Hugh Hewitt defends Senator Jon Kyl (MORE: CHECK OUT THE COMMENTS AT TOWNHALL TO HEWITT’s ARTICLE)

Posted by: ST on June 21, 2007 at 11:22 am

As you know, Hugh is one of the most strident and persistent objectors to the current immigration bill, but in this piece, he takes on the more venomous critics of Arizona Senator Jon Kyl:

Arizona’s Jon Kyl, perhaps the single most effective and principled conservative in the United States Senate, is the model of what every senator should be –smart, hard working, humble about his occupying the office, and aware of the obligations of that office. He is also a gentleman and a scholar –a genuine authority on Constitutional law, and a man of genuine character. Kyl’s also a fighter for conservative causes, especially the fortunes of President Bush’s judicial nominees.

Jon Kyl is also the workhorse for the GOP caucus on the immigration bill, doing his best to make the bill as workable as possible from the position as point man of the minority party.

This unenviable task has earned Senator Kyl an enormous amount of enmity from very vocal opponents of the bill, especially those for whom the issue is the single most important piece of legislation. Suddenly Jon Kyl’s impeccable record on the war, cutting taxes, the life of the unborn, spending restraint, and of course judges matters not at all, and the airwaves are full of spleen. The attacks on Kyl haven’t just been harsh, they have been full of the sort of venom usually seen in the fever swamps of the left directed at George Bush for waging the war against the Islamist jihadists.

If I was a member of the United States Senate I would not vote for cloture on the immigration bill, even though this version is bound to be much better than the version that failed to gain enough votes on the last go around. I wouldn’t vote for it because the border fence “trigger” is only 375 miles instead of the 700 authorized by last year’s border security bill. There may be other reasons to oppose the bill, but in an on-air conversation yesterday with Senator Kyl –the transcript is here —the senator indicated that many of the other major problems in the bill are being worked on. Whether those fixes are sufficient to remove some of those concerns –such as the treatment of illegal immigrants from countries with deep jihadist networks in the same fashion as illegal immigrants from Mexico—remains to be seen. Senator Kyl is clearly working to improve the bill as much as is possible.

Somebody had to say it, and I’m glad it was Hugh Hewitt who did. Two words for what he wrote: THANK YOU. I said similarly about Kyl (in a lot less words) a couple of weeks ago, but more people read Hugh than they do the ST blog, so … ;)

While it’s good to the see more vocal anti-immigration bill opponents like Hugh start to defend conservatives who have been raked through the coals for trying to forge a compromise on this bill, Kyl is only one of many solid conservatives and loyal Republicans who have been vilified by the “Jorge Bush” “Bush is a sell-out”-type accusers in the Republican party simply because a minority of conservatives don’t strongly oppose this bill – nor immigration reform in general. And yes, I know that type of criticism has been two-sided, but the overwhelming opposition to this bill has lent itself to overwhelmingly harsh criticism coming mostly from the types of conservatives who think the President is a sell-out to Mexico and traitor to this country because of his stance on this issue.

When all is said and done, and whether or not the bill passes, certain House and Senate Republicans as well as rank and file conservatives will have a lot to answer for to each other on how the debate on this bill degenerated into nothing more than a Nutroots-style slugfest between conservative proponents and opponents. And make no mistake about this, either: If conservatives move to oust strong conservatives like Jon Kyl and other loyal Republicans out of the House and Senate over this bill, guess what’s going to happen next year: We’re going to have a more Democratic Congress, on top of the very real possibility that a Democrat will regain control of the WH, and as I’ve said before, the immigration bill that would come out of that Congress would make the current bill look like the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. Think about it.

We must learn to be able to work together not just on this bill, but any other major disagreements we have in this party, in coming up with positions we all can live with. Otherwise, we’re going to find ourselves in the minority for the forseeable future. I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t want to see that happen.

Related: Make sure to check out Senator James Inhofe’s (R-OK) guest post on the immigration bill at Captain Ed’s.

PM Update: To anyone out there who may doubt me when it comes to how low the debate on this bill has sunk in this country, you have to look no further than the comments section to Hugh’s article. Hugh has been a staunch opponent to the current bill and has been leading the fight against it. Yet because he defends Kyl, he’s all of a sudden a turncoat who is shilling for the administration.

Disgusting. Disheartening. Disillusioning. Disgraceful.

Prior:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

32 Responses to “Hugh Hewitt defends Senator Jon Kyl (MORE: CHECK OUT THE COMMENTS AT TOWNHALL TO HEWITT’s ARTICLE)”

Comments

  1. Lorica says:

    Dear, I am sorry, but we don’t need a “new” bill. We need enforcement of the present laws. This is a waste of Congress’ valuable time, and people who see that are frustrated. We need real border security. We need Kyl to stand up and say “I have pledged a vow, to protect the People of the United States, and to up hold the Constitution. I want to know, How is this bill doing either??” Anything else is outright foolishness. All this bill does is set a precedent to allow more and more and more illegal immigration into this country. When that happens, good conservatives are going to find that they have the devil to pay. Some of us are realistic enough to know that the conservative movement is going to get little to nothing out of this bill. It is wishful thinking on the part of all right of center candidates who believe that these new citizens are going to vote for them. Their thinking is in error.

    From Dr. Sowells article in the JWR: (thanks Sunsettommy)

    Incidentally, remember that 700-mile fence that Congress authorized last year? Only two miles have been built. That should tell us something about how seriously they are going to enforce other border security provisions in the current bill.

    This is why I believe that this Congress, that this bill, that this amnesty is all hogwash. When that bill was passed into law, the powers that be said the American People can rest assured that they are protected. More BS politics from a bunch of liars, and good conservatives shouldn’t be lying down with dogs. If I am to harsh or to strong, my apologies. The reason why I left the Dem party is because I got tired of being fed Bulls**t, and being told that ketchup makes everything taste better. And all I see in this new bill is the same BS, so please pass the kethup. – Lorica

  2. Sorry Lorica, but we do need a bill in addition to enforcing existing laws (and they need to be updated where applicable). We simply do not have the resources to round up and deport 12 million illegals.

    Hugh Hewitt was dead on in his defense of Kyl and others like him who are simply trying to come up with something that most people can agree with or at the very least be ok with. If we keep putting off this reform – and some type of ‘reform’ is inevitable, the Democrat ‘reform’ effort we will surely see in 2009 will be an absolute nightmare.

  3. Debra Burlingame says:

    All due respect to the venerable Jon Kyl, I believe his position is, “this is the best we can do…doing nothing is worse.” When 80% of Americans are reasonably demanding security first, then this bill, which will not stop the national security threat posed by porous borders, which will put US govt-issued social security cards in the hands of jihadis (who aren’t interested in a “path to citizenship”), then I say “doing nothing” is better than doing this.

    What Sen. Kyl and his colleagues attempted to do earlier this month was undemocratic. They crafted this mess in secret, without the participation of those senators who possess the greatest knowledge and expertise on the subject, then tried to strong-arm this massive piece of legislation—which will have consequences for the country for generations to come—without so much as a debate, without a full airing of the actual cost to the American taxpayer and worker.

    I have the highest regard for Senator Kyl and I have no doubt he means well, but I am chilled by the standing ovation he received in his district from a local business association after this bill was dropped on the senate floor, just as I was saddened to see Pres. Bush make his $4.4 billion dollar offer of “good faith” while standing in front of an audience of construction trade association members.

    We have watched in horror for 20 years. The people who came here illegally, though tacitly invited here by the govt, can wait a little while longer (like their legal immigrant brethren) so we can stop the tidal wave of humanity that is sure to follow if we pass a bill that has no significant border enforcement.

  4. Lorica says:

    Sorry Dear, We need Border protection. How many of these 12 to 20 million have come thru our borders 2 or 3 times??? We don’t need immigration reform, we need border security. If we had that the illegal alien problem would take care of itself in a matter of a few years. Hugh Hewitt might be right on in his defense of Kyl, but whether this bill is served as is or with ketchup it is still BS. I am not slamming a single conservative or liberal for this bill. All I see in it is that once this bill becomes a law, there will be the devil to pay, and conservatives are going to be the ones who pay that price. Stand on our principles is all I am saying, it is always difficult to do the right thing. This bill ain’t it. You are going to create a new underclass of poor who are only going to take from the working poor or lower middle income group, and more burden upon the middle class in general. Who pays the medical bills for these new “citizens”?? If this bill goes thru you are going to see a barren wasteland for Republicans, and the opposing political side knows this. Compromise is just not an option. This needs to be defeated. – Lorica

  5. We need both, Lorica.

  6. Scott says:

    Senator Jon Kyl has alot to answer for and he has sold out the conservatives in his own party. One has to wonder what he was promised to sell out America and the conservatives that voted him into office.

    Meeting in secret behind closed doors with the Likes La Raza and Ted Kennedy and calling the Amnesty Bill good for the country is hogwash.

    Why people like you cannot see what would happen if this bill passes is astounds me. It would not only destroy the Republican party it would destroy this country as we know it.

    The house republicans have not sold their sole and have introduced what Jon Kyle should have demanded in the Senate; The Secure Borders First Act

  7. Debra Burlingame says:

    LINK

    SEE this great ad by Eagle Forum: “The people’s voice will not be silenced.”

  8. Debra, first, thank you for all that you do. I am a great admirer of your writings and your tireless dedication to making sure the American people do not forget what started the global war on terror. I’m also very, very sorry for your loss on 9-11.

    Now, to address what you wrote:

    We have watched in horror for 20 years. The people who came here illegally, though tacitly invited here by the govt, can wait a little while longer (like their legal immigrant brethren) so we can stop the tidal wave of humanity that is sure to follow if we pass a bill that has no significant border enforcement.

    With all due respect, making the current illegals wait is de facto amnesty. If we must have immigration reform – and plenty of people on both sides of the aisle have been clamoring for it for years, so we’re going to get it one way or the other – we need to do it before the 2008 elections. I shudder to think what a Democrat immigration ‘reform’ bill would look like.

    Yes, the borders do need to be enforced, but that doesn’t address the illegals already here, and doing nothing is essentially the very type of ‘amnesty’ the bill’s opponents talk strongly against. We can and should do both: border enforcement and reform the existing immigration system. We can’t be all or nothing on this bill. Compromises will have to be made in order to get it to pass. Even when we did have control of both houses of Congress, there’s no way we could have gotten the conservative-approved House version of the immigration through the Senate because we had RINO Republicans and of course most Senate Democrats, who didn’t like the House version. Now, the House has completely changed hands and they have a comfortable lead to the point that Republicans in the House can’t get the bill they would have liked into the Senate. Wouldn’t matter if they could,anyway, because it would be stalled by Harry Reid.

    As far as the President and Kyl making speeches in front of big business groups, I’ve already addressed that complaint in my “immigration debate: good, bad, and ugly” post that I referenced above. What you’re saying essentially equates to the president (and Kyl) supposedly selling out our national security in order to stay cozy with big business and I think that is absolutely not true, considering his (and Kyl’s) rock solid past history on national security issues. They didn’t sell us out then, so to think they are selling us out now ignores that history. And let’s also not forget that Senate Democrats who are lining up with Republicans in opposition to this bill are not doing it out of principle, they are doing it because they are in bed with labor unions.

    This immigration bill is not going to go away. Both parties want to make the claim that they’ve ‘done something’ about illegal immigration before next year’s elections, so we’re going to get a bill one way or the other. We need to keep the pressure on Kyl and other loyal conservatives we’ve been able to depend on in the past to stay true to the essentials conservatives are demanding as it relates to illegal immigration, but we also have to keep in mind that this bill has to pass the Democrat smell test, so we’ll only be able to accomplish so much – not everything we want to.

  9. Lorica says:

    Yes, the borders do need to be enforced, but that doesn’t address the illegals already here, and doing nothing is essentially the very type of ‘amnesty’ the bill’s opponents talk strongly against.

    If you secure the borders, and enforce the laws we already have, it would not be the same as amnesty. Eventually the illegal problem would work it’s way out. – Lorica

  10. If you secure the borders, and enforce the laws we already have, it would not be the same as amnesty. Eventually the illegal problem would work it’s way out.

    But as I mentioned earlier, we simply do not have the resources to round up and deport every illegal alien in this country (which is what bill opponents are demanding by way of saying we need to enforce existing laws).

  11. Bachbone says:

    If border enforcement and employer fines for hiring illegals were enforced, some experts say many illegals would leave voluntarily when they could not find work. The “we can’t deport them all” argument is a straw man. We don’t lack the means. We lack the will.

    As one who has e-mailed many Republican Senators, I have been respectful, but firm. Essentially, I don’t trust them. They passed a bill, and Bush signed it, to build a fence. They then promptly defunded the fence! What prevents them from reneging on every last provision of any new bill?

    The “things will be worse if we don’t do it now, because the Democrats will gain control” is another straw man. As many Democrats are against this bill as Republicans. Political cover for both parties comes by making it “bi-partisan.”

    For decades, conservatives have bemoaned the fact that blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats who do little for them once elected. Why should conservatives vote for Republicans who act like liberals? The GOP has had numerous chances to do the right thing, but from Bush down, seems to delight in pummeling its base support. The mere fact that Senator Kennedy and his staff had major input into these immigration bills should alert everyone to what lies in them. Once again, experts say these bills will change the basic fabric of American society and destroy the Republican Party as a serious, conservative, political force. (I can’t remember where I read it, but some author looked into the voting preferences of those illegals admitted by the 1986 amnesty bill. The GOP got a only a small percentage of those voters.) I’ve never believed suicide was the answer for anything.

    Nothing done behind closed doors, especially in Congress, is likely to come out bereft of political shenanigans. If “comprehensive immigration” is so overwhelmimgly important, get it out in the open where everyone can see and understand what is being done. That Democrats and Republicans want to do things hush-hush and quickly tells me what they’re doing is at least suspect.

    Build the fence. Enforce the border. Arrest, fine and imprison employers who hire illegals. (Don’t try to tell me a system to check IDs can’t be set up and enforced. Every time I buy a gun, I have to undergo a background check to make sure I am allowed to get it. That is accomplished in minutes!) Ban federal funds to any city or state that will not cooperate with federal enforcement of current immigration laws. (The “sanctuary” crap will soon wither when $$$ are denied.) Simple! No new legislation needed. After five years of that, come back and consider how to deal with illegals who have not gone back home.

  12. Lorica says:

    But as I mentioned earlier, we simply do not have the resources to round up and deport every illegal alien in this country (which is what bill opponents are demanding by way of saying we need to enforce existing laws).

    At no point in time have I advocated rounding people up and deporting them. I am only suggesting that with tighter border security, making it harder for them to come back. As these people come and go out of America and back to their country, as many of them have done, let’s make it abit more difficult for the return trip, they might actually start thinking about becoming Americans. I have no problem with the majority of these people becoming American citizens. I would like to see our laws followed, background checks, health check ups, taught english, so forth and so on. But as a natural born citizen of the absolutely most generous nation in the entire world and all of it’s history, I feel there is a time and place where our generosity is being taken advantage of and this is it.

    What I am against is a blanket Amnesty which is exactly what this bill wants to do. I am against no back ground checks, I am against Social Security and Welfare privleges for people who aren’t contributing. I am against making it easier for felons to flaunt our laws on a whim. I am against wasting the time of our border agents, and the destruction of the private property of those on that border who are trying to eek out a living. Charity starts at home, it is time for America to concern itself with her people.

    What I want to know is how much longer is Congress going to waste it’s time with this, and when is it going to get to real important issues, such as Social Security, Welfare, Job Training, Education, Health Care, Trade Imbalances…… This country is going to hell in a handbasket, and we are concerned about the citizens of Mexico?? How much more time time and energy is going to be wasted on this issue when there is no NEED for it??

    These two items should be looked at as seperate issues, because they are. Once they are seperated from each other, they can be looked at with much less emotion. We need border security, for all the people of America to live securely free from terrorist activities. Border security isn’t just about keeping out illegals.

    You know Princess, I care for you so very much, and I hate being on the opposite side of any disccusion we are having, but in this case I cannot nor will not agree with immigration reform. I hate with all of my being the fact that so many have died on our borders trying to sneak in. With properly secured borders many of these people might still be alive. – Lorica

  13. The “things will be worse if we don’t do it now, because the Democrats will gain control” is another straw man. As many Democrats are against this bill as Republicans. Political cover for both parties comes by making it “bi-partisan.”

    No it’s not a strawman, and the fact that as many Democrats as well as Republicans are against this bill has nothing to do with it. The Democrats who are against this bill are against it because of labor concerns, not because they give a bleep about our national security. If they get control of the WH in addition to gaining more control in the House and Senate, they’ll put together a ‘reform’ bill that will ‘address’ their concerns and pass it on to the president, who I think will likely be a Democrat.

    Just like we worried in 2004 about what a Democrat would do about Iraq if elected to the WH, and just like we worried in 2006 about how a Dem Congress would deal with the Iraq issue, we very much need to be concerned with how a Democrat Congress and WH will handle immigration reform after the next election.

    So no, this isn’t a strawman – it’s a very real possibility and something we need to be concerned about.

  14. Lorica, most of us share those same concerns, we just differ on how to go about addressing them.

  15. Alan says:

    After 20+ years of bipartisan neglect we simply do not trust the government to enforce existing laws, let alone new laws. To paraphrase President Reagan, “Verify, THEN trust.” Enforce the existing laws, pass some modest additional enforcement measures, and when, and only when, we have seen the government carry out its duty, we can tinker with the legal immigration issues. Of course, if we do the first, the problem will be a lot more tractable.

    From the proud son of a naturalized parent!

  16. Tom TB says:

    I mow my own lawn, trim the weeds, fix the furnace, plumbing,automobiles, and any darn thing that needs doing. Why do we need aliens that don’t and won’t fit in to the fabric of American society?

  17. Don Hernandez says:

    While I agree that name calling should stop, I don’t have sympathy for any politician who stabs his base in the back. If you can’t stand the heat-get out of the kitchen-or change your position!

    I don’t recall Kyl shaming President Bush when he said all of you don’t want to do what’s right for America.

    And Kyl was silent when Senator Graham called all of you a bunch of racist bigots.

    Sorry, guys, it works both ways.

  18. Don, that’s why I mentioned that the name calling and trash talking was happening on both sides. I addressed that more in depth here.

    And as far as the bit about the accusation the President made about bill opponents ‘not wanting to do what’s right for America’, isn’t that exactly what many opponents have been saying for the last several years about the president’s stance on illegal immigration?

  19. Baklava says:

    Beautiful discussion born of respect Lorica and ST.

    I agree with Lorica’s 5:54 post.

    Also, the characterization that we want 12 million rounded up and deported is kind of misunderstanding our position and belief that there won’t be 12 million to round up when the border security is tightened and laws enforced.

    If employers weren’t employing them and as Michelle Malkin’s site has daily now it seems story after story of illegal aliens killing Americans after drunk driving yet being criminals already for previous violations including previously drunk driving – we are failing to provide basic security for America not even National security because we are failing as a nation to tighten the border and enforce our laws that we already have.

    Our situation is born of negligence. We need to stop allowing for negligence and then make improvements that do not include Z visa’s. The reason the “shamnesty” (as MM calls it) bill is bad is because of Z visa’s. There have been debates on Hugh Hewitt’s program where the people on Lorica and our side have described in detail the problem with the Z visa and why it single handedly makes the bill bad and then other provisions in the bill add up to double-bad.

    Yes, there are good things in the bill like added money for border security but double-bad with delayed or not actually done (as in previous bills like the 700 mile fence not doing) makes the bill …. double-bad.

    In my humble opinion though. Thanks for listening ST.

  20. Baklava says:

    By the way. Redneck and knee jerk conservatives will ALWAYS give conservatives a bad name and convince more people that liberalism is the way to go.

    I have a neighbor who is a knee jerk redneck conservative and all he shows is that he is heartless, without care, no facts and full of bluster.

    The commenter’s on Hugh’s article who do this are not persuasive and are part of the problem and not the solution.

    Thank you ST for running such a WONDERFUL blog. You are the best and most welcoming blog I know for thoughtful conservatives.

  21. Baklava says:

    I meant to say “yours is the most welcoming blog I know for thoughtful conservatives”.

  22. Baklava says:

    Here’s a post concerning the Z visa’s. It is one of many that I’ve read.

  23. Thanks for the compliment, Bak. I give a lot of credit to the longtime commenters here who have posted thoughtful commentary and insight on the whole issue sans the inflamed rhetoric. If posts here slipped into the kind of viciousness you are seeing in the comments section at Hugh’s, I probably wouldn’t even blog about the issue. As it stands, I don’t have to worry about it. The negative comments I get are usually confined to email, as I presume that the people emailing are aware of the fact that I won’t allow posts on this topic to go the route of many a blogger’s comment sections I’ve seen on this issue.

    Here’s another post worth reading as it relates to the Z-Visa.

  24. There are 3,141 counties in the US. Of the top ten, five are in Texas, two in California, one in Nevada, one in North Carolina and the fastest growing one is in Arizona.

    In fairness, not all of the counties are getting buried with the illegal invasion. Some need to do more than others.

    Let’s say we use an average of each county employing X number of employees using just one of there brand new prisoner transport vans and or busses from the prisoner transport pool, fill it up and transfer them to deportation depots. One bus, one driver and ten criminals, done once a day, every day for thirty days. That’s 942,300 illegal aliens off the street. After one year, that’s 11,307,600 illegal aliens off the street! If only 10% of them were criminals involved in violent crimes and drugs, we would have gotten 113,076 hardened criminals OFF THE STREETS! Clearly an over simplification and impossible, as those busses drowned in NO are proof of what can’t be done.

    Now before y’all go ballistic, I agree that the current system is in need of serious overhaul, as are any number of federally run agencies and bureaucracy’s. All one needs to see and see clearly, are the individuals drawing pay, where incentive to do the work as it was intended to performed, pales in comparison to morally challenged individuals working the system for their own advantage. Perhaps that seems off topic, but until you have responsible people doing the jobs as they were intended to be accomplished, no amount of reformation will ever be adequate. They will always find a way around the initial purpose and intent to serve their various *demons*!

    Political, economic, and cultural liberalism have swept over the United States in the last century and this is another symptom of that fact.

    First things first! SEAL THE BORDER or sink, while the bantering gets sorted out! There are too many things at stake NOT to make the border de facto secure and arresting those guarding it for shooting a drug running criminal just adds to the insanity.

  25. Tom TB says:

    I don’t and won’t pre-judge people, but if a boat is overloaded it will sink.

  26. Great White Rat says:

    Both parties want to make the claim that they’ve ‘done something’ about illegal immigration before next year’s elections, so we’re going to get a bill one way or the other.

    I’m not sure I agree there, ST. Both parties know that pushing a transparently bad bill through in the face of massive public disapproval will hand their opponents – whether Democrat or Republican – a useful club for hammering them in the 2008 campaign. Being concerned with re-election before almost anything else, they’ll back away as long as public ire over the topic keeps the issue on the front burner.

    That doesn’t mean some politicians, those in safe districts, won’t try. Teddy Kennedy knows he could offer a bill requiring mandatory child sacrifice to Gaia and he’d still be re-elected comfortably, so he will continue to push for it.

    More likely, I’d expect a serious renewed push for an amnesty bill early in 2009 – when the people will have more than two years to forget about it before they next go to the polls.

  27. Great White Rat says:

    We can and should do both: border enforcement and reform the existing immigration system.

    Agreed. Where I part company with the advocates of the current measure is the coupling of the two. I don’t accept the premise that we must tackle both issues at once, and do them now. I’ve yet to hear a good argument as to why we can’t improve border security now, and once that’s done, work on reforming the immigration laws.

    The fact is that the provisions for border control in Simpson-Mazzoli have not been enforced. That absolutely must be done first, along with a new law requiring immediate deporting of any illegal who commits a felony. One strike, you’re out.

    And the border enforcement must have some real teeth in it. Someone’s pointed out that a 700-mile fence has been authorized, but only TWO miles of it have been funded and built. That does NOT qualify as real enforcement.

    I do think that one reason the discussion of this topic has generated a lot more heat than light is that people are realizing that the problem gets worse every day. There’s a tendency to drop reasoned discourse and start shouting when you see things falling apart in front of you. That’s why the first step – before anything else – must be border control. If that’s done, the remaining issues can be considered in a calmer atmosphere.

  28. Great White Rat says:

    And by the way, I’m in full agreement with Baklava about the level of discussion you maintain here, ST. =d>
    When I happen across a site that refers to the president as ‘Jorge’, I know I need not read further.

  29. Baklava says:

    Thanks ST

  30. Great White Rat says:

    Something I hadn’t seen considered until now in this debate: if the current Senate bill passes, will the newly legalized, formerly illegal, immigrants qualify for racial preferences and privileges not available to others?

    Ward Connerly thinks they will.

    The heart of the issue:

    Legalized Hispanic immigrants, Connerly says, would also gain privileges over immigrants from nations such as Russia because they would be part of an officially sanctioned “underrepresented minority.”

    The problem, according to Connerly, lies in “the nexus between illegal immigration and preferences.” That issue had not been part of the immigration debate until last Friday, when Connerly published an open letter in the Washington Times, signed by various individuals, some of whom disagree with him on immigration policy per se. Signatories include Grover Norquist, Linda Chavez, and civil-rights advocate Joe Hicks.

    “This is one of those things that people have not thought through.” Connerly said. “A group that has never had the historic discrimination of blacks would be given the status of an underrepresented minority in this country.”

    Interesting perspective. Those who support the bill, what say you? I’d be interested in hearing the other side.

  31. Bachbone says:

    This “affirmative action” possibility was anticipated about a year or so ago in an article written for National Review. If memory serves me correctly, the author is from the American Enterprise Institute. GWR’s post jogged my brain and a piece of flotsam surfaced. Kudos to Connerly for again raising the issue. It certainly is another unstated liberal reason (victimology) for supporting this bill. Think of all the potential cases for trial lawyers.

  32. Gray One says:

    The excuse that Senator Kyl and others are -now- working to improve this bill does NOT explain their willing participation in the secret creation of this bill, bypassing all the normal Senate processes. Kyl willingly backed the Kennedy -Bush bill AS IT WAS FIRST PRESENTED.
    We all know how bad that was, and Kyl was part of the effort to move this to a vote without any meaningful debate.
    To excuse him NOW as “trying to get the best deal possible” is to ignore his part in -creating- what is obviously a badly flawed piece if legislation.

    He went to bed with Senator Kennedy, and now people have noticed he got up with fleas.

    Like many others I have lost ALL confidence in the integrity of the legislative AND EXECUTIVE BRANCHES.
    We are told how impossible it is to remove 12 million illegals, and that is an excuse for not sealing the border. [Seems a bit of a non sequiter.]

    Granting that we cannot remove all 12 million, we can and MUST seal the border first, so that when and if we manage to assimilate this group, there will not be another 20 million new illegals here to take their turn. I refer you to the 1986 immigration reform , and its failure to prevent THIS cycle.

    Kyl and his cohorts do not understand what those of us living outside of gated communities are seeing clearly.If he does not want to listen -and he has not- then his past record will not save him from being replaced.

    And yes, ST, the Democrats may pass something much worse in a year or two. If so, let them do it without any Republican aid or cover, and they can bear the brunt of the backlash. Kyl, by helping Kennedy , has become merely a “useful idiot” on this issue.

    Gray One