Laura's Weekly E-Blast
Laura Ingraham
October 28, 2003
THE ATTACK OF THE OPEN BORDER ELITES
You are scanning the newspaper headlines one day and one in particular catches your eye: ?Rep. Pelosi Says Arrests of Bank Robbers ?Terrorizing??
You read on.
SAN FRANCISCO -- US House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi complained that in many instances, police and other law enforcement officers "terrorize" the bank robbers and other criminals they are attempting to arrest. "Breaking into people's homes, pointing guns at them, yelling 'Freeze!' ? this is all very traumatic for people who are just trying to feed their families. It is true that technically these people are breaking the law, but what does that matter when compared to the damage being done to the psyche of these poor people?"
Well, okay?Nancy Pelosi actually made the comments above about the recent arrest of hundreds of illegal aliens working for Wal-Mart, but you get the point. Pelosi called on business leaders to pressure Washington to ease immigration law because, as employers, they depend "on some people who may not be completely where they need to be legally."
Not completely where they need to be legally?.
Yet such goofy liberal blather isn?t limited to liberals in Marin County. They have a lot of support from the editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal, who share a strong pro-illegal immigration sentiment.
Despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of illegals continue to stream across our borders each year, the Journal bemoans our ?stricter policing of the southern border? because it has ?made matters worse.? (For whom? Illegals? Isn?t that the point of having immigration laws in the first place?) The Journal writes that ?The price of an illegal crossing has tripled since 1995, and the average U.S. stay of an undocumented Mexican had climbed to nine years by the late 1990s from just three years in the 1980s.? (italics mine).
First, note the Journal?s usage of the politically correct term ?undocumented Mexican,? instead of ?illegal alien.? It may seem like a small point, but it has larger significance. Think of how the abortion movement used the ?pro-choice? lingo to obscure the truth of what they were really advocating (i.e., the right to extinguish a life). Just the other day an official from La Raza went a step further, no longer referring to them as undocumented immigrants or workers, but rather ?undocumented citizens.?
Before September 11th, the Bush Administration, cheered on by the Journal and La Raza, was ready to give Mexican President Vicente Fox a nice gift?a partial amnesty for the illegals living and working here, along with a ?guest worker? program to allow other non-citizens to come and work here. The attacks forced the Bush Administration to put amnesty on the back burner. (They refuse to call it amnesty, preferring to call it ?family reunification?) Amnesty would have been an impossible sell since we learned that the hijackers exploited the sloppy administration of visa system and the non-existent checks at our ports of entry.
So the ?open border? elites cooled their jets for a while. But now the unholy alliance between conservatives who don?t want to offend businesses and liberals who don?t want to offend Hispanic voters is stronger and more vocal than ever. They feel enough time has passed, that the rest of us will just buckle into the pressure as they ram through policy after policy that weakens our immigration laws. Last week Utah Senator Orrin Hatch managed to get the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote 16-3 in favor of a bill called the Dream Act (who could be against that?!) that would allow states to give illegals in-state tuition rates at state universities. This was hardly covered by the mainstream press. Orrin Hatch apparently doesn?t care that in poll after poll, a strong majority of Americans say they want our immigration laws vigorously enforced. (How does giving incentives and benefits to lawbreakers accomplish that?)
The left-right coalition that don't want to enforce our current laws have proposed measures that would significantly weaken those laws. Arizona Senator John McCain is co-sponsoring the Border and Immigration Improvement Act. Sounds good in name only. It is yet another attempt to pass a ?temporary worker program? that promises to "direct the flow of workers into a legal framework and aid the government in getting a better handle on who's here and who's crossing the border."
If you oppose in-state tuition for illegals or amnesty for illegals, and if you support prosecuting illegals, their smugglers, and their employers, the Journal and its liberal compatriots brands you ?restrictionist? or xenophobic. Or worse.
American citizenship and legal residency here is supposed to be a very big deal. Millions of people spent a lot of time and money to get here by playing by the rules. Our country, especially now, was never intended to be open to anyone in the world who can slip through our porous borders. By their constant denigration of our immigration laws, liberals and libertarians are attacking the very concept of citizenship itself. How can we ask our fellow citizens to sacrifice and fight and die for this country -- much less serve on juries, vote, and take seriously the other duties of US citizens -- if anyone can have all the privileges of a citizen just by physically getting into the country, even illegally?
The rule of law becomes meaningless if we don?t enforce the law. Why should anyone ever obey our immigration laws when there is no benefit to doing so? Why do we bother to have Congress pass laws, if the elites of society can simply choose to ignore them?
On this issue we see American elites at their absolute worst?arrogant and indifferent to the concerns and beliefs of the average American, all the while slowly tearing at the fabric of our society. All in the name of cheap labor and potential votes.
Who?s terrorizing whom, Nancy?
Laura Ingraham
October 28, 2003
THE ATTACK OF THE OPEN BORDER ELITES
You are scanning the newspaper headlines one day and one in particular catches your eye: ?Rep. Pelosi Says Arrests of Bank Robbers ?Terrorizing??
You read on.
SAN FRANCISCO -- US House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi complained that in many instances, police and other law enforcement officers "terrorize" the bank robbers and other criminals they are attempting to arrest. "Breaking into people's homes, pointing guns at them, yelling 'Freeze!' ? this is all very traumatic for people who are just trying to feed their families. It is true that technically these people are breaking the law, but what does that matter when compared to the damage being done to the psyche of these poor people?"
Well, okay?Nancy Pelosi actually made the comments above about the recent arrest of hundreds of illegal aliens working for Wal-Mart, but you get the point. Pelosi called on business leaders to pressure Washington to ease immigration law because, as employers, they depend "on some people who may not be completely where they need to be legally."
Not completely where they need to be legally?.
Yet such goofy liberal blather isn?t limited to liberals in Marin County. They have a lot of support from the editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal, who share a strong pro-illegal immigration sentiment.
Despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of illegals continue to stream across our borders each year, the Journal bemoans our ?stricter policing of the southern border? because it has ?made matters worse.? (For whom? Illegals? Isn?t that the point of having immigration laws in the first place?) The Journal writes that ?The price of an illegal crossing has tripled since 1995, and the average U.S. stay of an undocumented Mexican had climbed to nine years by the late 1990s from just three years in the 1980s.? (italics mine).
First, note the Journal?s usage of the politically correct term ?undocumented Mexican,? instead of ?illegal alien.? It may seem like a small point, but it has larger significance. Think of how the abortion movement used the ?pro-choice? lingo to obscure the truth of what they were really advocating (i.e., the right to extinguish a life). Just the other day an official from La Raza went a step further, no longer referring to them as undocumented immigrants or workers, but rather ?undocumented citizens.?
Before September 11th, the Bush Administration, cheered on by the Journal and La Raza, was ready to give Mexican President Vicente Fox a nice gift?a partial amnesty for the illegals living and working here, along with a ?guest worker? program to allow other non-citizens to come and work here. The attacks forced the Bush Administration to put amnesty on the back burner. (They refuse to call it amnesty, preferring to call it ?family reunification?) Amnesty would have been an impossible sell since we learned that the hijackers exploited the sloppy administration of visa system and the non-existent checks at our ports of entry.
So the ?open border? elites cooled their jets for a while. But now the unholy alliance between conservatives who don?t want to offend businesses and liberals who don?t want to offend Hispanic voters is stronger and more vocal than ever. They feel enough time has passed, that the rest of us will just buckle into the pressure as they ram through policy after policy that weakens our immigration laws. Last week Utah Senator Orrin Hatch managed to get the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote 16-3 in favor of a bill called the Dream Act (who could be against that?!) that would allow states to give illegals in-state tuition rates at state universities. This was hardly covered by the mainstream press. Orrin Hatch apparently doesn?t care that in poll after poll, a strong majority of Americans say they want our immigration laws vigorously enforced. (How does giving incentives and benefits to lawbreakers accomplish that?)
The left-right coalition that don't want to enforce our current laws have proposed measures that would significantly weaken those laws. Arizona Senator John McCain is co-sponsoring the Border and Immigration Improvement Act. Sounds good in name only. It is yet another attempt to pass a ?temporary worker program? that promises to "direct the flow of workers into a legal framework and aid the government in getting a better handle on who's here and who's crossing the border."
If you oppose in-state tuition for illegals or amnesty for illegals, and if you support prosecuting illegals, their smugglers, and their employers, the Journal and its liberal compatriots brands you ?restrictionist? or xenophobic. Or worse.
American citizenship and legal residency here is supposed to be a very big deal. Millions of people spent a lot of time and money to get here by playing by the rules. Our country, especially now, was never intended to be open to anyone in the world who can slip through our porous borders. By their constant denigration of our immigration laws, liberals and libertarians are attacking the very concept of citizenship itself. How can we ask our fellow citizens to sacrifice and fight and die for this country -- much less serve on juries, vote, and take seriously the other duties of US citizens -- if anyone can have all the privileges of a citizen just by physically getting into the country, even illegally?
The rule of law becomes meaningless if we don?t enforce the law. Why should anyone ever obey our immigration laws when there is no benefit to doing so? Why do we bother to have Congress pass laws, if the elites of society can simply choose to ignore them?
On this issue we see American elites at their absolute worst?arrogant and indifferent to the concerns and beliefs of the average American, all the while slowly tearing at the fabric of our society. All in the name of cheap labor and potential votes.
Who?s terrorizing whom, Nancy?
