I love the tamper-proof ID idea, and I think putting troops on the border is a good idea, but overall, I was disappointed, although not entirely surprised by what I heard last night from the President on immigration. Here are the things that are still bothering me:

About this guest worker thing, if we are going to allow people to stay here legally for a limited period of time, don’t we need to revisit the issue of birthright citizenship? Otherwise, how can it genuinely be a “guest worker” program? Won’t the presence of anchor babies allow demagoguing politicians to wail “how can force them to leave when their children are Americans? What about the children?!” I can just hear them carping now. What about that?

When the president and other supporters of this “comprehensive” immigration reform insist that their program isn’t amnesty because those who have broken our laws by entering the country must “go to the back of the line,” is that really true? Is it really the same thing to be permitted to continue to stay in the country, work, and basically go about your business as it is to wait overseas for decades as some have done? I don’t think so.

If the illegals who are going to be on the “path to citizenship” must learn English, can we dispense with ballots in any language other than English?

Speaking of voting, since it’s pretty clear that the democrats are more interested in guest voters than guest workers, can we insist that we bolster the integrity of our elections by requiring a tamper-proof government issued ID as a condition of voting? Why do I think the democrats won’t buy into that?

As I continue to think this issue through, and listen to the Congressional debates, I’m sure I’ll have more questions, but these are the ones that occurred to me immediately after watching the speech.

immigration, guest worker thing, birthright citizenship, anchor babies, immigration, amnesty, “path to citizenship”, democrats   

Trackback URL