Parapundit:
"US Senate proposal for massive illigal alien amnesty"
The proposal seeks to legalize 12-20 million illigals, mostly Hispanics. It is a big step towards the elimination of the USA as a nation and a global player.
The elimination of the USA as a global player will have mayor implications for nations in Europe, the Middle East, India and China, which are used to play politics and war in the shadows of hyperpower USA. The stakes for these nations will be raised.
This proposal is so bad that it finally seems to have woken up Mark "Demography" Steyn from his slumber:
I'm not a fan of "bipartisanship" for its own sake. This is a very divided political culture in which bipartisanship is all but nonexistent on everything else, starting with war and national security. So, when the political class is in lockstep bipartisan mode, that's sufficiently unusual all by itself. When it's in bipartisan mode on an issue on which the public is diametrically opposed, that looks less like bipartisanship and more like the lockstep myopia of an out-of-touch one-party state.AND
At some point, it's worth trying to climb over the rubble of the 2007 Z-1s and the 1986 amnesty and the 1965 immigration act, and going back to basics: What is immigration for? In the modern Western world, to question immigration in even the most cautious way is to risk being demonized as a racist. Most of us like to see ourselves as nice people, and so even to raise the subject of immigration -- even illegal immigration -- feels like an assault not on distant foreigners so much as on our self-image. Yet, whatever the virtuousness of immigration for the host society, a dependence on it is a sign of profound structural weakness, and, when all the self-congratulation about celebrating diversity has died down, that weakness ought to be understood as such. The unspoken premise behind this bill is that the socioeconomic order in America is now so dependent on the vast apparatus of a giant shadow state of illegal immigrants that it cannot be dismantled but only legitimized and thereby expanded. If that is true, that is a basic structural defect that should be addressed honestly.
This is the first time Steyn questions IMMIGRATION, as far as I know.
No comments:
Post a Comment