overhaul. And despite the cries and caterwauling from those on the conservative side of the aisle -- from some very good people we know well -- deportation isn't the answer either. You'll never find them all to deport them, in the first place. Secondly, what of those people who have married citizens, and had children? Please, let's think this through sensibly.
The smarter approach would be to divide the overall issue into two parts. The first should completely focus on security and enforcement. The second should focus on the status of the people here. The security aspect of this proposed legislation is what has us far more concerned than anything else. Without a secure nation, we're vulnerable to our enemies. Worse, we're vulnerable to those we don't even know are enemies yet, like those that Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong-Il might employ to hurt us. This is what we're talking about, and some people are missing this point. We're not being alarmists here; we're being realists. There are people out there that want to kill us and hurt this nation in ways that only Tom Clancy could cook up. Because of that, security comes first, and that means that those involved in protecting and securing our borders have to be serious about it.
That includes the president, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, Secretary Chertoff, and of course the Congress. Right now. we're not seeing it. And that's why Senator Kyl is taking heat. I said he deserves it. He does. I mean it. As voters int he state of Arizona -- voters that helped the Kyl campaign in 2006 -- we're not happy with this bill. We've let him, his secretaries, and his aides know this. This bill stinks. It needs an overhaul, and we're not seeing much of that coming from Congress. That has to change. Hopefully the good senator from Arizona has learned more than just "new words" from his constituents.
Hopefully he takes their wisdom and concerns to the Senate, and starts pushing for an overhaul of the bill. If not, and this bill goes through with the amnesty intact, and lax security still there, when we are hit again, we'll know the right guys to blame in Congress. And yes, I do mean "when," not "if." It's virtually assured, and seemingly invited.
Publius II
Angry calls poured into Senator Jon Kyl’s office this week by the thousands, expressing outrage beyond anything he said he had witnessed in his 20-year political career. The callers were inflamed by Mr. Kyl’s role in shaping the bipartisan immigration compromise announced May 17, which lawmakers continue to debate.
“Yes, I have learned some new words from some of my constituents,” Mr. Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said at a news conference on Thursday, drawing titters from those in the room.
Mr. Kyl, 65, who garners top ratings from conservative groups every year, is the unlikely linchpin to the fragile alliance of Democrats and Republicans trying to push the sprawling immigration bill through the Senate.
Labeled by its backers as the “grand bargain,” the measure has the potential to be the most far-reaching piece of domestic legislation taken up by the Senate this year.
An ardent foe of the immigration bill that passed the Senate last year but was later stymied by House Republicans, Mr. Kyl is seen as essential to attracting conservative Republicans to the new proposal. As his party’s conference chairman, Mr. Kyl is the third-ranking Republican in the Senate and a fervent spokesman for conservative principles.
Although the bill’s backers have praised Mr. Kyl for his political courage, his about-face was not ushered in by either a high-minded refusal to demagogue on the issue or a conscious summoning of historic compromises from the Senate’s past.
A technocrat who has labored in Arizona in the shadow of his much more visible colleague, Senator John McCain, Mr. Kyl has traditionally shunned the spotlight and worked behind the scenes immersed in the details of legislation. It was that affinity for working in the trenches on policy, and pragmatism about the art of legislating, that led him to become a legislative partner of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who has been a major voice for immigration overhaul.
After winning a bruising re-election battle last November in which immigration featured prominently, Mr. Kyl said he returned to the Senate convinced that something needed to be done on the issue. Inaction was no longer an option, he said.
“The situation in Arizona is horrible today,” he said in an interview.
Mr. Kyl said he also realized that his approach needed to change, now that Republicans were a minority in the Senate. With or without him, Mr. Kennedy and others in the new Democratic majority were poised to draw up immigration legislation that Mr. Kyl knew he would dislike.
OK, before the nutter go off half-cocked here, let me just say that we recognize that something has to be done about those here illegally. Amnesty, especially the sort that is being pushed in the Senate, isn't a viable option. The Heritage Foundation has reviewed the bill draft. Hugh Hewitt dissected the snot out of it. We spent the first weekend it was available printing and reading the thing. We agree that if this bill goes through as is with only minor corrections, this will be a disaster for the nation.
YES, we need some sort of regularization of the illegals here in America right now, but amnesty isn't the answer. Granting them amnesty on back taxes owed isn't the answer, and allowing them to have social security benefits, bbased on their past work in this nation, isn't the answer. That portion of the bill needs to go through a complete overhaul. And despite the cries and caterwauling from those on the conservative side of the aisle -- from some very good people we know well -- deportation isn't the answer either. You'll never find them all to deport them, in the first place. Secondly, what of those people who have married citizens, and had children? Please, let's think this through sensibly.
The smarter approach would be to divide the overall issue into two parts. The first should completely focus on security and enforcement. The second should focus on the status of the people here. The security aspect of this proposed legislation is what has us far more concerned than anything else. Without a secure nation, we're vulnerable to our enemies. Worse, we're vulnerable to those we don't even know are enemies yet, like those that Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong-Il might employ to hurt us. This is what we're talking about, and some people are missing this point. We're not being alarmists here; we're being realists. There are people out there that want to kill us and hurt this nation in ways that only Tom Clancy could cook up. Because of that, security comes first, and that means that those involved in protecting and securing our borders have to be serious about it.
That includes the president, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, Secretary Chertoff, and of course the Congress. Right now. we're not seeing it. And that's why Senator Kyl is taking heat. I said he deserves it. He does. I mean it. As voters int he state of Arizona -- voters that helped the Kyl campaign in 2006 -- we're not happy with this bill. We've let him, his secretaries, and his aides know this. This bill stinks. It needs an overhaul, and we're not seeing much of that coming from Congress. That has to change. Hopefully the good senator from Arizona has learned more than just "new words" from his constituents.
Hopefully he takes their wisdom and concerns to the Senate, and starts pushing for an overhaul of the bill. If not, and this bill goes through with the amnesty intact, and lax security still there, when we are hit again, we'll know the right guys to blame in Congress. And yes, I do mean "when," not "if." It's virtually assured, and seemingly invited.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home