In A Candid Moment, the WSJ Editors Go On the Attack
Hat-Tip to Bryan @ Hot Air for posting this candid video. I recommend that all of our readers go there, and endure the seven-and-a-half minutes of the editors coming out against National Review and "the Right" for the stance taken against this immigration bill. If I may offer this statement from Paul Gigot as evidence of their inherent inability to understand the reasoning behind our raucous disagreement:
"The Right isn't even rational about this anymore. It doesn't really make arguments about this or that part of the bill. Now it's just that we don't want any kind of immigration reform ..."
That is bunk. It is a misnomer to state, and thereby assume, that we are not arguing against aspects of this bill. the vast majority of conservative pundits and bloggers have brought up a sngular concern that people, like the editors at the Journal, have pooh-poohed. Enforcement and security. As we have asked repeatedly, why are we now to believe the government when they say there will be a strict stance of enforcement and security where none has existed int he past?
John Fund brings up the point, and Mr. Gigot runs with it, that our side is demanding enforcement against employers for employing illegal aliens. He brings up how OSHA ran rampant until Ronald Reagan curtailed their efforts, and that we could expect a similar effort from those that would crack-down on businesses. Basically, we are being labled as very "Business unfriendly" in this regard. Why is it that employers should not bear their responsibility if they hire illegal aliens?
On the flip side, with the slipshod manner with which background checks would be carried out, I cannot fault an employer if his check comes back clean, only to learn later through the enforcement arm of DHS, or whatever agency would handle such things, that his employee(s) may not be legal. It is not the employer's fault if the check comes back clean when he tries it, but later is told that things have arisen, and he is to be fined. This si another aspect of the bill that is inherently faulty. On the flip side, he sounds like the most rational member of the editorial board in this short video clip. At least he can see this from both perspectives whereas the others who spoke up are coming fromt he talking points avenue that the WSJ has provided since the beginning of the debate. (Consequently, this video was made on May 22, 2007; approximately two weeks ago as debate was beginning.)
I would like to correct Mr. Gigot on his assertions. We are offering arguments. They focus on security. that is knowing who is coming in, making sure they do so legally, and preventing any criminals/terrorists from entering this country. The immigration bill proposed has "triggers" in it dealing with security, but with the loopholes that are within it, there are bound to be ways around those triggers. Indeed, the Z Visa alone is a way around it as it can be obtained immediately, with a minimal waiting period for a background check (we have heard 24 to 48 hours for such a check; the bill states 48, but again loopholes can make the wait shorter). If the triggers were true, no Z Visa would be issued until the provisions for the fence were met, the border guards were hired, and the necessary computer databases were established. But that will all go out the window.
The other aspect of security which concerns a great deal of us on the right -- what many have called "security voters" -- is a reminder we live in a post 9/11 world. In this world, nineteen hijackers -- the majority of which were here illegally -- attacked this nation. Four of the six homegrown jihadists in the Fort Dix plot were here illegally. This is a real aspect that is not addressed in the bill, and it is a faulty oversight. It should not be so that we neglect the extra notice that should be given to those fromt he regions of the world where Islamicists live and thrive. They do wish to harm us again, and the threat they pose is real. The "solution" offered int his bill regarding security, however, is not.
The Journal would do itself a great favor if, instead of reading the somewhat unhinged side of our aisle, to read the more down-to-earth opponents. We count ourselves amongst those that believe security and enforcement comes first before we dive into the debate as to what we do with these people. It is impractical and virtually impossible task to "deport them all." Twelve to twenty million have been living in the shadows for years. Those that are discovered face deportation, but most are not. This is a fact backed up by a recent Department of Justice report that examined over 55,000 illegals incarcerated in prison now. In that study, it was found that over sixty percent of them were repeat offenders of six or more times going through the criminal justice system. So I fail to see hwere advocates of this plan can say we have been solid and steady on enforcement.
The Journal editors have a right to their opinion. But to impugn the opponents of this measure as biased, or worse that we are racist, is simply uncalled for. We take pride in our stance, and find it under neither description. No one here, or among those we read, are advocating for things like this. We desire only a sensible and sound solution to a problem that has gone on unchecked for far too long. We are among the "security voters" that understand that this nation is at war with an enemy that knows how to hide in the shadows, and they can perform devastating attacks from those shadows if given the means to execute their operations. This bill would grant them such leeway. That is where our gripe rests.
Marcie
ADDENDUM: Over at JunkYard Blog See-Dubya has more insight. (Be sure to scroll down past the video that he linked on his site instead of stopping at the top of the page with the prelude to the piece.)
"The Right isn't even rational about this anymore. It doesn't really make arguments about this or that part of the bill. Now it's just that we don't want any kind of immigration reform ..."
That is bunk. It is a misnomer to state, and thereby assume, that we are not arguing against aspects of this bill. the vast majority of conservative pundits and bloggers have brought up a sngular concern that people, like the editors at the Journal, have pooh-poohed. Enforcement and security. As we have asked repeatedly, why are we now to believe the government when they say there will be a strict stance of enforcement and security where none has existed int he past?
John Fund brings up the point, and Mr. Gigot runs with it, that our side is demanding enforcement against employers for employing illegal aliens. He brings up how OSHA ran rampant until Ronald Reagan curtailed their efforts, and that we could expect a similar effort from those that would crack-down on businesses. Basically, we are being labled as very "Business unfriendly" in this regard. Why is it that employers should not bear their responsibility if they hire illegal aliens?
On the flip side, with the slipshod manner with which background checks would be carried out, I cannot fault an employer if his check comes back clean, only to learn later through the enforcement arm of DHS, or whatever agency would handle such things, that his employee(s) may not be legal. It is not the employer's fault if the check comes back clean when he tries it, but later is told that things have arisen, and he is to be fined. This si another aspect of the bill that is inherently faulty. On the flip side, he sounds like the most rational member of the editorial board in this short video clip. At least he can see this from both perspectives whereas the others who spoke up are coming fromt he talking points avenue that the WSJ has provided since the beginning of the debate. (Consequently, this video was made on May 22, 2007; approximately two weeks ago as debate was beginning.)
I would like to correct Mr. Gigot on his assertions. We are offering arguments. They focus on security. that is knowing who is coming in, making sure they do so legally, and preventing any criminals/terrorists from entering this country. The immigration bill proposed has "triggers" in it dealing with security, but with the loopholes that are within it, there are bound to be ways around those triggers. Indeed, the Z Visa alone is a way around it as it can be obtained immediately, with a minimal waiting period for a background check (we have heard 24 to 48 hours for such a check; the bill states 48, but again loopholes can make the wait shorter). If the triggers were true, no Z Visa would be issued until the provisions for the fence were met, the border guards were hired, and the necessary computer databases were established. But that will all go out the window.
The other aspect of security which concerns a great deal of us on the right -- what many have called "security voters" -- is a reminder we live in a post 9/11 world. In this world, nineteen hijackers -- the majority of which were here illegally -- attacked this nation. Four of the six homegrown jihadists in the Fort Dix plot were here illegally. This is a real aspect that is not addressed in the bill, and it is a faulty oversight. It should not be so that we neglect the extra notice that should be given to those fromt he regions of the world where Islamicists live and thrive. They do wish to harm us again, and the threat they pose is real. The "solution" offered int his bill regarding security, however, is not.
The Journal would do itself a great favor if, instead of reading the somewhat unhinged side of our aisle, to read the more down-to-earth opponents. We count ourselves amongst those that believe security and enforcement comes first before we dive into the debate as to what we do with these people. It is impractical and virtually impossible task to "deport them all." Twelve to twenty million have been living in the shadows for years. Those that are discovered face deportation, but most are not. This is a fact backed up by a recent Department of Justice report that examined over 55,000 illegals incarcerated in prison now. In that study, it was found that over sixty percent of them were repeat offenders of six or more times going through the criminal justice system. So I fail to see hwere advocates of this plan can say we have been solid and steady on enforcement.
The Journal editors have a right to their opinion. But to impugn the opponents of this measure as biased, or worse that we are racist, is simply uncalled for. We take pride in our stance, and find it under neither description. No one here, or among those we read, are advocating for things like this. We desire only a sensible and sound solution to a problem that has gone on unchecked for far too long. We are among the "security voters" that understand that this nation is at war with an enemy that knows how to hide in the shadows, and they can perform devastating attacks from those shadows if given the means to execute their operations. This bill would grant them such leeway. That is where our gripe rests.
Marcie
ADDENDUM: Over at JunkYard Blog See-Dubya has more insight. (Be sure to scroll down past the video that he linked on his site instead of stopping at the top of the page with the prelude to the piece.)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home