This week, in the course of pandering to and appeasing his White House guest - Mexico's President Calderon - President Obama sequentially undermined Arizona's new immigration law and then expressed sympathy for it. It's a misdirected expression of frustration, he said, at America's broken immigration system. He shares that frustration, he assures us, because he wants "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", but the Republicans are blocking him.
Ah. We're opposing "reform". Heard it before. I've heard it on liberal blogs and on Twitter alternately that either Republicans or the Tea Party or both are blocking "reform".
Guilty. Not all reform. But, I resolutely oppose reform of the Democrat variety.
Mostly, what I've learned about "reform" over the last year is this:
1. Democrat leaders (Obama / Pelosi / Reid) - in the year of Hope and Change - will attach the word "reform" to any major legislation they propose.
2. Democrat rank-and-file will immediately and unquestioningly support the "reform". Whether they have read the actual bills (and they have not). Whether they know if it is actually positive reform or not (and it's not).
3. Democrat leaders and rank-and-file will relentlessly accuse anyone opposing the specific bills offered in legislation of being "opposed to reform".
Well, yes. I have opposed the Democrat version of "reform" several times in the last 17 months.
Yes, I opposed Obama / Pelosi / Reid Health Care "Reform". All of the various versions, and the various 2700 page mish-mashes of corruption and big-government creeping socialism. We were lied to by the leadership of the House & Senate at every stage of the debate about the scope, costs, and corruption in the bills. We are still learning that the only true thing that Nancy Pelosi said during the debates was "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it". Now we're finding out what's in it, including ever-expanding costs predicts that are still not close to real cost of the bill.
That doesn’t mean that I think that America’s health care system doesn’t need reform.
Certainly not the Democrat version that will eventually go a long way toward bankrupting our nation.
Yes, I oppose the financial “reform” bill drafted in the Senate by Chris Dodd.
Does the financial industry bear some responsibility for the economic crash and deserve further regulation to prevent it from happening again? Of course.
But, why would you trust Democrats in Congress, who arguably had more to do with the sub-prime mortgage meltdown, to write financial reforms? Why especially would you trust Chris Dodd – Senator from Country Wide Mortgage, who was knee-deep in the subprime mess – to write a “reform” bill. It’s insane.
And yes, I oppose “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (CIR), as envisioned by the Democrat leadership.
We’ve been down the amnesty road before, and it did not solve the problem. Amnesty is ultimately where CIR is headed again, despite the fiction that Congress can craft a credible “pathway to citizenship” without secure borders.
Let’s be clear, Congress. You do not get CIR until you demonstrate convincingly that you can secure the border. That is already their job, and they have been negligent in that role for the decades – leading to the problems that we have now. Secure the border first!
In fact, we can fashion other versions of “Comprehensive” immigration “reform” than the version that the Democrats are selling. Here’s a plan that can be labeled as “reform”:
1. Secure the border! Build a double fence as far as needed on our 2000 mile southern border. Build at least the 700 miles that was promised in the 2006 bill that was signed into law. Until you can live up to the already-signed law, you can’t have new laws.
2. Enforce current federal law on immigration. Deportations. Workplace enforcement. Etc.
3. Pause legal immigration until unemployment – currently at a 17% real rate – is back under 6% (Proposed by Pat Buchanan in an op-ed)
4. End birthright citizenship. Go back to requiring that one parent be a citizen and of age. (proposed by George Will in an op-ed)
That is an immigration "reform" plan.
Would you vote for that? Why not. Do you “oppose reform” or something?