Border wall meets formidable barrier

By James P. Pinkerton, Newsday, November 16, 2006

Remember the congressional vote to build a wall across part of the U.S.-Mexico border? Maybe it was all a con.

In September, the House of Representatives voted 283-138, and the Senate 80-19 to authorize about 700 miles of fencing. Mission accomplished for border security? Not quite. For one thing, the wall covered only a third of the U.S.-Mexico frontier. And, second of all, Congress only authorized the wall - it didn't fund it. (The cost is estimated as between $4 billion and $8 billion.)

Those who spearheaded the September wall vote, including Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), were perfectly sincere. But come 2007, Tancredo & Co. will no longer be in charge. The chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee, for example, will shift from Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), an immigration hawk, to Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), an immigration dove.

Thompson was one of those 138 members of Congress who voted against the wall two months ago. And just on Monday he told UPI that he was planning to "revisit" the wall issue, adding that he was more inclined toward a "virtual wall" - monitors, cameras and other surveillance systems. The question, of course, is whether Thompson's concepts of "revisitation" and "virtualization" are just sly code words for "elimination."

Of course, Thompson is not operating in isolation. He is part of a substantial body of thought - arguably the dominant body of thought - inside the Democratic Party today, which holds that open borders are good. Why? Three reasons:

First, words and phrases such as "multiculturalism" and "diversity is our strength" are written into the party's DNA. Second, the Democrats have concluded, not without reason, that new Hispanic immigrants are likely to vote Democratic. Over time, to be sure, Hispanics have a way of becoming more Republican. But, if so, that's a great argument for Democrats to keep the gates open for new folks. And, third, plenty of Democrats adhere to a sort of United Nations-European Union approach to world affairs, believing that individual countries and their borders should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

So, by this reckoning, a "Great Wall" is simply an obstacle to the multiculturalization, Democrat-ization, and denationalization of America.

Meanwhile, incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) - both of whom, like Thompson, voted "nay" on the wall - are now loudly advocating "comprehensive" immigration reform. "Comprehensive," of course, is one of those Washington buzzwords aimed at making the listener think that the "comprehensive" solution has covered all the angles.

In fact, it has: "Comprehensive" immigration reform is designed to be so complex and involuted - with a new category of "guest workers" and different paths to citizenship - that no ordinary American will be able to figure out what's really going on.

One might think that the Republican Party - the party that speaks of peace through strength, that pledges fidelity to traditional values, that sticks up for America's special role in the world - would have nothing to do with such a mad plan for weakening and transforming America through unattended borders and wanton multiculturalism. Indeed, most grassroots Republicans, joined by many Democrats, are alarmed by these globalist ideas.

But the Republican Party is top-down. And at the top sit President George W. Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and now Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), whom Bush named to the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee. All three are solidly pro-immigration. This elite trio even supports a "guest worker" program, which would enshrine exactly the sort of two-tier labor system that Republicans fought against in the Civil War.

At his first post-election press conference, Bush said of "comprehensive" immigration reform, "It's an important issue and I hope we can get something done on it."

So the fix is in. The wall is out. Get ready for a new America.

Read the complete article.

Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see:
In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.