Where's the fence?
Imagine you're a medic in a war zone. You're in a foxhole next to a tree. A paratrooper is falling from a plane almost right on top of you when he gets struck in the leg with an enemy bullet, and if that weren't bad enough, his parachute gets stuck in the tree. He's hanging just over the foxhole, with his injured leg where you can safely reach it and provide medical attention, but most of him is above ground where the enemy can take potshots at him, and they are doing just that.
Now, what decision do you make? If you're a medic who also happens to be a member of Congress*, it appears that the decision you'd make is to start by addressing the bullet that's in his leg where you can safely work on it. And you'd likely try to make that bullet as comfortable as possible inside his leg - who are you to go about removing a bullet from a leg that you didn't put there in the first place? A bullet has rights too! However, at the same time you're trying to determine the manufacturer of the bullet, it's metallic composition and helping to legitimize the existence of that bullet in the paratrooper's leg, he's continuing to get shot.
If, however, you're an average Joe medic with more brains than the average member of Congress (a rather low bar, it appears), you'd first get him out of the tree and into comparative safety. This would stop the flood of bullets into his body that are causing more of the damage caused by the initial bullet, THEN you'd work on addressing the problem of the bullets already in his body. What's so hard about this to understand?
A contrived scenario, to be sure, but illustrative of the problem we have with our current discussion of illegal immigration. While it appears that we've, at least for now, gotten a reprieve from the insanity of amnesty for illegal immigrants, many Americans are baffled at how it even got that far and why our government is neither enforcing current immigration laws nor building the fence that was authorized last year.
Now, what decision do you make? If you're a medic who also happens to be a member of Congress*, it appears that the decision you'd make is to start by addressing the bullet that's in his leg where you can safely work on it. And you'd likely try to make that bullet as comfortable as possible inside his leg - who are you to go about removing a bullet from a leg that you didn't put there in the first place? A bullet has rights too! However, at the same time you're trying to determine the manufacturer of the bullet, it's metallic composition and helping to legitimize the existence of that bullet in the paratrooper's leg, he's continuing to get shot.
If, however, you're an average Joe medic with more brains than the average member of Congress (a rather low bar, it appears), you'd first get him out of the tree and into comparative safety. This would stop the flood of bullets into his body that are causing more of the damage caused by the initial bullet, THEN you'd work on addressing the problem of the bullets already in his body. What's so hard about this to understand?
A contrived scenario, to be sure, but illustrative of the problem we have with our current discussion of illegal immigration. While it appears that we've, at least for now, gotten a reprieve from the insanity of amnesty for illegal immigrants, many Americans are baffled at how it even got that far and why our government is neither enforcing current immigration laws nor building the fence that was authorized last year.
'Enforcement First' is a great rallying cry, but it needs to be put into action. I ran across this video this morning that I believe effectively uses humor to call attention to this important issue. http://www.wheresthefence.com/ I hope they make a number of followups.
I also hope that Americans don't let up on the calls and letters to Congress that played such an important role in killing the amnesty bill yesterday, and that we continue to push for enforcement of current laws and the building of the fence.
* saying it this way reminds me of Mark Twain's famous quote "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
posted by festivus | 6/29/2007 09:35:00 AM
The one thing that came out of this debate is that there is a bi partisan consensus for border security.
If the government actually successfully shut down illegal immigration. Amnesty would be likely.
This should be the message from the Republican Party. The democrats will try to capitalize on the issue to draw hispanic voters to vote democrats. Our position should be that you will get nothing from democrats, because the vote in the last congress shows you need bi-partisan support for any chance at amnesty. Conservatives are willing to consider Amnsesty if there is border security (meaning no more illegals) However, if democrats are in power you won't get border security, and therefore, no chance at amnesty.
Post a Comment