By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support local journalism.
Border security debate
Placeholder Image

There's a fundamental conflict at the heart of the Senate debate over the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill. Most Republicans believe a policy to integrate 11 million currently illegal immigrants into American society must be conditioned on stronger border security and internal enforcement. Most Democrats don't. At bottom, that's what the fight is about.
Most Republicans believe security must come before integration, in one of two ways. Some believe enhanced security must be in place -- not a plan, but a reality -- before the 11 million can be granted temporary legal status. (In the world of the Senate, "temporary" means six to 10 years.) It's probably fair to say that a majority of the Republican voting base holds that opinion.
Other Republicans believe enhanced security must be in place -- again, reality, not a plan -- before the legalized immigrants can move on, after 10 years, to permanent legal resident status, signified by a green card, and ultimately on to citizenship.
What unites the two camps is the conviction that enhanced security must actually be in place before today's illegal immigrants are allowed to stay in the U.S. for the rest of their lives.
Many Democrats pay lip service to the idea; after all, it's pretty popular not just with Republican voters but with Democrats and independents, too. But they don't see enhanced security as something that has to happen before immigrants may move forward.
If there were any doubts that many Democrats do not support enforcement before integration, those doubts were dispelled recently by Sen. Richard Durbin, a leading Democrat on the Gang of Eight. "We have de-linked a pathway to citizenship and border enforcement," Durbin told National Journal. And Sen. Charles Schumer, another leading Democrat in the Gang, called a Republican attempt to strengthen the link between enforcement and the path to citizenship "a nonstarter."
    As Democrats see it, reform must move today's illegal immigrants to temporary legal status, and then to permanent legal status, and then to citizenship without any major obstacles along the way. A requirement that any of those steps be dependent on specific security and enforcement improvements is a nonstarter not just for Schumer but for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and most other Democrats.
To make it unavoidably clear, last week the Senate voted on an amendment proposed by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley that would have delayed the first, "temporary" legalization until six months after border security was actually in place. Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Gang of Eight, voted against it, along with the rest of the Gang of Eight and nearly every Democrat.
There's simply no requirement that the border be definitely, measurably secure before today's immigrants complete the journey from illegality to citizenship. That's the way the Gang of Eight wants it.
Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.

Where Did that Come From? - No earthly idea
67d34d8ee38f5.webp

My good friend, Delores Green asked me about this one a few weeks ago. There are several ways “No earthly” is used in speech (idea, means, purpose or reason).

This simply means ‘no conceivable…’ as it is derived from relating to earthly means of thinking.

It is impos-

sible to tell exactly who first used this expression.

The earliest known citation to a form of this is in the Dissertation in The Lusiad; Or, The Discovery of India: An Epic Poem by Luís de Camões, translated into English by William Julius Mickle, published in London, 1778:

“In the first book, Jove summons a council of the Gods, which is described at great length, for no earthly purpose but to shew that he favoured the Portuguese.”

Here it could be said that ‘no earthly purpose’ was used because the council was said to have taken place in the heavens, thus it may be a literal application. But in 1832, a clearly figurative example showed up in Trials of the Persons Concerned in the Late Riots, Before Chief Justice of Great Britain, page 10:

“…where he (the Mayor) could have no earthly idea whether the military assistance was required at that precise time or not…”