 |
| 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.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment