Just before I learned we got hacked on Friday, I had planned a couple of posts, the first on immigration, pointing out my ambivalence on the Arizona law which has caused such hysteria in the media. In an ideal world, I would oppose such legislation, but, in the real world in states like Arizona, I understand that sometimes we must take drastic action to confront an increase in crime.
The Arizona legislature thought this action was necessary to protect their citizens. Provided safeguards are in place to ensure that police do not randomly stop citizens because of their ethnic background or foreign accent, a law requiring an individual to provide verification of his immigration seems a reasonable precaution.
If it’s such a bad thing to ask for such verification, Mark Hemingway wonders why “Democratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure.”
The Arizona law would like be unnecessary if the federal government secured our border. And U.S Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is right on the money when he says, “President Barack Obama should force on securing the border before bringing up immigration reform“, saying
. . . that border security would have to precede any conversations on comprehensive immigration reform, for which an outline of legislation was released by Senate Democrats this week.
“When the border’s secure, then we can deal with people illegally here, and how they become citizens or not,” Alexander said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Once the border is secure, we can move onto the more difficult issues of how to deal with those who are already here. The problem with “amnesty” is not just rewarding those who have broken the law to come here, but also that it encourages other people to follow suit. If the border is closed, that would make such journeys much more difficult.