Alinsky and amnesty: Plan is designed to fail

Article subtitle: 
Tom Tancredo on tactics that serve 'political ambitions of the Democratic Party
Article author: 
Tom Tancredo
Article publisher: 
World Net Daily
Article date: 
13 July 2013
Article category: 
National News
Medium
Article Body: 

If you have been wondering how a 1,200-page bill so full of contradictions, waivers, exemptions and loopholes garnered unanimous support from 54 Senate Democrats and 14 open-borders Senate Republicans, the answer is so obvious that even the smartest pundits have missed it. The bill’s stupidities are not an accident: It is designed to fail, and moreover, designed to fail twice.

The Senate amnesty bill is designed to fail first as a piece of legislation: It has zero chance of being adopted by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. But if by some dark miracle its main features were enacted into law, it would also fail to “fix our broken immigration system.”...

We may not want to admit it, but it’s true: In politics, failure has a large constituency. If a politician actually solves a problem, it goes away. But if the problem is good for the politician politically, he doesn’t want to solve it, he wants to keep it alive – and maybe even exacerbate it to help anger and energize a constituency...

Actually solving the problem would be rather simple if politicians wanted to do that. First, secure the border by building the 700-mile double fence as mandated by the 2006 Secure Fence Act and beefing up both the manpower and the technology of the Border Patrol...


... the current system is not “broken” because it does not guarantee a visa to every person on the planet who wants to live in the United States. It is broken because we lack the means to actually enforce and implement tomorrow the immigration laws we adopt today. When enforcement is meaningless, the goals of the program are also meaningless...

In the middle of the 2007 debate on the Senate’s McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, a New York Times editorial gave away the secret. In utter exasperation over the obstacles the amnesty bill was encountering, the editors moaned that without a continuing replenishment of the pool of “victims of discrimination and exploitation,” progressives would face electoral defeat.

The left believes, seriously, that since our own society is not producing a sufficient supply of “victims,” we need to import them. And if they do not think of themselves as victims upon arrival, the left has an army of “community organizers” to educate and then mobilize them...

There is no mystery why Democrats and avowed socialist organizations like the SEIU demand a new amnesty program without guaranteed border security. The only mystery is why Marco Rubio and so many other Republicans have joined Saul Alinsky’s parade to nowhere.