Gilchrest’s immigration stance

Sometimes it’s amazing how posts go together. Be sure to read the next one down too. 

It worked out really well, so I swear someone in his office reads monoblogue. A couple posts on the immigration bill and voila! there’s a letter in my mailbox. And it goes like this:

Dear Mr. Swartz:

Because of your interest in immigration reform, I wanted to update you on developments as Congress begins the process of considering this legislation.

As you know, it was recently announced that an agreement has been reached in the US Senate on immigration reform. However I have serious concerns about the current immigration bill under consideration in the Senate and in fact, would oppose the current approach if it were to come to the House side in its current form.

Granting blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants does nothing to discourage future illegal immigration and the organized crime associated with it, and sends the wrong message to those seeking to become US citizens through the established legal process.

I believe we are better suited by taking incremental steps with a strong emphasis in the beginning on border security. Until we can satisfy the American people that our government is serious about securing our borders, we cannot responsibly address the illegal aliens that are already here.

I supported tough enforcement measures in the House last year and unfortunately, those bills died in the Senate. Many of those proposals can be addressed and should be debated individually on their own merits. We need to make sure that our employers have the best technology to ensure that they are hiring legal workers, and we need a tightly enforced but workable guest worker program to protect those local agricultural industries that depend of (sic) these programs.

As a nation of immigrants, this is a difficult and emotional issue with far-reaching and historical implications. But as we approach the issue of immigration, we must make the safety of our nation and the confidence of the American public in our security our top priority.

Sincerely,

Wayne T. Gilchrest

Member of Congress

I guess the first thing which jumps out at me is that he talks about granting blanket amnesty and sending the wrong message to the American people but goes right ahead and sends the wrong message to those overseas who wish us harm by supporting a withdrawal timetable in the Long War. But I’ll leave that discussion for another day and a more appropriate post.

Speaking to the point of view expressed in the letter, I tend to agree with much of what he says, especially his bringing up the issues of organized crime and beginning with an emphasis on border security. But he’s not really stood up and demanded that more of the fence that we allocated billions for in the last year be built, regardless of supposed environmental impact or Mexico’s feelings on the subject.

The key element that he and almost everyone else inside the Beltway don’t seem to get though is that almost everything addressed in the letter as a problem is ALREADY against the law. Once again, I say that Congress can pass all of the laws it wants but if the will to enforce them is not there, all they accomplish is lifetime employment for those fortunate enough to work at the Congressional printing office.

So what sayeth you, Andy Harris, Frank Kratovil, or Christopher Robinson?

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer. View all posts by Michael