To the editor:
So poorly written was (Douglas) Kmiec’s Immigration Reform essay (in the Courier’sJuly monthly issue) that pity for the authors’ presentation competed with irritation of the convoluted arguments he offered in its defense. Those unfortunate enough to have read the whole piece will understand my particular irritation at such an example, “Would it be easier or harder to pick out would be terrorists if lawful immigration better coincided with supply?” A statement of such consummate preposterousness that I was left to wonder whether the whole essay was some sort of joke.
In the end, the pro-amnesty forces were defeated in the Senate, dealing a humiliating and well-deserved defeat to Bush, Reid, and Kennedy. S1639 was a 700 page loophole, written by a elite handful of deal makers behind closed doors without hearings or the usual committee process, who then limited amendments and debate, and demanded that the bill be passed only hours after the text was made public.
S1639, deeply flawed, provided illegals with limitless due-process rights, and is far beyond the ability of the federal government to dream of administering. It’s a lawyer’s dream come true; an invitation for litigation that will line their wallets, tie up our court system, and bog down our immigration services for years to come. It’s an affront to republican government in its disdain for the citizenry.
The public is rightly dismayed at their incapacity to exercise a key attribute of sovereignty: control of the borders. For decades, our elected officials have passed immigration laws that they never intended to enforce.
The arguments against the details of the bill were so powerful that its advocates were reduced to repeating phrases, “Something is better than nothing.” Proponents like Kmiec should be embarrassed in trying to spin it any other way.