by bluenc, Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 12:48:25 PM EDT
by RAULC, Thu Mar 30, 2006 at 04:38:44 AM EST
George Will, quoting Adams acknowledges that "facts are stubborn things;" then he proceeds to explain why an increase of immigration control along the border is necessary. He engages in a 4-pt analysis: 1- and 2 are sovereignity and law breakdown=basically the same thing- my view is that the border ought be controlled but not by the use of fences and landmines-since border crossings represents 40% of the new immigrants, the the best way to achieve control is in-country. Also-if you squeezed immigrants along the southern border-more will come from different ways. 3- His march analysis is surprisingly bereft of intellecual insight. Will states that the march indicates that the marchers believe in the welfare state, pretty remarkable, isn't? To be clear, the march was a reaction to a perceived aggravation (rightly or wrongly) against individuals advocating some of the laws presented- fundamentally-it was a freedom expression march-very American indeed-Will claims that the marches seek "exceptions to the law"-well yes, like many protest marches, the advocates were seeking redress to listed grievances,- I wonder if Will would have written this concerning MLK who also sought "exemption to the law." 4- On giving Americans a sense of calm-his column belies this advice as he acknowledges that illegal immigration is here to stay. This last point leads to his "security" first conclusion at the end of the column. Advocates of the immigrants know that if you pass a bill enforcing border patrols and nothing else, no new laws will be passed in the future; witness the last twenty years- this is a sausage factory-one with the other or none at all-if you forced one without the other then let's no be surprised by the consequences. My suspicion is that George Will is coaching a political strategy hidden in a philosophical tract.