Border security? Maybe, some day, perhaps. Or not
Proponents of the latest amnesty bill for illegal immigrants pay lip service to securing our borders.
Witness bill co-sponsor Charles Schumer of New York in last week's opening debate.
First he said that it is "not fair" for opponents to say the bill doesn't have border security in it.
He said it does. It sends billions of dollars to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and this will lead to increased border security, although illegal immigrants, some 11 million of them, will be given amnesty first.
But Schumer promised that promises of "future" border security measures will be kept. Promise.
Then he admitted the bill "is not perfect." And he was adamant that the bill's bipartisan sponsors will not compromise by making the so-called "path to citizenship" conditional on "factors that may not ever happen."
And what factors might those be? Well, border security. He said border security should not be used as a "bargaining chip."
He then dismissed the issue as not a pressing concern.
"We don't have a problem whereby these people [illegal immigrants] are besieging us with terrorist acts," Schumer said.
Okay. But the American people's objections to this bill come not from a concern over terrorism nearly as much as a concern that giving amnesty to millions more illegal immigrants without first making border security more than a promise is just going to lead to more of the same. As has happened over and over again.
U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a supporter, trots out the tired argument that we can't "send back" 11 million illegal immigrants. True. But if we can't send back that number, or a portion thereof, we certainly won't be sending back the millions more that will be coming behind them.