By Douglas V. Gibbs
Imagine if someone broke into your house, sat on your couch, flipped on the television, ate your food, and began to cash some of your checks his wife finds in your mailbox. When you call the police, the cops show up and say, "You have to understand that he, and his wife, are poor, and have no place to live. You have more than enough room in your house, and besides, your house sits on a piece of property that his great-great-great grandfather owned for a few years way back in the mid-1800s - so really, it is his property in the first place. True, there are no laws in place right now allowing him to live in your house with you, whether you like it or not, but we are going to let him stay in your house while we work on passing a law to allow him to live in your house, and enable him to bring more of his family. If you disagree, you are a racist pig."
A friend of mine, that supports the gang of eight Senate Bill told me there is no amnesty in that bill. "Besides," he told me, "we have this problem, so we have to pass immigration reform to fix it."
The problem arose because millions of illegal aliens broke into this country, and kicked their feet up on our proverbial coffee table. And to fix this problem of people who are guilty of breaking and entering we have to figure out how to keep them in the house?
There is no immigration problem in the sense of how the amnesty crowd looks at it. The problem is we have trespassers in this country, and we need to enforce the laws already on the books to deal with them. In addition, we need to secure the borders (which would be a security system to keep people out of the house in the case of my example above), and increase our border patrol presence while also giving agents the authority to open fire upon those that refuse to comply and pose a danger to the agents.
Simple.
The House of Representatives rejected the Senate bill, which is a good thing, but not because they reject it based on its premise, but because they want to put their own bill in place, which is the same thing as the Senate bill, but with a slower move towards amnesty, and a little stronger language regarding securing the border.
In 1986 the democrats promised to secure the border if President Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty bill. Amnesty became law, and the border was never secured. Have we learned nothing through history? The democrats can't be trusted, and they lie. Toss the amnesty bills, and instead pass a bill promising to secure the border, and promising to enforce laws that are already on the books, get off the backs of States like Arizona trying to do the same, and let's protect this country from millions of security risks that include a large number of border-jumpers that are of Middle Eastern descent - and hence could be bringing their Islamic Jihad to America.
Thank you, House Republicans for rejecting the Senate bill. . . but no thank you on the other bill you are proposing that you claim is an even more fair approach to immigration reform. . . if it grants a pathway to citizenship in any other way other then sending them back, and making them go through the legalization process as it is in place, it is amnesty, and a slap in the face of those that came to America legally, wanting to immigrate to this great country the right way, and who have assimilated into our society.
As a conservative, I love immigrants, but I don't love criminals who break into my country and then demand we take care of them.
RELATED:
CA Senate Passes Bill Permitting Non-Citizen Poll Workers - Breitbart
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
GOP rejects comprehensive approach on immigration - Yahoo! News
No comments:
Post a Comment