A Simple Question for Those Republicans Proposing Amnesty
Hot Air's Ed Morrissey has joined the amnesty-for-security group, arguing that the Republicans must "cut a deal" with the Democrats to get border security in exchange for amnesty for illegal aliens already in the US. He lauds Sen. Lindsay Graham, who has been pushing amnesty for years while allowing that he plans to "tell the bigots to shut up." Those "bigots" are those who oppose blanket amnesty. He further argues that because the GOP still holds the House, the party still has "leverage" to get a better deal.
To those proposing an amnesty-for-security solution, I offer a simple question: Are the Democrats of today more or less trustworthy than they were 25 years ago?
If you think the Democrats are more honest now than they were in the Tip O'Neill era, then go ahead and cut a deal with them.
But if you think that the Democrats of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid era are less honest than the leaders of their party were 25 years ago, roughly the last time the United States undertook an amnesty deal that was supposed to solve the border security problem, then you might want to slow down on cutting any deals with them. They didn't live up to their end of several deals in the O'Neill era. What evidence exists that the current crop of Democrats will live up to their end of any deals struck now? Where is the evidence that they aren't using the porous border to put Republicans on the defensive and create more Democratic voters?
It seems perfectly obvious to some of us that the Democrats are offering Republicans advice and deals now, after defeating us in an election, because they have something other than the best interests of the GOP in mind. It's just as obvious that on this particular issue, folks like Lindsay Graham's hearts might be in the right place, but their heads are elsewhere.