Al's Opinions

Apparently two notions have stalled, if not killed, the Kennedy-McCain Immigration Reform Bill in the Senate. Words to express these notions are (1) FENCE and (2) AMNESTY.

About the FENCE: Conservative bloggers are touting the claim that a majority of the public wants some sort of control established over immigration before doing anything about the immigrants who are already here without papers. They argue, and I can't dispute it, that it makes no sense at all to claim to be controlling the immigration process as long as we have such leaky borders that hundreds of thousands of individuals can enter the country each year without visas. Hence, conservative and moderate Senators were unwilling to bring the bill to a vote with the existing provisions. If any bill passes the Senate, it must be one that places control of the borders as the first priority.

One of the problems is that Americans always try to solve a difficult problem on the cheap. We want to build a fence so impenetrable that no human can get through, under, or over it without being detected and captured. Such a fence will be difficult to design and expensive to build and maintain. We American taxpayers, being a bunch of skinflints, may choke at the bill for a high-tech fence. You see, there are animals that migrate between the United States and its neighbors on the South and the North. The fence will have to permit this migration and still prevent the human migration that now occurs.

Another approach is to place guardhouses along the border within sight of each other all the way from the Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean (in the case of Mexico) and to the Atlatic Ocean (in the case of Canada. I estimate that there would have to be at least five guard houses per mile. I'll leave it as a simple exercise for you to figure out the number of guard houses, the number of guards, the salaries of the guards, the maintenance of the guard houses, and all the rest that contribute to the cost of making the borders impenetrable.

Neither the fence nor the guard houses would achieve a perfect solution. Fences can be cut, tunneled under, climbed over, flown over, etc. Guards can be outnumbered and overpowered. Individual guards can be bribed. Nothing is perfect. However, either approach might suffice to calm the anxiety of our citizens over the threatened flood of immigrants who come with a different language, a different set of cultural beliefs and customs, and a different skin color.

About AMNESTY: This is a framing word. People have conducted opinion polls and found that a majority of the public favors providing the illegal immigrants who are here already a path toward legality and citizenship if they want it. The path would include a fine, payment of back taxes, learning to speak and write English, and other appropriate punishments. However, if you ask the same question, include all the fines and back taxes, etc., but include the word "AMNESTY," the public is opposed. Paying a fine and back taxes, including penalties, studying a difficult language, and so on, is acceptable as long as it isn't called "AMNESTY." Perhaps the question should be phrased to include fines, back taxes, and learning English but not giving them AMNESTY. Perhaps then the public would accept the proposition.

Labels: amnesty, fence, immigration bill, porous borders

Republicans and other conservatives often prattle about agendas: the homosexual agenda, the liberal elite agenda and the like. I picked up two stories today, one in the newspaper and the other on the internet, that illustrate an important item in the Republican Agenda. The basic goal of the Republican Party is to win elections and stay in office. That's proper. Some of the means of accomplishing that goal are not so proper.

Here is the first story:

The League of Women Voters reports that: Senator Mitch McConnell (R KY) has offered an amendment to the immigration bill pending in the Senate that would require every voter in the 2008 election to provide government-issued, current and valid photo identification before being allowed to vote at a polling place. This amendment would disenfranchise large numbers of legal voters and create administrative problems at the polls in the next federal election.

The second story comes from the front page of the Los Angeles Times:

Minnesota case fits pattern in U.S. attorneys flap
A prosecutor apparently targeted for firing had supported Native American voters' rights.
By Tom Hamburger, Times Staff WriterMay 31, 2007

WASHINGTON — For more than 15 years, clean-cut, square-jawed Tom Heffelfinger was the embodiment of a tough Republican prosecutor. Named U.S. attorney for Minnesota in 1991, he won a series of high-profile white-collar crime and gun and explosives cases. By the time Heffelfinger resigned last year, his office had collected a string of awards and commendations from the Justice epartment.

So it came as a surprise — and something of a mystery — when he turned up on a list of U.S. attorneys who had been targeted for firing.

Part of the reason, government documents and other evidence suggest, is that he tried to protect voting rights for Native Americans.

At a time when GOP activists wanted U.S. attorneys to concentrate on pursuing voter fraud cases, Heffelfinger's office was expressing deep concern about the effect of a state directive that could have the effect of discouraging Indians in Minnesota from casting ballots.

Citing requirements in a new state election law, Republican Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer directed that tribal ID cards could not be used for voter identification by Native Americans living off reservations. Heffelfinger and his staff feared that the ruling could result in discrimination against Indian voters. Many do not have driver's licenses or forms of identification other than the tribes' photo IDs.

Kiffmeyer said she was only following the law.

The issue was politically sensitive because the Indian vote can be pivotal in close elections in Minnesota. The Minneapolis-St. Paul area has one of the largest urban Native American populations in the United States. Its members turn out in relatively large numbers and are predominantly Democratic.

Heffelfinger resigned last year for personal reasons and says he had no idea he was being targeted for possible firing. But his stance fits a pattern that has emerged in the cases of several U.S. attorneys fired last year in states where Republicans wanted more vigorous efforts to legally challenge questionable voters.

There are many other stories that carry the same implication: some Republicans set a high priority on preventing or discouraging certain classes of people from voting. They say that these are people who have committed felonies (Florida) or people who are not citizens (immigrants; Senator McConnell) or people otherwise not qualified to vote. Is it surprising to learn that the majority of people in these classes tend to vote for Democrats?

Enough said.

Labels: immigration bill, League of Women Voters, Los Angeles Times, Minnesota, minority voting rights, Mitch McConnell, Republican agenda, Tom Hamburger, Tom Heffelfinger