By From M.L. Pinkard - 03/05/07 07:53 PM EST
(Regarding editorial, “Voting with their feet,” March 1.) You got it! The Hill’s assertion that “ejection of the GOP from the majority in both chambers in November cannot be characterized as a national repudiation of its immigration policies …” is certainly true in the case of moderate Republicans who favor enforcement-only immigration reform.
They fared well in the November elections because they upheld the will of the majority of Americans who want NO immigration increases at all. They also demonstrated Rep. Steve King’s attrition —by enforcement — solution for handling the estimated 12 million to 30 million illegal aliens here, virtually all of whom are Mexican nationals.
Attrition by enforcement removes incentives for illegal aliens — economic prizes that government, employers, and landlords illicitly dangle at the expense of taxpaying citizen workers — without which most would return home on their own.
It also cans the drama of that either-or proposition that Bush, McCain, Kennedy — who votes lockstep with Bush Republicans on immigration measures (www.congressgrades.com) — and their abundant bed partners love to shout about. Deportation — how inhumane to deport lawbreaking foreign nationals who live in the shadows by taking American jobs! Instead, amnesty for everyone — or rather, “earned paths” to citizenship. Make that “guest-worker programs” so they can stay (and please overlook the fact they take more in public benefits than they pay in taxes). ...
Romney better talk or we voters will walk
From Sandra Miller
(Regarding article, “Romney addresses most social issues; mum on immigration,” Jan. 30.) Romney is keeping “mum” on immigration? Likely because he hopes to play the “bait and switch” game with his support base. If he knows his supporters won’t like his position on immigration, he uses other issues to “hook and reel them in” with the hope that by the time they hear his immigration stance, they won’t be able to get away.
Politicians hoping to deceive voters eagerly redefine the A-word, assuring everyone that they oppose another amnesty for illegal aliens. But anyone claiming he or she doesn’t want to deport all the illegal aliens in the U.S. favors amnesty.
Any government act that drops the penalty for an offense is amnesty. With illegal aliens, their offense is entering the U.S. without inspection by an immigration officer (8 USC 1324-1325), for which the penalty is deportation. Allowing illegal aliens to legally remain in the U.S. is amnesty, with or without the “path to citizenship.” Letting them remain in the U.S. under the “guest worker” banner is amnesty. It’s that simple.
If Romney is careful to avoid the subject, he may hope to hook the “Hispanic vote” by allowing illegal aliens to evade deportation.
Voters must reject candidates like Romney, insisting on full disclosure of their position. If Romney continues to refuse, we walk.
Let’s move away from battle-worn pitch
From Barbara B. Kennelly, president and CEO, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
Reading Peter Ferrara’s op-ed (“Entitlement Reform: No tax increases, better safety nets,” Feb. 9) was like “deja vu all over again.” We’re two years past the president’s failed national tour selling the privatization of Social Security, yet this editorial provided the same battle-worn private accounts pitch already rejected by American seniors and many on Capitol Hill.
It’s time to move on. Seniors and their families support efforts to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, not destroy them with privatization schemes. Private accounts will not lead to higher benefits, maintain the current safety net or save money. ...
Many myths and misconceptions have contributed to the belief that Social Security is in imminent danger and that Social Security privatization is the answer. Social Security will face a shortfall come 2040 that should be faced by Congress. But private accounts have been repudiated by the American people, so let’s get on with addressing the solvable problem.