Immersion in politics is mentally and physically draining. There are so many things that politicians do that make me want to put my fist through a wall that if I indulged my anger, I’d have made my living room look like an attack of the Swiss Cheese people.
Instead, I have an ulcer. Go figure.
The current example of why I regret that we abandoned the practice of tarring and feathering lying politicians comes as a result of the illegal immigrant crisis at our borders and in our cities. The same numbskulls who pointed fingers and got on a soapbox to lecture us red-state hicks about the saintliness of being a sanctuary city that “welcomes all” have kinda changed their minds a little. It turns out that “welcoming” an unlimited number of asylum seekers results in chaos. More importantly, it gets voters angry at the authors of this chaos.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson had a novel approach to accepting responsibility for the crisis. He didn’t. Instead, he blamed “right-wing extremists” who want to “bring slavery back” and “refuse to accept the outcome of the Civil War.”
New York Mayor Eric Adams blames the Biden administration, as do other Democratic mayors and governors. The reality is that Democrats are looking at the poll numbers on illegal immigration and see a landslide in their future.
A Republican landslide.
Currently, negotiations are going on in the Senate on a bipartisan immigration bill that would be attached to the funding bill for the wars in Israel and Ukraine. Democrats first dismissed the idea of tackling border security and funding the wars at the same time.
But with the border crisis getting worse, Democratic mayors and governors in the North and Northeast are getting behind the effort to limit immigration.
How serious are they? Here’s a statement from Rev. Jesse Jackson, whose advocacy for “sanctuary cities” put his hometown in this mess.
Rev. Jesse Jackson joined Johnson at a West Side church the same day for an announcement on expanded migrant services through area churches because of the lack of shelter space. Jackson, who has long advocated for migrant rights, too urged more action out of Washington.
“Laws need to be enforced at the border,” Jackson said, and “more resources” are required for cities like Chicago.
I’ve been following Jackson’s career for more than 40 years and have never heard him utter support for enforcing any law, much less border laws.
“Certainly, we could add more border security. We need more judges, more staffing, more technology — certainly that could be something we could consider. But again, it all depends on the framework of the negotiations,” Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) said.
“There’s legitimate issues that have to be addressed, but as long as they’re done appropriately and not from a xenophobic approach.”
How do you define a “xenophobic approach,” specifically? I’d be fascinated to know. Is Carbajal saying if we’re too enthusiastic about protecting the border that it would be “inappropriate”?
Democratic senators and House members said they are increasingly open to including some border changes in the package as they are being pressed back home to take action. Even lawmakers who aren’t allied with Republicans want improvements made in the system.
“Along with funding for cities, I think there needs to be something to address the massive immigration backlogs. And to do that, we need more immigration judges and hearing officers,” Chicago Democratic Rep. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia said.
This may be a moot exercise. House Republicans aren’t interested in a compromise bill when they have already passed what they think is the perfect border bill. Whether there are enough Republicans and Democrats together to pass the bill is an open question.
The fact that the border legislation is attached to a funding bill for the wars only gives it less than a 50-50 chance of passage.