I am totally perplexed by Republicans who advocate amnesty for those who entered the U.S. illegally. We Republicans are supposed to be the party of law and order, a party that stands on clearly defined principles. Let's cut through the pompous rhetoric: The issue of amnesty is only about cheap labor. All the other arguments are merely background noise.
With the national unemployment rate just under eight percent, how can you argue that illegals are doing jobs that Americans refuse to do? With all the unemployed engineers (partly because of the shutdown of NASA's Space Shuttle program), how do you justify increasing the number of H-1B visas? The special visa allows companies to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations for up to six years. How can six years still be considered temporary?
How do you explain to a kid in Virginia that he or she has to pay out-of-state tuition to attend the University of Maryland while a student in the country illegally is allowed to pay in-state tuition? Why should someone in the country illegally be able to obtain a benefit that even an American citizen can't have? Aren't these Republicans supporting discrimination against American citizens in their lust of the Hispanic voter?
Linking amnesty to winning the Hispanic vote is not a winning or sensible strategy. One has nothing to do with the other. There is no unanimity within the Hispanic community on the issue of amnesty, therefore why are some operatives linking this issue to the future of the Republican Party?
One can be against amnesty without being mean and nasty. But to equate supporting amnesty as a prerequisite to proving that you are not mean and hateful is an insult to our intelligence. As if this weren't bad enough, can someone please explain to me the logic of any black person supporting amnesty when the black unemployment rate is in double digits?
We can have honest disagreements on the issue of amnesty; but please don't give me the perverted reasoning supporters of amnesty have been using: "It's an act of love," "they are only looking for a better life," "it's not their fault."
But these same proponents who want to justify ignoring the law based on some irrational, emotional tick refuse to apply the same empathy towards "Pookie" and "LaQueesha," who represent inner city America.
When "Pookie" gets arrested for carrying a recreational amount of crack and gets sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 20 years for a first time, non-violent offense, where are these Republican thespians advocating for an empathetic approach to law enforcement? When a black woman in Florida fires a warning shot in the air to stop an abusive former husband from beating her and gets 20 years mandatory minimum, where are the Republican voices of empathy?
If we are going to claim to be a nation of laws, then we can't allow emotion to cause the unequal distribution of justice to continue. If your basis for giving amnesty to illegals is "their intent" – they only want to make a better life; then how can you not apply the same logic to "Pookie" and "LaQueesha?" Can you not make the same argument that they only want to make a better life for themselves and their families?
Pro-amnesty Republicans sound like a bunch of liberals when they refuse to advocate for the enforcement of current immigration law because they claim to know the "intent" of the lawbreaker. These same pro amnesty members of the House and Senate have been relentless in accusing President Obama for not being trustworthy on health care ("you can keep your own doctor"), but are willing to work with and trust him on the enforcement side of the immigration debate.
If you can't trust Obama on healthcare, how can you trust him on immigration?
(NNPA columnist Raynard Jackson is president & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC., a Washington, D.C.-based public relations/government affairs firm. He can be reached via www.raynardjackson.com. Follow him on Twitter at raynard1223.)