Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, says the National Guard is not the right outfit to back up the Border Patrol on the Mexican border. So my question is a simple one: The organization is called the NATIONAL GUARD, is it not? Aren't they supposed to guard us if need be?
Well, need be is here.
Right now there are more than 100,000 illegal aliens imprisoned for committing felonies in the USA. The governmental cost of illegal immigration per year is north of $68 billion taxpayer dollars. While some companies are making money exploiting cheap illegal labor, legal workers, you and I, are paying fantastic sums of money because the federal government will not stop the flood of foreigners illegally entering the country.
So finally President Bush does something, ordering a few thousand National Guardsmen to the border, and the chorus of naysayers begins their extremely annoying bray.
When I called Senator Hagel's office and asked what he would do in place of the National Guard, his flack told me the Senator wants to hire 2,500 more Border Patrol agents a year for the next six years. With all due respect, Hagel needs to get a calculator. Millions of illegal aliens are trying to hop over the border. A few more Border Patrol people are not going to stem that rising tide.
So why doesn't Senator Hagel truly want to stop the invasion? I don't know. For Republicans like Hagel, law and order is usually a core issue.
On the left, the focus is more clear. On October 12, 1986, The New York Times editorial page celebrated the amnesty Ronald Reagan gave almost three million illegal aliens by writing: "The new law won't work miracles, but it will induce most employers to pay attention, to turn off the magnets, to slow the tide."
Of course, the Times editorial people turned out be completely wrong. The Reagan amnesty led to the chaos we have today.
But has the Times learned from their mistaken analysis? To quote John Belushi: "Nooooooooooooooooo."
In response to the deployment of the National Guard to the border, The New York Times stated: "It was a victory for the fear-stricken fringe of the debate."
Interesting comment in light of a CNN poll showing 75% of Americans support the Guard deployment. Could it be The New York Times is on the fringe? Just asking.
I believe the Times and other committed left-wing organizations want as many foreign nationals as possible to become U.S. citizens. In my humble opinion, the left believes the white power structure that currently runs America is muy malo (very bad), and that the country can only be saved by a new "multi-cultural" power elite. But that can never happen unless America's demographics change. A massive influx of new citizens would precipitate that change.
Thus, the left's opposition to strict border controls. It was amusing to see the ACLU issue a press release opposing deployment of the Guard just minutes after President Bush's address.
And so it goes. In America today, hidden agendas are everywhere. Some believe the only reason President Bush did anything at all about the border was to shore up his falling poll numbers. And then there is the brave new world envisioned by hard core leftist Americans.
It's enough to make you want take a long vacation someplace warm. What's happening in Mexico, anyway?
|
|
