Lindsey’s ‘hard pander’ on immigration

A colleague brings my attention to what he refers to as "a hard pander on immigration from Lindsey." Mike goes on to say:

only is it a reasonable bill he would otherwise support, but he also lapses into
cartoonish military-speak about our southern border. "Boots on the ground" …
"force multiplier" … "unmanned aerial vehicles" … "operational
think these people were surging over the border with assault rifles, instead of
sneaking in to pick our fruit and prepare our chickens.
chickenhearted, from a man with $4 million in campaign funds and no known

Anyway, here’s the release he was referring to:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:      Contact: Wes Hickman or Kevin Bishop
October 24, 2007                                                                           

Graham Opposes DREAM Act
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today voted against invoking cloture on the DREAM Act.  Sixty votes were necessary to move to consideration of the legislation and the vote in the Senate was 52-44.  He made this statement following the vote:
     “First, we must show the American people we are serious about securing our nation’s borders.
     “I have twice introduced and passed legislation through the Senate providing $3 billion for improved border security.  There is no doubt we need more boots on the ground, more miles of fencing, better technology which acts as a force multiplier, additional detention beds, and unmanned aerial vehicles at the border.  I have and will continue to push for adoption of the Graham Amendment until it is signed into law by President Bush.
     “Regaining operational control of our nation’s borders is a gateway to further reforms of our broken immigration system.
     “I’m sympathetic to the concerns expressed today on the floor of the Senate, but I believe the legislation was poorly drafted and in need of further amending.  Additionally, Majority Leader Reid made clear that he was not going to allow any meaningful changes to the DREAM Act, a legislative process I found to be very unfair.  Without assurances border security would be addressed, I would not vote to proceed to this matter.
     “There is no reason to abandon our border security efforts at this critical moment in time.  We need to be focused on securing our borders to ensure people who come into the country do so legally.”

I’m with Mike about the chest-thumping in this release. I will say one thing in Lindsey’s defense, though: He and McCain always couched their immigration efforts in terms of "securing our borders." When I asked Sen. McCain why on Earth he wanted to beat himself up with this issue in the midst of a presidential campaign, when the only people who see this as an urgent issue are the ones who will hate him for not being mean enough to the Mexicans, he said he couldn’t see putting off such an important Homeland Security issue. In other words, it’s not the Mexicans he’s worried about keeping out.

All that said — yeah, Lindsey’s going out of his way, once again, to win hearts and minds among our latter-day Know-Nothings.

3 thoughts on “Lindsey’s ‘hard pander’ on immigration

  1. Doug Ross

    > the only people who see this as an urgent
    > issue are the ones who will hate him for not
    > being mean enough to the Mexicans
    Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.
    It’s an urgent issue because ILLEGAL immigrants are allowed to cross the borders, find jobs at below market pay, and utilize public services that they do not contribute toward.
    It’s not about Mexicans. It’s about criminal acts. It’s about the economy and the employers who ignore the law to hire illegal workers. It’s about following the law that these Senators swear to uphold.
    Why is it that the immigration laws don’t seem to matter to you? A guy who wants the government to mandate a helmet for a kid on an ATV can’t be bothered by people crossing over the border illegally and expecting an easy path to citizenship?
    Your hyperbole on this issue is baffling. You have yet to make anything approaching a rational argument as to why illegal immigrants should be allowed to be here, work here, avoid paying taxes, and demand rights that they do not have.

  2. Brad Warthen

    Kids get killed on ATVs, and the things serve no useful purpose (beyond forest rangers and such who might need them to get around).
    Mexicans cross an abstract, theoretical line in the desert to pick our crops and sweep our floors, and keep their families from starving.
    It’s extremely rational. The irrational thing is the extreme emotion that the presence of these poor brown people evokes in U.S. natives. It’s pretty ugly.

  3. Doug Ross

    > Mexicans cross an abstract, theoretical line
    > in the desert
    Wow. Truly, wow. That sentence is just mind boggling.
    I know The State is hard up for subscribers, but I didn’t realize the lengths you’d be willing to go to…
    It’s not about the color of the skin (which only you seem to worry about)… it’s about an illegal act being ignored for the sake of the South Carolina businesses that employ workers who do not pay taxes and drain resources from the public system that you claim does not spend enough on education.

Comments are closed.