Please Fence Her In
Patt Morrison has a silly collection of non-arguments against a border fence in today's LA Times. But perhaps the most ridiculous argument in a ridiculous column is this little bit of sarcasm:
WHAT, no land mines?
If the United States really means business with that fence along the Mexican border, why flinch at installing things that go blooey?
Well, duh. The fact is that many of us believe that US immigration laws should be enforced. That doesn't mean that illegal immigrants should be killed. It just means they should apply for US citizenship or residency in accordance with the law.
They give space on the LA Times op/ed page to arguments of this deplorable quality?
WHAT, no land mines?
If the United States really means business with that fence along the Mexican border, why flinch at installing things that go blooey?
Well, duh. The fact is that many of us believe that US immigration laws should be enforced. That doesn't mean that illegal immigrants should be killed. It just means they should apply for US citizenship or residency in accordance with the law.
They give space on the LA Times op/ed page to arguments of this deplorable quality?
posted by LadybugUSA at 5:48 AM
3 Comments:
The gifted Patt Morrison is not, as are so many of her lertist brethren, out of touch with reality. She knows what she is doing.
Ms. Morrison is skirting the argument.
She writes:
Erecting a 700-mile barrier will trample protected wilderness and endangered species, but it won't address illegal immigration's root causes.
Since when do laws written for the protection of citizens have to address the root cause? Murder someone - go to prison. Where's the "addressing" of the root cause? For that matter, where is the need to?
The U.S.-Mexico border is about 2,000 miles long. The bill authorizes only 700 miles of fence in five spots. You do the math. You tell me how this once and for all stops illegal immigration.
Who claims that it will "once and for all stop illegal immigration"?
Why does it have to be?
Sorry, Patt - no one is claiming that this is the cure-all. Just a darn good start.
My favorite left-wing exposure on this: the Hugh Hewitt talk show last spring, when a caller representing a Hispanic rights group tried to sound "reasonable" about the issue. When the caller said that he didn't believe that the fence would stop anyone, Hugh asked if it would help if the fence dropped the flow from 500,000 to 50,000. Would that not be a good start? The caller hemmed and hawed and Hugh then suggested 5,000 which was too much for the "moderate" caller to stand anymore: he blurtted out that he didn't believe that it was right to prevent anyone from South of the Border from coming into the United States AT ALL.
Another blow struck for the liberal left! Dishonesty rules!
Land mines. Hmmmmmm.
Just make sure that they know where to pint the side that says = "This side towards enemy"
Post a Comment
<< Home