When asked about changing the Constitution to bar children of illegal immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens, House Minority Leader John Boehner said, “I think it’s worth considering.”
No it’s not.
I’ve previously laid out my reasons why this is a very bad idea. It’s worth adding that children must turn 21 before they can sponsor their parents for legal residency. It is simply not the magnet that people like Boehner and Sens. Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Jeff Sessions, and Jon Kyl insist. They are manufacturing an argument to create an issue.
There is plenty policymakers can do to curb illegal immigration (including securing the southern border, toughening enforcement policies, and expediting the legal process to cut the average deportation time) and improve our overall approach to immigration (including narrowing the scope of the family-reunification privilege to the nuclear family, adjusting upward our quotas for high-skilled labor, and making assimilation a central national priority). Pushing for altering the 14th amendment, though, is worse than unhelpful; it is substantively unwise and politically harmful.
Republicans are practicing the politics of symbolism in the worst way possible. They are embracing a policy that doesn’t have any realistic chance of becoming law, that will be unnecessarily divisive and inflammatory, and that, in the long term, will be politically counterproductive.
It is an approach that is, among other things, wholly at odds with the one embraced by the last two Republican presidents to win reelection, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan (see here).
Why Republicans continue to travel down this road is a mystery to me. This is not what the party of Lincoln should stand for.
Gordon,
so far, it looks like things have taken a turn for the worse in Pakistan since Mushie left offfice.
Rininger, really? The situation in the tribal areas was not any better then, and at least people are not now out on the streets complaining about Mushie.
Suddenly the Pakistanis love the Brits? One thing you can sure get out of our modern times is a regular belly laugh.
As I suggested at Abe’s original column, respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty should extend to the areas where Pakistan is sovereign. There is a tacit understanding now that that doesn’t include the northwestern tribal provinces, which is why Pakistan’s central government is not held accountable for their actions.
If Islamabad wants to claim sovereignty over the tribal areas in which the Taliban and other anti-American terrorist organizations receive support — well, that makes it a new ball game.
Someone is seriously behind the times here. Admiral Mullen paid a visit to Pakistan in recent days and Pakistan has backed off its warning to attack encroaching US forces.
And let’s not forget where the attackers came from in recent years that attacked the UK.
J.E. Dyer makes a good argument here. If Pakistan wants to claim sovereignty over the heretofore ungovernable territory, then they should be held accountable for the actions of its occupants.
J.E. Dyer, the United States needs to speak plainly about the issue you raise instead of providing assurances of repecting a sovereignty that does not in fact exist.
I find it interesting that Afghanistan’s government is quick to protest the inadvertent attack on civilians by the U.S. but seems to have lost it voice when it comes to Pakistan’s tolerance of Taliban use of its territory as a base for aggression against the Afghan people. On the other hand, if Pakistan is unwilling and/or unable to control the use of its territory for such aggression then it does not in fact exercise sovereignty over its border area. And if it claims to have such control, then it is an admission of being complicit in the aggression against its neighbor. Time to call it as it is.
Given the attacks on Pakistan proper, along with the grotesque brutality of the jihadis around the word that has disgusted so many Muslims, can’t a vigorous leadership in Pakistan make the case to their people that the tribal regions must be tamed?
And why exactly is Pakistan at such a loss to know how to wage this war? I didn’t think they lack the hardware or the military training and leadership.
Capitan America, you write “Pakistan has backed off its warning to attack encroaching US forces.” Really? It’s true Pakistan did not repeat its warning that it might shoot Americans while Mullen visited Islamabad today, but that is only because Mullen promised the United States would respect Pakistani sovereignty, a promise that undoubtedly will not be kept. Let’s see what Pakistan’s army says after the next raid or missile strike.
Abe was absolutely right to say that it is time for a “line in the sand.”
J.E. Dyer is correct in asserting that if Pakistan wants its sovereignty respected, they need to exercise control in the regions over which they are supposedly sovereign.
It would be best if whichever administration comes into power in January (though don’t hold your breath), makes clear to Pakistan that if they continue to obstruct our efforts to clear Taliban leaders and fighters from their southern border region, they can count on NO aid from the United States. Give them a time-frame-window to comply, either by approving our cross-border raids or more effectively taking out Taliban fighters themselves, if they don’t, cut it all off. Don’t send one more dollar to Pakistan for any sort of aid. If Pakistan refuses to cooperate in some more productive way, in the coming years, some of the troops leaving Iraq should be massed on the border, dig in, and conduct the cross-border raids regardless of how Islamabad feels about it. If we are serious about winning the War on Terror, Pakistan needs to be brought in line, or be considered openly adversarial. This is one of those situations where it is entirely appropriate to say, “you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
Oops. That should be, “if they continue to obstruct our efforts to clear Taliban leaders and fighters from their northern border region…”