Secure the Border, or the Passport Office, or Something
---
So just a few short days after the Republican presidential candidates all insisted that a fence along the Mexico border was about "securing the border" and not about anti-Hispanic bigotry (which somehow explains why we don't also need a fence along the Canadian border) comes this gem:
...or something.
Bureaucratic snafus happen -- especially in government. And I have no problem with the passport rule per se. But the hypocrisy of the border-fence crowd, especially those in or seeking high office, needs to be exposed for what it is -- a pandering mixture of warm fuzzy feelings, post-9/11 hysteria and rank xenophobia.
As for illegal immigration generally and the "Mexico problem" specifically, it's quite simple really: Somehow we ended up bordering a Third World country -- which is astonishing considering that Mexico is oil- and resource-rich, has extensive tourist destinations, and claims to be a market-based democracy. I dispute that last premise, which in my view explains the contradiction. The border isn't the problem; the nation on the other side of it is. That's not an issue of racism; it's an issue of crony capitalism and excessive government perpetuating an economic imbalance that simply shouldn't exist. Take care of that, and the Mexican illegal immigration problem will take care of itself.
More thoughts at no third solution.
---
Meanwhile, Texas is considering issuing its own "passport" (embedded via microchips in its drivers licenses). My reflex action is to say "Article I, Section 10," (or "federal pre-emption"). Maybe Ron Paul will start issuing them just for his Congressional District. (Via Fark.)
The Bush administration is poised to suspend a major post-Sept. 11 security initiative in response to increasingly angry complaints from Americans whose summer vacations are threatened by new passport rules.You don't want to disrupt people's summer vacation plans, do you? Because if you do (i.e., by "securing the border"), then the terrorists win...
A proposal, expected to be announced today, would temporarily waive a requirement that U.S. citizens have passports to fly to and from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda, provided the traveler can prove he or she has applied for one, officials said yesterday.
The temporary lifting of the passport rule is aimed at clearing a massive backlog of passport applications that has slowed processing to a crawl, they said. Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) said the suspension would last until Sept. 30.
...or something.
Bureaucratic snafus happen -- especially in government. And I have no problem with the passport rule per se. But the hypocrisy of the border-fence crowd, especially those in or seeking high office, needs to be exposed for what it is -- a pandering mixture of warm fuzzy feelings, post-9/11 hysteria and rank xenophobia.
As for illegal immigration generally and the "Mexico problem" specifically, it's quite simple really: Somehow we ended up bordering a Third World country -- which is astonishing considering that Mexico is oil- and resource-rich, has extensive tourist destinations, and claims to be a market-based democracy. I dispute that last premise, which in my view explains the contradiction. The border isn't the problem; the nation on the other side of it is. That's not an issue of racism; it's an issue of crony capitalism and excessive government perpetuating an economic imbalance that simply shouldn't exist. Take care of that, and the Mexican illegal immigration problem will take care of itself.
More thoughts at no third solution.
---
Meanwhile, Texas is considering issuing its own "passport" (embedded via microchips in its drivers licenses). My reflex action is to say "Article I, Section 10," (or "federal pre-emption"). Maybe Ron Paul will start issuing them just for his Congressional District. (Via Fark.)
Posted by Kip on
8 June 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
