|
Middle of the Road Rogers, Wright debate immigration reform REP. ROGERS: Scott, since our previous debate, there's been a lot of buzz on Capitol Hill about immigration reform legislation. Jobs? Bringing down the unemployment rate? Not so much, because the Democratic leadership continues to focus on everything except job creation and our economy. But I digress. As you know, I have served on the House Homeland Security Committee for several years. Recognizing that in our great country we are all immigrants of some kind, it's critical that Congress do immigration reform the right way. To me, that means securing our borders before we talk about reform or a new guest worker policy. To that end, I have been very vocal in trying to offer common-sense solutions, such as securing our Southwest border with Mexico, in part by building fences – both literally and virtually. I've also pushed hard for far more Border Patrol agents, but more has to be done. As a nation at war, our country cannot afford to have open borders through which nearly anyone can enter and exit. And while most illegal immigrants who come to this country do so only in search of a better life, we cannot allow an open borders policy that could also allow those who wish us harm to freely walk into our country. There's so much that needs to be done, but I am concerned about any approach that doesn't first start with securing our borders.
WRIGHT: Congressman, it sounds like we may be able to find our way to the “Middle of the Road” on this issue, as opposed to where we found ourselves at the end of our first debate, on health care. Some of our readers will surely be beside themselves if we can pull this off. Regardless, I can attest to the fact that bipartisanship is not dead yet, because I, too, believe that security along all our borders (most importantly, the one we share with Mexico) has got to get better, and fast. In the previous weeks, I have interviewed multiple candidates for Alabama attorney general and all of them, whether Democrat or Republican, at some point stressed the desperate need to do something about illegal immigration, mostly because of how helpful it would be to the AG's office in its efforts to forestall the ever-rising methamphetamine problem in Alabama. Law enforcement officials and officers are frustrated, and the people of Alabama are frustrated. I am sure you are too, Congressman. I know you have worked hard on this issue, having repeatedly laid out a series of steps that would begin the process of controlling illegal immigration in a logical, sensible way. Though I fear I have just answered my own question, I'll ask it anyway: Why aren't more of your peers willing to get on board with an approach like yours? It seems to me that too many lawmakers in Washington either want to ferry everyone across the Rio Grande, no questions asked, or arrest anyone spotted munching on chips and salsa.
ROGERS: That's a good question, Scott, and there are multiple reasons. But maybe it has something to do with the size of the challenge. Securing our borders isn't just as easy as building a fence, because as we all know that when folks get desperate, they will find a way over, under, or around a fence. So we must also make investments in our Border Patrol – ensuring we have more boots on the ground and higher retention numbers for those who are willing to work in a desert climate. We should also continue to expand use of advanced technologies which can virtually secure the border using cameras and sensors for additional detection. All of these improvements will require a big investment, and I think a lot of people don't want to make it. Many in Congress want to throw open the doors, which of course would put a strain on our already hurting economy. Some would even like to grant amnesty, which I vigorously oppose. I believe if someone wants to work here, they should obtain a legal Guest Worker Permit the right way, instead of being rewarded by getting to stay here after entering the country illegally. What do you think is the answer, Scott?
WRIGHT: I was afraid you were going to ask me that. Well, for starters, a new proposal by Senate Democrats that I read about last week sounds like a step towards what we are both looking for in a new immigration law. Early language (that will eventually be subject to much, much debate, I fear) calls for a series of “concrete benchmarks” that will help get the Mexican border locked down much more tightly. According to an article on CNN's website, the proposal includes “increasing the number of Border Patrol officers and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, increasing the number of personnel available to inspect for drugs and contraband, and improving technology used to assist ICE agents.” Tell me if I'm wrong, Congressman, but it sounds like the commitment to border control that the Republican party says it needs before moving ahead with comprehensive immigration reform has just been placed on the table.
ROGERS: As with most proposed solutions to big problems in Washington, the devil's in the details. As I said, the border must be sealed first as a matter of economic and national security. Once Americans and Alabamians alike see actual progress on securing our borders, for several years, then Congress should take up the debate about reforming our immigration system and the question of what to do with the millions of undocumented, illegal immigrants that are already here. But I can tell you one thing for certain, Scott. Neither I nor anyone else in Cherokee County -- or across east Alabama -- will fall for a “bait and switch” strategy in a “comprehensive” proposal that promises real border security in exchange for amnesty or a path to citizenship. Americans want results first, and I think that means secure borders.
WRIGHT: Congressman, let's shake on it. We're done here. I believe we both agree with conservative columnist Peggy Noonan, who has long argued in her Wall Street Journal column that the federal government should first secure the border. Everything else, she has stressed repeatedly, is secondary to that initial commitment. As Noonan wrote May 1, in an editorial titled “The Big Alienation,” “Once existing laws are enforced and the border made peaceful, everyone in the country will be able to breathe easier and consider, without an air of clamor and crisis, what should be done next.” Now all that remains is trying to persuade a majority of your 534 closest friends to go along with this seemingly common-sense approach, lest other states along the Southwest border begin to mimic the recent well-intentioned – though horribly misguided – efforts in Arizona that may soon end up endangering the constitutional rights of American citizens. In your opinion, Rep. Rogers, what will it take to make that happen and, as Noonan wrote, demonstrate to the American people “that our government is still capable of functioning”?
ROGERS: That’s exactly right, Scott – securing the borders now is where we must start. And as I stated previously, we have to secure the border using several different means, from fencing to more agents to increased use of technology. Each plays an integral part in completing this huge undertaking. Hopefully, as the debate continues, members on both sides of the aisle will come to realize the severe and growing consequences of not acting. Ultimately, I believe it will be the collective outrage of a fed-up American public that will demand, once and for all, that their representatives finally work together to try and solve this problem. |