Pirate's Cove

Or at least, mostly, says the New York Times, which engages in, as usual, true partisanship

Leadership was desperately needed to stop Republicans from dragging the bill off one of its pillars — the one that would put 12 million people on a path to legal status. It didn’t show up. Republicans who should have been holding their party and the deal together — President Bush, minority leader Mitch McConnell, Senator John Kyl — failed utterly.

How about Dingy Harry and Ted Kennedy? Or McCain, whom the Grey Lady seems to like? What about their failed leadership? Ah, why get into it? It is just another case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, with Kyl thrown in for good measure, along with a liberal propensity for condoning lawlessness.

On to the good stuff!

The immigration compromise collapsed on the floor of the Senate Thursday night. Many of its hard-line foes are celebrating, but their glee is vindictive and hollow. They have blocked one avenue to an immigration overhaul while offering nothing better, thwarting bipartisanship to satisfy their reflexive loathing for amnesty, which they define as anything that helps illegal immigrants get right with the law.

The tragedy is that the compromise bill was written to bring these restrictionists along, with punitive, detestable provisions that many supporters of comprehensive reform agreed to endorse for the sake of a “grand bargain.” The bill was badly flawed but fixable, as long as there was the possibility of leadership and courage in Congress.

As far as being vindictive and hollow, I don’t know about you, but I feel pretty good that it was killed. Like putting a pedophile murderer into the death chamber, what happened was a good thing.

For the parts I have highlighted in blue, it seems to be another case of a liberal/progressive/surrender monkey writing without understanding what he/she is writing. Republicans offered numerous amendments to make the bill better. So did Democrats (at least better in their minds). Reid didn’t like that, and the Times doesn’t mention the Democrat contributions. And, apparently, submitting amendments to restrict alien absconders and criminals from being part of the amnesty deal is not offering anything better.

But people did offer better recommendations, at least from the Conservative side, which usually started with "let’s enforce the laws already on the books, and then strengthen them."

I cannot speak to whether the liberals who were against the bill, and there were many, including Nancy Pelosi, had better ideas, as I did not cruise their sites looking for their ideas. Doesn’t mean they didn’t have any. I’m sure they did, as they wanted it to be more family friendly, ie, allowing every member of an illegals family to come to the USA.

Apparently, the Times has been listening to W, as they take his tact

The anti-immigrant hard-core — no amnesty today, no amnesty tomorrow, no amnesty ever — must not be allowed to hold the nation hostage. Like nativists of generations past, they think the country is being Latinized, and they fear it. The country is changing, but the way it always has, absorbing newcomers, shaping and being shaped by them, inexorably turning them, their children and grandchildren into Americans. Globalization has accelerated and complicated that upheaval, and decades of federal dithering have made things messy and chaotic.

Not anti-immigrant: anti-illegal. Just like during all those protest marches the other year by illegals, the Times is trying to change the tone of the discussion. But nothing that is said will ever change the minds of the liberals at the Times, who proclaim that they are "open minded" and "willing to discuss the issues." Migrant workers are fine. Legal immigrants are fine. All we ask is that they go home when their visas expire, or apply for another, and for those who come, try and learn our country. Join us. Do not stay as separate entities. And know who is coming. Don’t forget, most of the 9/11 hijackers came to this country legally.

As far as latinization, yes, we do fear it. They come here and have no intention of being part of the American experience, as so many other groups, such as the Germans, Italians, Scots, and Irish did. Or the Orientals. Hispanics are coming, and as mention, refusing to become part of the USA. They do not learn the language. They set up separate communities, stores, and lifestyles. And expect, nay, demand, that Americans accommodate them. Not all, of course, but quite a few. And this creates friction. Friction that they could diminish if they would just do one thing: learn English.