Injustice of life in the shadows doesn't outweigh injustice of accelerated voting rights citizenship
Today at 5:30pm, the U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote on the over 1200-page Schumer-Corker-Hoeven-amended Gang of 8 immigration "reform" bill, also soon to be known as the Death-of-Marco-Rubio (R-FL)-presidential-ambitions bill. DeVine's Right has taken a position, based on moral grounds, for immediate non-voting rights amnesty/citizenship for non-felons residents of five years or more, even in a stand-alone bill not tied to enhanced border security, since the 2011-12 GOP presidential nomination debate over Governor Rick Perry's support of in-state college tuition rates for illegals in the Lone Star state.
Amnesty and voting rights citizenship
But the bill being voted on today contains no provision requiring that only U.S. citizens be allowed to vote in federal election races, nor even any lengthy (more than 15 years) wait until they are granted full U.S. citizenship, including voting rights. Therefore, we consider the real injustice of the current de facto living-in-shadows-amnesty to be outweighed the injustice of the granting of voting rights citizenship so soon after the bill's granting of de jure amnesty and full citizenship.
Our preference would be that long-term residents granted amnesty never be allowed to vote, but at least not before 15+ years after the passage of the bill. But that would require a change in U.S. law that currently leaves to the states the right to allow non-citizens to vote. This fact was made ever more clear last week when a 7-2 U.S. Supreme Court struck down an Arizona law that, inexplicable, tied a citizenship requirement to the monstrosity that is the federal Motor Voter law than enlists state DMVs in a get-out-the-Democrat-vote campaign. Like other federal laws that President Barack Obama has taken to epic heights with affirmative recruiting food stamp and other welfare-dependent Democrat voters, any person that applies for federal entitlements (or, essentially if they get within 25 feet of any federal building) or state drivers license, they MUST be offered a voter registration form and allowed to register on the spot. Reminds of the mandatory withholding of union dues from federal, and some state, government employees, but I digress.
Border fence vs. Border Patrol agent expansion as jobs program in perpetuity
Why doesn't the White House tear down its offensive fence and simply double the Secret Service detail guarding the executive mansion? Rhetorical question alert!
Doubling patrol agents unnecessary to secure the border is simply the latest D.C. ruse of throwing more money at a problem and pretending the problem is solved. And oh btw, rather than a one-time cost for building a self-enforcing and deterring fence, it expands a federal jobs program indefinitely into the future and invites more violent confrontations on the the U.S. side of the border, that a fence minimizes.
A 2006 federal law required the building of over 700 miles of fencing. President Obama, in one of first acts upon taking office in 2009 was to sign a bill passed by Democrats refusing to fund the building of the fence; and nothing in the current bill mandates the building of, much less funds, one extra mile of fencing. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) provided a comprehensive critique of the War-and-Peace-length bill on Redstate.com yesterday that also addresses its anemic border security provisions:
A closer look at their border security plan, however, reveals gaping holes. Most notably, the amendment’s security enhancements are not contemplated until almost ten years after the bill’s enactment; none would be in place before amnesty. Moreover, the signature “border surge” that would double the Border Patrol does not require that a single new agent be added before amnesty is granted just six months after the bill becomes law.
Regarding a southern border fence, Schumer-Corker-Hoeven provides for only single-layer fencing, instead of the double-layer fencing that was required under the Secure Fence Act of 2006. It leaves in place the Department of Homeland Security’s asserted discretion to decide whether and where double-layered fencing is appropriate and leaves open the possibility that no fencing may be built at all. As a result, the United States is simply unprepared to deal with the influx of immigrants who will seek to enter this country illegally in pursuit of a path to U.S. citizenship during the two-and-a-half year amnesty period, when deportations and enforcement are virtually halted.
We favor separate bills that would build much fencing, require certification that the border is secure by a future congressional (not via an independent commission, border state governors/legislatures, nor executive branch discretion), cracks down on Visa overstays, and expands legal immigration based upon needed skills in math, science and engineering; in addition to non-voting rights amnesty described above. This bill does not of that.
This Gamecock rooster is also not fazed by Chicken Little-GOP-ruling-class, nor especially by Democrats pretending to care about the electoral fate of Republicans, arguments that to oppose this bill is to ensure the return of the GOP to permanent minority party status in congressional elections. And even if we could ensure majority status by selling out to liberal Democrats on such substantive issues, what good would such a faux "opposition" party be. None.
We expect Chicken Littles to rule the day in the United States Senate by providing more than enough Republican votes to surpass the filibuster-proof 60-vote majority required to send the bill to the GOP-ruled House. Lobbying against Speaker John 'Chicken Little' Boehner begins tomorrow.
Mike DeVine’s Right.com
Editor of Atlanta Times News
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson