|KIRK: "Proud" to back immigration reform?|
Kirk in recent days has been getting the political abuse of activist-types who were disgusted that the senator from the Chicago-area made a procedural vote that sent a clear message that he was more interested in courting the support of the conservative ideologues rather than revamping the federal policy concerning immigration policy in any sensible manner.
SO I SUPPOSE it is meant to get those activists to back off that Kirk issued a statement where he says, in part, that he will be “proud to vote for a bill” on the issue.
His statement of all of 92 words came out amidst reports that the Senate may have reached a compromise that could allow the issue to come up for a vote sometime next week.
In fact, shortly after reading Kirk’s statement, the news reports came out saying that a deal has been reached – one that would boost the number of Border Patrol agents along the U.S./Mexico border (even though the U.S./Canada border is larger and more open), provide money for aerial drones and require continuation of construction of that inane barricade to the south – even though the deserts of the southwest provide a fairly un-crossable terrain already!
Supposedly, in exchange for these flawed principles, then the ideologues will be willing to allow for measures that address the real problem – the fact that there are some 11.1 million non-citizens living in this country (of which Kirk said about 525,000 are living in Illinois) without a valid visa even though there is no legitimate reason to deny it to them.
EXCEPT FOR THE convoluted and bungled bureaucratic nightmare that is our immigration policy. It needs to be cleaned up. You can talk about requiring fines for those people who came without (or in many other cases, overstayed) a valid visa and some sort of assessment where they have to square themselves with the IRS.
People have differing issues on how severe a problem exists, but it is a relevant issue.
But bringing up this border security bull – which was the reason Kirk gave previously to justify his siding with the hard-core ideologues – is just irrelevant. They ought to be dealt with separately; if at all!!!
But this is the process of electoral politics – creating a measure in which no one is completely pleased and some people are absolutely outraged.
FOR ALL I know, Kirk may still find a way to vote “no” when the issue comes up for a final vote in the U.S. Senate.
I also sense that some people are pushing for a bill that they hope thwarts immigration reform from ever occurring.
These are the ones who insist that the reform measures that give people already in this country a chance to come out of the shadows and live here openly can only take place following future reviews that ensure their desires to barricade the United States to the south are being accomplished to their desired level.
Their standards for “desired” level are so vague that it makes me wonder if they will automatically reject the idea on the concept that their goals are not being met. Because already, the more hard-headed of the ideologues are trying to denounce this compromise as “amnesty” even though it’s not by any stretch of the definition.
YES, I HAVE my problems with this measure – although I accept this is likely the best that will be accomplished any time in the near future.
But that doesn’t mean we should now consider Kirk to be something sort of a political saint for his actions, which in his statement he says, “respects our heritage as an immigrant nation.”
Because pushing for the creation of provisions that appear designed to booby-trap the implementation of the needed immigration reform measures, it would seem that we’re dumping all over that heritage.
Even if that heritage, in all honesty, at times has seemed more like making life as difficult for newcomers as is physically possible.