Well, that was a disaster, wasn't it?
Here's a question: We all know that the enforcement provisions of the 1986 compromise amnesty-plus-employer-sanctions bill were not carried out because employers of illegal aliens would call up their Congressman and tell him that their campaign contribution would not be arriving unless the Congressman leaned on the INS to call off its dogs. In other words, the law of the land was gutted through pure corruption. So, how come the media never showed much interest in investigating this open scandal?
Have you noticed how nobody has a good logical argument against putting up a fence along the Mexican border? All the responses are purely mindless emotion. Now, even Charles Krauthammer has admitted that and is calling for erecting a fence before any amnesty. In "First a Wall -- Then Amnesty," the neocon writes:
Build a barrier. It is simply ridiculous to say it cannot be done. If one fence won't do it, then build a second 100 yards behind it. And then build a road for patrols in between. Put in cameras. Put in sensors. Put out lots of patrols.
Can't be done? Israel's border fence has been extraordinarily successful in keeping out potential infiltrators who are far more determined than mere immigrants. Nor have very many North Koreans crossed into South Korea in the past 50 years.
Of course it will be ugly. So are the concrete barriers to keep truck bombs from driving into the White House. But sometimes necessity trumps aesthetics. And don't tell me that this is our Berlin Wall. When you build a wall to keep people in, that's a prison. When you build a wall to keep people out, that's an expression of sovereignty. The fence around your house is a perfectly legitimate expression of your desire to control who comes into your house to eat, sleep and use the facilities. It imprisons no one.
Of course, no barrier will be foolproof. But it doesn't have to be. It simply has to reduce the river of illegals to a manageable trickle.
Well said, but a little late.