David Frum On Confidence Building

At the rate we are going this month, the immigration fiasco may end up being the only thing we write about in our July 1st column. David Frum @ NRO weighs in today on the immigration debate:

Today's device is to offer opponents "confidence building" measures to assuage their anxieties about amnesty. OK, I'll bite. Here are mine:

I for one am absolutely open to considering an amnesty plan at any date after the FIFTH anniversary of the completion of border control measures, including an effective employment verification system.

I am open to an amnesty plan after the flow of new illegals has been halted and we have seen significant attrition from the existing illegal population.
I am open to amnesty after - and only after! - federal judges start assisting local law enforcement agencies that wish to enforce the law rather than forbidding them to do so.

I am open to amnesty after a US president demonstrates a willingness to respond with some modicum of respect to the immigration concerns of the American public - and is not looking for any transparent gimmick that will get him from here to the bill signing.

Hey, here's a thought: Why doesn't President Bush condemn the decision by federal judge Colleen McMahon to require the town of Mamoreneck, NY, to pay $550,000 to illegal aliens and create a center from which they may violate the immigration laws of the United States conveniently, publicly, and with impunity? If ever one legal case destroyed what little "confidence" remained in the seriousness of the US government on immigration, this was that case. And the president has said ... what exactly?

If we have learned anything from the hard experiences of the recent past it is that amnesty must be the last step in any intelligent program of immigration enforcement. When it is the first step, it rapidly becomes the only step - or rather, the first step to the next amnesty and the next after that.

We have learned too that the political leadership in Washington wants a radically different outcome to this immigration debate from that desired by the large majority of the American people.

Confidence? Well in the words of an expert on the subject:

"Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

The president has gone from arm twisting to bribery, and it is now the Senate leadership doing the arm twisting. Write off the leadership right now. I do not trust Mitch McConnell to stand fast on this bill. I am seeing more out of Jeff Sessions and Jim DeMint than I am out of the so-called leadership. But, they have an uphill battle, and it will not be easy. Make sure when you call their offices, you tghabnk them for their stand, and give them your support. They deserve it.

Then turn your irritation to the rest of the Senate. We simply cannot allow this bill to pass. Those that do support it must be told there will be repercussions for refusing to listen to their constituency.

The bargain now struck to bring this bill back from the dead is not a good one at all. There will be a limited number of amendments and limited time for debate. Again, the supporters will attempt a "jam-down." They will do all they can to ram this thing through as quickly as possible, and we can just sit here and take it. That is their belief. That is their opinion.

They forget that opinions are a lot like a**holes: Everybody has one, and most of them stink. Just like this bill, and just like their idea that we are going to take this bill, and like it.

I am sorry to be the one to break the bad news to them, but this will not fly with the American people. "That dog won't hunt," as James Carville would say. If their argument is that the status quo is no longer acceptable, it is a faulty argument because this bill neither solves the problem, nor alleviates any of our worries. It gives us, the citizens of the United States, nothing yet grants to those here illegally virtually everything.

The supoporters are now holding up the security and enforcement package "promised" by the administration as proof that they are serious. If that is the case, then pass the package first, and get to work on those changes. when that is done, then we can deal with those that are here. But under no circumstances should we simply take what the supporters are offering at face value. There is no guarantee that they will do a single thing they promised.

We only need to look at history to know that they have never abided by their promises. Enough of the "we are serious this time" malarkey.

Marcie