McCain, Huckabee Shine; Romney's Missed Opportunity; Paul Falls

Joe Bell

The recent Republican presidential debate was noteworthy not only for a couple of brief moments when sparks flew over Iraq but also for the fact that no one mentioned a recent House of Representatives study during the immigration portion of the exchanges. The immigration discussion began early when Fox News correspondent Chris Wallace asked former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to comment on why he didn’t know illegal immigrants “were mowing your front lawn.”

The question was trite and Romney correctly said “with regards to front lawns, people don’t go to their contractors and inspect their - their ID cards of their employees.”

In such situations the responsibility does not lie with the customer but with the employer who knowingly hires someone who crossed the U.S. border unlawfully. But Romney missed an opportunity to address the connection between economics and illegal immigration. He should have focused on businesses that hire illegal immigrants in order to secure inexpensive labor. When fines for hiring unlawful workers are raised to an uncomfortable level, businesses will refrain from the practice and the job market will dry up. Illegal immigration has become an economic development tool and businesses that engage in the practice need to feel more heat. Several years ago Congresswoman Sue Myrick, R-N.C., introduced legislation that would increase the fine for hiring an illegal immigrant from $250 to $10,000. Myrick said her bill “will not hurt any business that follows the law. This bill is intended to crack down on businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens to gain an upper hand on other businesses.”

Myrick’s proposal would be a significant step forward in compelling businesses to follow the law and would lessen the incentive to come to America unlawfully.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee provided a strong moral voice by making the case that America must secure its borders but for the right reason. Huckabee is worried that racism is the driving force behind some individuals who seek immigration reform. All Americans should share his concern. During the debate, Huckabee said, “I agree we ought to have sealed borders. People in this country are essentially good folks. They’re not angry at immigrants who want to come here for the same reason that our ancestors came, but they’re angry at a government that has completely ignored borders and allowed this problem to fester to the point that it’s now overrunning us in a position that people don’t even understand how to fix it. …If someone is looking for a president who is going to have a mean spirit toward other human beings, I’m not their guy. I’ll fix the borders, I’ll secure them, but what I won’t do is to do it because I’m angry at them for wanting to come here for the same reason that the rest of us love America.”

The statement explains why America must protect its borders while continuing to welcome those who come from around the world in search of opportunities to improve their lives while simultaneously making America stronger. The government must work harder to keep out those who have corrupt motives for entering. “A Line In The Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border” is a report that was released last year by the Majority Staff of the House Committee on Homeland Security. The report offers this statement from Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez, Zapata County, Texas: “I dare to say that at any given time, daytime or nighttime, one can get on a boat and traverse back and forth between Texas and Mexico and not get caught. If smugglers can bring in tons of marijuana and cocaine at one time and can smuggle 20 to 30 persons at one time, one can just imagine how easy it would be to bring in 2 to 3 terrorists or their weapons of mass destruction across the river and not be detected. Chances of apprehension are very slim.”

It is curious that the report, which is about 40 pages long, failed to garner significant media attention and that the GOP candidates did not reference it. Border security remains America’s greatest domestic challenge.

An exchange over Iraq that involved Congressman Ron Paul, R-Texas, demonstrated how, six years after 9/11, elected officials still misrepresent facts in order to further their own agenda. Senator John McCain, R-Az., who is the most eloquent candidate on Iraq, said the military surge is working and the key moment on Iraq will occur in the Senate later this month to determine “whether we set a date for withdrawal, which will be a date for surrender, or whether we will let this surge continue and succeed.”

Congressman Paul disagreed, declaring, “I would leave, I would leave completely.” He justified his position by stating that one of the reasons cited for the attacks on 9/11 was the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia. He failed to note that any sovereign nation has the right to invite foreign troops on its soil and the nation that was invited can send the troops or decline. Relations between nations should not be subject to review by international terrorist groups.

When a moderator asked if Paul meant the U.S. “should take our marching orders from al Qaeda” the congressman responded “we should take our marching orders from our Constitution” and “we’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law.”

Paul is wrong in his appraisal and one has to wonder how many more times the facts have to be reviewed before reality takes root. On October 2, 2002, Congress passed the “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.” It gave the president authority to use U.S. forces “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.” That is exactly what is happening. By passing the resolution Congress upheld its constitutional duty to “provide for the common defence” and “secure the blessings of liberty.”

Yes, the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq. However, to listen to Paul’s objections one would assume the incursion occurred for nefarious reasons. The resolution listed grievances explaining how Saddam Hussein’s actions led to his own downfall. It noted the Iraqi tyrant posed “a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations”. By consistently violating U.N. resolutions that demanded he, among other things, comply with U.N. weapons inspectors, Saddam Hussein sealed his own fate.

One of the greatest dangers posed by individuals like Congressman Paul is that, if taken seriously, they will lead the nation far astray, forcing Americans to forget why it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein in the first place and why it is essential, as McCain explains, to support the troop surge. Paul proposes an isolationist posture that demands America remain within its own walls, praying that its enemies will stay away. That reckless policy would lead to catastrophes that would make 9/11 look like a parking lot fender bender.

###

Joseph Bell has hosted a radio talk show and is a former editorial writer/columnist for several Connecticut newspapers. A former liberal Democrat, Bell has not been on the conservative side of the aisle for very long. He voted for Clinton/Gore in 1992. Abandoning the convictions that he had held and defended through adolescence and into adulthood was not easy. Sincere soul-searching and a commitment to distinguish fact from fiction compelled him to accept that liberal ideology was bankrupt.

jbellopedresponse@hotmail.com