When I first heard of the Amnesty bill, I was surprised to see my senator, John Kyl, was not just in favor of, but a principal author of the bill. Not just because Kyl is a conservative Republican (though that should be a reason enough), but because his website boasts a secure border stance. He promised no amnesty. In fact, I went back to his site just to make sure I wasn't mistaken. I sent Kyl an email telling him that he had lost my vote forever.
Kyl's office sent me a 5 page response, featuring a lengthy explanation of how great the Amnesty bill is, and how it isn't Amnesty. Kyl twists himself into such a tight pretzel that he manages this little nugget.
The whole point of negotiating with Senators like Ted Kennedy about the shape of the legislation was precisely to take a firm stand in support of my conservative principles.
Liberals call this kind of circular logic "nuance". An open border is more secure, Amnesty isn't amnesty, the unenforceable is better than nothing he says, in fact, it's "enforcement first!"
First, the new legislation learns from the lessons of the 1986 immigration bill, and, in a major departure from last year’s bill, emphasizes enforcement first. It requires a significant strengthening of border security before anything else can occur.
If Kyl and his ilk had any intention of enforcement, they would've built the fence they voted for, the one Kyl pathetically brags about.
One such bill, the Secure Fence Act, requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to build double-layered fencing along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. Construction of fencing and vehicle barriers has already begun, including in Arizona.
Right. Except the bill still hasn't been funded yet, and it never will as long as fools like Kyl continue to negotiate with open border advocates like Kennedy.
Michelle Malkin: Reading Jon Kyl: Leadership=Licking Teddy Kennedy's boots
