It looks like Congress and the President have reached an agreement on an immigration bill.
The Hot Air link has plenty of links and opinions. I’ll spare you the copious analysis and give you my opinion of the agreement as I’ve read it.
It stinks. It’s a giant load of steaming feces that’s being shoveled on us by people who can say with a straight face that it’s really ice cream.
I’m sure you’ll hear a lot more about this from the MSM. When you do, I want you to keep three questions in mind. In fact, these wouldn’t be bad questions for a moderator to ask at the next Republican debate.
1) Proponents of amnesty (or a “guest worker” program for the 12 million illegals in the country now) say that we cannot deport everyone who is here illegally because we don’t have the resources to do so. Right now, the ICE has lost track of over 600,000 illegal immigrants who were once in custody and who were supposed to have been deported. How, then, is the same amount of resources adequate to register, track, and process those same illegal immigrants over the number of years they will be “in the system”?
2) Given that illegal immigrants break several laws simply by living and working for pay in the United States, and this new bill would only apply a token fine as a “penalty”, how does this not send the message that the United States does not consider all its laws worth keeping? Which law will we choose to ignore next, simply because we wish to be “compassionate”?
3) What do you say to those tens of thousands of people who have spent, in some cases, years, following our rules and working very hard to gain legal admittance to the United States when they see that 12 million lawbreakers have now gained preferential treatment and a much faster path to citizenship? How would you explain to them the principle that you should not gain from breaking our laws?
And one final bonus question that just occurred to me.
4) The Washington Post recently reported that, on the Democratic side, groups such as La Raza and MALDEF “are virtually being grated veto power” over this bill. Why are we allowing groups who do not represent legal American residents such unprecedented power?







Tom Tancredo explains correctly what’s in jihad…
Sen. Tom Tancredo has again made an excellent point during the South Carolina GOP debate. Jihad Watch points to this item from 411mania that, while it’s writer is biased, still features a winning point:…