Gay Patriot Header Image

Why the Immigration Bill Was Defeated

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:17 pm - June 8, 2007.
Filed under: Illegal Immigration,Post 9-11 America

I may have more to say later on the defeat yesterday of the immigration bill. While I welcome its failure, I found much to like in the bill (and a lot to dislike). Still, I was rooting for its defeat for two primary reasons, both of which my Athena articulated (giving words to my thoughts, helping me express ideas with which I was struggling — as do all great writers*) in her column last week (which I have already noted and praised.

I think more conservatives might have supported the bill had it been less unwieldy and had it focused more on securing the border, making that a necessary first step before all other reforms.

Peggy called the bill “a big and indecipherable mess.” Such legislation can lead to much mischief, particularly by activist courts. Peggy’s solution to this mess was to divide up the bill into several smaller pieces of legislation — and to first secure the border:

If they’d really wanted to help, as opposed to braying about their own wonderfulness, they would have created not one big bill but a series of smaller bills, each of which would do one big clear thing, the first being to close the border. Once that was done–actually and believably done–the country could relax in the knowledge that the situation was finally not day by day getting worse. They could feel some confidence. And in that confidence real progress could begin.

In the wake of 9/11, we have to think differently that we did beforehand. That is why (and for other reasons) securing the border is so important. Peggy’s right; if we’re serious about immigration reform, we have to first secure the border. At that point, we’ll be ready to confront the difficult task of how to deal with the millions of illegals who are already here.

And we should do so in legislation that is more concise, easier to understand, with fewer loopholes which would only serve to pass the problem onto future generations — as have previous reforms.

*UPDATE: Of course it’s Peggy who’s the great writer; she helped give words to my thoughts about why this bill troubled me so.

Share

11 Comments

  1. I couldn’t agree more, Dan. Dividing this into separate bills where the details can really be ironed out is better than trying to ram through this monstrosity. It’s no surprise to me that many on the Left and Right balked at supporting this, for their own reasons of course. Securing the border is what I want to see happen first. I do not trust the Bush Administration or Congress to do that as long as the other stuff is in there. Fact of the matter is that I’m pragmatic about the rest of it and have no problem with some kind of legalization for those already here. Yet security comes first. Bush would have been smarter to push for that and then work in the rest. His base might have taken the rest far easier than the method he chose. I know I would have.

    Comment by John — June 8, 2007 @ 5:26 pm - June 8, 2007

  2. Common sense, Dan. (meaning that as a compliment)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 8, 2007 @ 5:29 pm - June 8, 2007

  3. Bravo, Dan. You articulated many of the reasons I also opposed this McAmnesty legislation (spelling error on purpose).

    In addition to your excellent points, let me add this one:

    – No one, no matter WHAT country they are coming from, has the right to be rewarded for breaking the laws of our nation — not matter what the laws (immigration laws included!)

    Hopefully this is the last posting on this Mcstake (spelling error intentional), but it seems our wonderful President isn’t going to let it die quietly.

    Comment by GayPatriot — June 8, 2007 @ 5:40 pm - June 8, 2007

  4. I’ve already called the offices of my Senators, Burr (R- Tiajuana) and Dole. I made sure that Senator Dole knew that I was pleased with her performance, and that I hoped that soon-to-be-unemployed Senator Burr had gotten a decent bribe for doing his best to wreck his nation and his party.

    While y’all don’t have to be as obnoxious as I was, I do very strongly recommend that you ALL do the same: thanks to the good ones, and make sure that the bad ones know that you won’t be forgetting.

    Comment by DaveP. — June 8, 2007 @ 6:22 pm - June 8, 2007

  5. Totally agree.

    We didn’t need a grand bargain; we needed an assurance that our borders would be secured, that the laws would be enforced, and that the need of leftist Democrats for bodies with which to commit voter fraud would be set aside in favor of our national security.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2007 @ 6:32 pm - June 8, 2007

  6. Rudy Giuliani was on Dennis Miller’s show talking about the bill and made the point that sometimes politicians in Washington become so enamored of process that they end up compromising for the sake of compromise instead of compromising to advance policies.

    There’s no logical, common sense reason we can’t have a good border security bill, then a good immigration reform bill, and finally a good guest-worker bill. Combining the three just resulted in a massive failure that didn’t do any of those things very well.

    Comment by V the K — June 8, 2007 @ 7:11 pm - June 8, 2007

  7. […] Original post by GayPatriotWest […]

    Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » Why the Immigration Bill Was Defeated — June 8, 2007 @ 7:17 pm - June 8, 2007

  8. Well, then we’re all in agreement and glad the bill failed. I’m sure a much better one will be possible in 2009.

    Comment by Ian S — June 8, 2007 @ 7:56 pm - June 8, 2007

  9. Does anybody else picture Ian as a Buddy Cole type character?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 9, 2007 @ 6:22 am - June 9, 2007

  10. “I’m not really into the online dating thing. You never know who you could be talking to on the other end – probably a Trekkie with red pubic hair.”

    — Buddy Cole

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 9, 2007 @ 6:29 am - June 9, 2007

  11. #9:

    Does anybody else picture Ian as a Buddy Cole type character?

    Well, you can ask Dan, he’s met me.

    Comment by Ian S — June 9, 2007 @ 9:55 pm - June 9, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.