The immigration bill.

Whooeee - hasn't that sucker generated some passion, both here and elsewhere.

I was going to link to some specific posts... but right now Denizen Bloodspite's Techography site is All Immigration, Alla Time... Um, Bloodspite is *not* a fan of the bill, nor current immigration policy, I might add.

Neither is Dusty, the Instapilot. This came to me under the subject line of "You're fired." I admit my first reaction was - "Hey, waidaminnit! I own this joint - you can't fire me!" and then I opened it and read it:

Senator XXXXXXXX,

I understand you voted against an amendment to the immigration bill that would remove the amnesty provisions for illegal aliens. I also believe you voted against any attempt to end the practice in "sanctuary cities" of prohibiting local law enforcement from inquiring about immigration status and reporting findings to federal officials.

I cannot explain to my daughter why a sitting senator would:

1) consciously vote against any effort to uphold our national sovereignty by tacitly endorsing unlawful entry into this country, or;

2) how a Republican would actively encourage state and local officials to not enforce federal attempts to identify and apprehend foreign nationals on US soil in a time of war.

I'm done. You will never, ever get my vote for reelection.

Respectfully,
The Instapilot, Col, USAF, Ret.
Somewhere, USA.

That was clear enough, I think.

So, where do I stand?

1. I think any bill this large and putatively comprehensive, should die abornin'. Huge bills like this are usually so internally contradictory (plenty of evidence of that in the detailed analysis put out by the think tanks of all stripes) that it will end up being whatever whichever political appointee bureaucrat or Federal judge says it is, as it goes through the inevitable interpretation and litigation processes - and that what comes out the end will be what mostly unaccountable federal officials say it is, not necessarily what individual Representatives, Senators, and President thought it would be. Talk about 6 blind men and an elephant...

So, no, I'm not in favor of this bill. I'd rather have smaller, tighter, more focused bills. There's no reason to rush this monster anywhere but the morgue, and start over.

That said - anything that has just about everybody unhappy with it can't be all bad, in that it has to have been pushed to the center in the sausage-making that is the legislative process. But count me also as one of those people who simply doesn't trust the Federal government, as it currently stands (and this would include a Democrat administration, mind you) to actually enforce the "enforceable" provisions of this bill, if only because it's so full of contradictions... well, see my discussion of Federal Officialdom above.

Count me also among the people described below by Ramesh Ponnuru in a discussion of the WSJ's attack on National Review:

Daniel Henninger says that the bill's opponents' objection to illegal immigration "is fundamentally cultural and they can't say that." Kathryn objected to that idea, and it does paint with too broad a brush, but I do think that Henninger is on to something important. A very big part of what we mean by assimilation is that newcomers will adopt the native culture (while also, of course, changing it in some respects). A major reason for popular anxiety over current immigration policies is the fear that this assimilation is not taking place, or not taking place fast enough, and that as a result the country runs the risk of cultural balkanization. I don't know why that should be unsayable.

I do have cultural objections. There is a reason that many people want to flee/leave where they are and come here - they perceive greater opportunity (some find that also comes with greater risk, too). And those who wish to come to better themselves - I say let 'em come! They help infuse us with entrepreneurial blood. And they can't help but influence our culture - but I do have concerns that the nature of much public policy today is designed to encourage them to balkanize, and not assimilate. And to maintain their comfort bubbles from home - which, of course, contain many of the seeds of the pathologies of *why they left* in the first place. In the give and take and rough and tumble of social interaction, much of what they bring to the table that is good will be adopted by the culture at large. But if we encourage them to "fort up" in enclaves (which most first generation waves do anyway) and provide incentive to *stay* in their enclaves... well, that's the recipe for balkanizing this country. Which I don't think is a good thing.

I want to send Congress back into their conferences and committees, and tell 'em to start over.

And give us multiple bills, not a huge omnibus mess.