I guess the former action was inevitable. The latter shows that non-supporters are not going to take this lying down.
Now, you know my position on this: I concur with those who oppose the site because it's tantamount to aiding and abetting illegal workers. And if the contractors want a nice site to pick up their cheap labor, why don't they foot the bill instead of relying on public funding (from supporters and opposition alike)? One word: profit, as in, funding the site would cut into theirs. Now, y'all know I'm for profit - but not at ANY price.
I also find the opinions and rationales of some of the supporters to be moronic and frankly infantile. Here's a time-honored fall-back:
Some supporters of the site countered with accusations of racism. (Washington Post, 8/18/05)You know that whenever someone has no viable, reasonable or intelligent argument, they can whip out the old racism thang and everyone just magically shuts up.
Now this is a Kumbaya attitude:
Supporters cited the biblical exhortation to love thy neighbor and begged the council not to allow the community to turn its back on its less-fortunate members. (Washington Post, 8/18/05)
Were these folks lobotomized? First, illegals are not "members" of OUR society. They are essentially squatters. And, if these boneheads are SO concerned with the "less fortunate," they can take the next Aeromexico flight down to Fox's lovely country, you know the one, for which we (USA) are the pressure valve. I really don't know what drug they're smoking, but clearly it has nothing to do with the observance of OUR laws, OUR people or with the best interests of OUR country.
And, don't let me forget to mention that I personally know folks who have LEGALLY struggled to obtain green cards/working permits, etc., with all the red-tape that entails, to work here LEGALLY. Of course, they're professionals, thus an anathema to the whole illegal-boosters brigade. Those kind only cry for the undocumented underclass.
This is rich:
They said the problem is not immigration but a neighborhood conflict over noise, littering and safety. (Washington Post, 8/18/05)Ok I just need to stop this post and go to bed.
Here's a badly needed clue: first, you actually enforce our immigration laws. That means not only on the federal level, but across the board, in every state, county and township. Yes, damn it, it's your problem (and responsibility) too. Then, if there are any legal day laborers left who are willing to work for slave wages, then you can charge the taxpayers for a covered area not dissimilar to a covered bus stop. Feel free to drop the social workers and language specialists along the way.
I'm sure I'll be saying more on this, but it's almost midnight and I have to do some comfort (fiction, mystery) reading. Buenos noches, amigos!
1 comment:
I can't say I disagree with what Renee writes here, but I do sympathise with those who live in the community, and who run the local government. If the Feds fail to hold up their end of the immigration enforcement bargain, what's a local community to do? As you suggest, enforcement can be pushed down the org chart to the states and locals, but that costs real money, which they surely don't have. How should one pay for the enforcement? A state tax? A county/city tax? How galling to have to pay twice (in taxes to the Feds and the state/local government) to get a job done once.
Seems like the local government had few options, and took the least costly one that stood any chance of "success," or what will have to pass for it in the short run. Long-term, the people in Herndon will have to make enforcement on illegal immigration a voting issue when they go to the polls to select congressmen and a president in 2006 and 2008.
Post a Comment