The Bush-McCain-Kennedy axis of political obstruction...

Once again, Mac Johnson speaks for me:

...Every one of the President’s proposals for increased security could be passed quickly, if they were not tied to a guest worker amnesty. Indeed, all of them could have already been passed and signed into law if they weren’t being used as sugar to coat the bitter pill of legalization for millions of illegal aliens. But the President and Senators John McCain and Teddy Kennedy (as well as others) want the amnesty giveaway so badly that they refuse to allow the Senate to vote on the enforcement measures as a separate bill, as the House of Representatives has done.

Essentially, they have offered the American people a take it or leave it deal: give us our guest worker amnesty, or we will let the whole world across our open borders until you do. Give us the laws we want, or we will not enforce the laws we already have...

---

Give us the laws we want,
or we will not enforce
the laws we already have.

---

...If a guest-worker program and amnesty are such good ideas, then why can they not be passed as separate bills, as the increased enforcement measures easily could be?

If increased enforcement, by itself, is doomed to failure, then why do open borders advocates fear it so much? Shouldn’t they simply pass an enforcement bill and show everyone how right they were? An amnesty could then easily be added later.

The simple fact is that an enforcement-only approach would work better than any comprehensive bill promising legalization to lawbreakers. And this is why every proponent of amnesty and guest worker shenanigans is working so hard to see that an enforcement-only bill will never pass—even if that means leaving America’s borders wide open as long as it takes to frustrate voters into accepting a comprehensive bill.

The illogic of the comprehensive reform scam can be seen in the numerous self-contradictions the president uttered in support of it in a mere 16-minute speech.

Deporting the 11 million to 20 million illegal aliens already here is simply impossible we are told. But then in tonight’s address the President bragged that we have deported 6 million illegal aliens in just the last five years. Why is 6 million possible and praiseworthy, but 11 million is a ludicrous impossibility?

The President bragged tonight (video) of his commitment to deporting every illegal alien caught crossing our border. And then reasoned that we cannot deport those that have been here illegally for a few years. Why is it good to deport those caught at the border, but wrong to deport those that make it inland and buy a fake ID? How is the criminal transformed by this illegal stay?

How can the President promise to use all manner of technology—motion sensors, drones, cameras, fences, vehicle barriers—to keep dangerous illegal aliens out, and then argue that those same criminal aliens become indispensable and honorable once past the gizmos? Why bother to keep out anyone, if they all become wonderful by the time they reach Dallas?

Why, in short, would he have us believe that enforcing immigration laws at the border is a good thing, but we must not enforce immigration laws just a few miles north of the border?

Because you cannot simultaneously argue for earnestly enforcing the immigration laws in our interior and also argue for a guest worker amnesty of the millions of illegal aliens already hiding there...

...The only way we can secure our borders is to pass an enforcement-only bill, and then see to it that it is actually enforced. Our nation’s security cannot be held hostage to the politics of amnesty any longer.

Click here for the entire article.

Related:
Senator Kennedy: Illegal Immigrants ARE NOT criminals

Come Home, Mr. President by Rep. Tom Tancredo

Minuteman Civil Defense Corps reaction

100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years

And finally, Press 1 for English:

There are many aspects of the President’s plan to criticize. But it makes no sense to expend effort dissecting a proposal made in bad faith. From some obscure sense of misguided compassion, misdirected Christian mercy, or just plain old-fashioned elitism President Bush has decided that he has a greater loyalty to citizens of Mexico than to those of his own country. We owe him, and his party, none of our own.

***UPDATE***

The Senate Rejects Enforcement 1st. Here are the GOP Senators who oppose Enforcement First and voted against the House proposal:

Bennett (UT), Brownback (R-KS), Chafee (RI), Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), Craig (ID), DeWine (OH), Graham (SC), Hagel (NE), Lugar (IN), Martinez (FL), Murkowski (AK), Shelby (AL), Snow (ME), Specter (PA), Stevens (AK), Voinovich (OH), Warner (VA)

Not voting:

Cochran (R-MS), Gregg (R-NH), Lott (R-MS), McCain (R-AZ), Rockefeller (D-WV)

Make some phone calls or send some e-mails!

More related:
Border Lipstick on Amnesty Pig:

...If Mr. Bush were sending 60,000 or 600,000 instead of 6,000 troops and it was the Army and Marines with "shoot-to-kill" orders, tanks and helicopters instead of the National Guard for a purely "support" role, he might gain some credibility.

If Mr. Bush, instead of coddling Mexico, gave Mr. Fox a bold warning to stop Mexican soldiers, gangsters and police from shooting at our Border Patrol and crossing into our country "or else," that would be the right message.

It's hard to take seriously an administration that has consistently undermined real immigration enforcement: (The rest here.)

-Home-