AZ Republic promotes provocative reason to rush amnesty

Urges immediate action from new congress: No reelection worries for two years

The daily newspaper has never stopped pounding the drum for granting amnesty to the incalculable millions of illegal aliens flooding the United States.

Nothing dissuades them. First, it was editorialist Richard deUriarte, recently retired and currently employed by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. Now, it is Linda Valdez who has taken up the mantle of relentlessly advocating for an official government pardon of lawlessness.

Today, in her editorial, Make this a priority, Valdez continues to press for open borders, with advocacy of the foot-in-the-door, “guest worker” program, she views as a necessity for the business community which she declares “needs migrant labor.”

Of course, she ignores the uncalculated costs involved in the importation of such labor – among them astronomical educational outlays, uninsured medical funding, public benefits and incarceration.

Valdez spills the frijoles with this memorable passage:

“…because some of the pressure has eased…. Because a new Congress won’t face immediate re-election worries. Because the new president – regardless who he is – will be a supporter of reform.”
There it is, in its unvarnished splendor. A directive to Arizona’s congressional delegation to ignore the will of the people who just returned or elected them to office.

In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act , which normalized approximately 3 million illegals while supposedly setting in place strict hiring guidelines and enforcement policies to penalize employers knowingly hiring illegal workers. It was to be a one-time amnesty. Although warned that the legislation would spur further disregard of our sovereign border, Reagan championed the measure as “the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952.”

And here we are over two decades later with millions more who have broken into this county in violation of our laws. Obviously, the best of intentions didn’t work as a deterrent. In fact, Simpson-Mazzoli served as an incentive.

Congress has passed 7 amnesties since 1986. When will enough be enough?

John Gizzi, Political Editor of Human Events, has written a thorough and well-documented article, providing excellent historical perspective to the enormous problems associated with our porous border. The costs are too great to ignore. And amnesty, by whatever name it uses on any given day, is not the answer.

8 Responses to AZ Republic promotes provocative reason to rush amnesty

  1. Loyal Loyolian says:

    Are you aware of the efforts exerted by the Catholic Church in pressuring Reagan? The very liberal Father Theodore Hesburgh, was at that time President of Notre Dame University, a position he held for 35 years! He was the chairman of the Commission on Immigration Reform which made recommendations to Reagan. The church was very concerned about the declining numbers of parishioners in the pews each week, and an influx of millions of Mexican Catholics was seen as an easy cure to the problem.

    Hesburgh was an early supporter of what is now known as the “sanctuary movement,” a pro-Palestinian, and active in the anti-Vietnam war movement

    Hope these facts bring some additional background to the issue.

  2. RA says:

    “…because some of the pressure has eased…. Because a new Congress won’t face immediate re-election worries. Because the new president – regardless who he is – will be a supporter of reform.”

    Linda Valdez seems to be saying that ‘there’s no responsibility like Congressional responsibility,’ which sentiment I am grudgingly and most unhappily in general agreement with, as Congress continues to behave so irresponsibly as to stagger the imagination. It speaks volumes that her argument speaks less of the merits of such legislation, but rather argues that our elected representatives should pass amnesty legislation simply because they can get away with it.

  3. Maggie says:

    Such Clintonesque reasoning. Remember his “Because I could” comment in regard to the Monica Lewinsky trysts?

  4. Dennis O'Brien says:

    Calling this editorial a “directive to Arizona’s congressional delegation to ignore the will of the people who just returned or elected them to office,” is exactly right. No wonder newspapers are dying across the country. They insult the readers and promote policies that are in direct opposition to the majority of citizens. Every poll I’ve seen shows amnesty is NOT what the American people want.

    Who wants to pay subscription rates to an ever smaller newspaper in order to be offended each morning with your coffee? I have to admit it was an adjustment to do without a paper in my hand and my daily crossword, but I adjusted. We’ve been saving the money in a coffee can just to see how it adds up and will put it toward a vacation.

  5. Jack says:

    This editorial arrogance makes me very angry. Last time the congress, led by our very own Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl — joined with Ted Kennedy, tried to shove their “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” package down our throats, Americans across this country rose up in unprecedented numbers to let our voices be heard. I read the congressional switchboard and the Fax machines were shut down by the massive outcry. Do they think we’re too weary to protest now? Do they care? After all, as Valdez points out, they don’t have to face us for two more years.

    Actually, it was that debacle that contributed to the unpopularity of John McCain in Arizona. He should be doing much better than the polling indicates. People were furious and it looks like they still are.

    Why don’t they “get” it?

  6. Robert says:

    According to Republican Congressman Shadegg, the 75% of Arizona voters who favor sovereignty just give the Republican party a black eye. And then in the next breath he says he agrees with the platform.

    Which is it? The platform with it’s calls for employer penalties for hiring illegals and completing the fence quickly? Or, is it Shadegg’s recent conversion to winning jobs for illegal workers. His talk is “the platform.” His actions are to cover for the traitor illegal employers.

  7. Night Owl says:

    I wish I could cancel my subscription — again. This editorial arrogance coupled with a glaring disdain for the citizen voters is infuriating.

  8. SherriAZ says:

    Does Linda Valdez read her own paper? Does she think that legalizing the criminals pouring over our borders will stop the deaths of Phoenix police officers? Perhaps her plan is to make it easier for the drug cartels to continue to operate.

    It could go either way: if the Dems have complete control of the White House and Congress, they may want to solidify their numbers with millions of illegals made citizens who will gratefully vote Democrat. But two years moves fast and they will begin working on re-election campaigns almost immediately. 20 million illegals are not all going to be voting age and will not all vote, so they are gambling on gaining a lot of votes over losing a huge chunk of existing American voters who will vote against anyone granting amnesty, no matter how pretty the bow on the package.

    If there was ever an issue that will rally people against the Democratic party, amnesty will be it.