Back in the old days, i.e., even as recently as the 1980s, legislators from both sides of the political aisle would come together for the country's greater good and agree on some bipartisan legislation. I felt that was true with the recent immigration bill, with GWB, McCain, Kennedy and others on the left and right aboard. It's all but dead now, though the President continues his irrational optimism about it.
I'm not at all sure what immigration legislation can pass now, but I'm no fan of Peggy Noonan, who writes:
We should close our borders. We should do whatever it takes to close them tight and solid. Will that take the Army? Then send the Army. Does it mean building a wall? Then build a wall, but the wall must have doors, which can be opened a little or a lot down the road once we know where we are. Should all legal immigration stop? No. We should make a list of what our nation needs, such as engineers and nurses, and then admit a lot of engineers and nurses. We should take in what we need to survive and flourish.
I oppose this because it just isn't the identifiable groups, such as engineers and nurses, this country needs, it's the wide diversity of skills and dreams that comes from peoples from all over the world, the entrepreneurs and innovators that we risk leaving outside our doors.
So, the questions:
1) What kind of immigration policy should the country have?
2) How best should we deal with the undocumented immigrants already here?
3) Can this Congress ever pass any substantive legislation to address the issue?
Hasn't happened yet as of this writing, but expect Fred Hembeck, sometime today, to wax poetic about the Mets beating the Yankees last night, 2-0.
SCOTUS justice Clarence Thomas turns 70
13 hours ago