13 January 2004
Who says we can't?
Emperor Misha can give you lots of reasons why the President's it's-not-really-amnesty plan is something less than wonderful, but the argument that truly knots the Imperial BVDs is the one that goes like this:
"But we CAN'T deport 8 million illegals, that's just IMPOSSIBLE!"
The word "impossible" is, quite possibly, the most un-American word that I've ever heard, it's the very embodiment of what has turned Europe into the bilge of the civilized word.
And that's just ONE argument.
It's just as idiotic as saying that it's simply "impossible" to abolish
And Spoons attacks the same premise from a different angle entirely:
Once you accept that income taxes should be at least 50%, then your spectrum of tax policy options shrinks mightily. Once you accept that the Constitution requires Affirmative Action, then your spectrum of policy options shrinks mightily. Of course, if you don't accept these things....
The President is buying a dubious premise: we can't really do anything about the however many million illegals we already have, so let's do something with that all-important "feel-good" quality, preferably before the election. His options, shall we say, have shrunk mightily. Nothing particularly unusual about this motivation, but it's still disheartening to see it.
Besides, the word that counts here isn't the word that's said, which is "can't", but the word that's meant, which is "won't".
If we're going to take this war-on-terror stuff seriously, we have to have control of our borders, not because Mexico is sending us terrorists they aren't but because any weak point can and will be exploited by terrorists. So long as the borders remain porous, so long as there is little or no fear of deportation, Homeland Security is nothing more than a guy in a suit with a bunch of paint chips.