printTell me that PBS doesn’t offer a more intelligent debate than do the cable channels, and their panels of pathetic entertainers. Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies is a serious, scholarly immigration restrictionist—more so than anyone I’ve seen on cable. Judy Woodruff does a good job.
Mark Krikorian made sense. I could probably live with the bill but two other things should be done:
(1) No “bring in relatives” privileges to anyone who gets citizenship via this method
and
(2) BUILD THE WALL.
Actually, without # (2), it gets sort of moot who is or is not legal.
I don’t know what you’re seeing here. Krikorian is generally great on the issue, but all he did there was quibble about details. He didn’t point out any of the negative effects the bill will have, he just argued that it wasn’t quite right.
The problem with the immigration debate is that no one is ever allowed to say why we don’t want to bring millions of Third World peasants into this country. For example, the woman said that this bill will ensure that illegals work at Microsoft instead of McDonalds. That’s patently absurd, of course, for all kinds of reasons. But if you don’t challenge that premise, what argument do you have? If all of these illegals are really brilliant engineers-in-waiting, why wouldn’t we want them here? Of course there are still reasons, but those are even more taboo! There’s also the fact that this bill is a blatant invitation to fraud, and that it gives a 10-year amnesty even if you don’t complete the laughable requirements. Are we supposed to believe that in 10 years we’re going to deport these people if they don’t go to college? There are many other strong arguments to be made here, but Krikorian focuses on… the appropriate age cutoff. If you weren’t listening really closely, you’d think he would support this bill with a few minor tweaks.