STAND ON MERITS, PLEASE
By Alan Nathan
Washington Times, DC
Nov 13 2007
Whether they’re sabotaging our troops’ lifeline on the battlefield
abroad or assaulting our citizens’ sovereignty at home, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are doing
everything imaginable to derail an otherwise promising election
result for Democrats in November of 2008. Their politics appear to
be all hunger and no foresight – like rotund diabetics waddling into
a pie-eating contest.
Their vile strategy, of course, is to camouflage less savory goals
behind arguments that are seemingly more palatable for public
consumption. Mrs. Pelosi endeavored to galvanize support for a
non-binding resolution condemning a 92 year old massacre of Armenians
in Turkey – despite that pivotal ally granting us supply lines to
replenish our troops with critically needed materials.
Since the speaker proved legislatively unable to stop resources
from reaching our troops as a way to end the war in Iraq, it seems
agonizingly self-evident that she tried to secure the same results
by antagonizing an ally into doing it for her – regardless of the
potential harm to the very military personnel whose safety she claims
as paramount.
When this resolution was brought up during the Clinton administration,
then-Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican, granted President Clinton’s
request that Congress not pursue the Armenian question because of our
need for Turkey’s continued cooperation in a troubled region. Their
role has become far more crucial since the beginning of the war, but
Mrs. Pelosi nonetheless rejected President Bush’s plea for the same
consideration. Fortunately, however, more than 40 Democrats stripped
her of the votes necessary to bring it to the floor with any chance
of passage.
In the other chamber, Mr. Reid has been demonstrating all the
tactical sure-footedness of a running-back in dress shoes. He tried,
and mercifully failed, to pass the Development, Relief and Education
for Alien Minors Act, or the DREAM Act. This would have granted
legal status to aliens arriving before the age of 16, providing they
graduate high school, sustain a clean criminal record and demonstrate
a "good moral character." Mr. Reid was furious over his failure,
saying "Children should not be penalized for the actions of their
parents." Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, a Democrat, added that "to
turn on these children and treat them as criminals is an indication
of the level of emotion and, in some cases, bigotry and hatred that
is involved in this debate."
Mr. Reid’s bad-faith argument is beyond sophistic. He fully understands
that while children should not be held accountable for their parents’
lawbreaking, neither should they be its beneficiary.
If a shoplifting mom steals a toy for her son, should the boy really be
allowed to keep it just because he didn’t commit the crime? If a bank
robber pulls off a heist, do we give his kids the loot simply because
they didn’t participate in the offense? There’s nothing punitive
about denying the lawbreaker’s family a prize that was itself only
possible because of the misdeed in question. It’s merely a return to
what their status would have been had the infraction never occurred –
in this case, their rightful place in line for both legal residency
and citizenship.
Mr. Durbin is correct when he asserts that hatred was involved in
this debate. That hatred, however, was against politicos like him who
unpardonably castigate folks as bigots merely because they want laws
universally applied regardless of the offender’s demographic origin.
Messrs. Reid and Durbin have yet to learn what people of good will
have always known: If it’s wrong to assume guilt based on ethnicity,
race and religion, then it’s equally wrong to shield guilt based on
ethnicity, race and religion.
Both gentlemen continue insisting that the term "amnesty" describes
neither the Dream Act nor its more sweeping predecessor, the
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill that failed in June. They argue
that because the aliens’ citizenship would have been contingent upon
meeting certain qualifications, there wouldn’t have been an immediate
reward for wrongdoing. However, this rationale is bombastically
nonsensical. While the stroke of a president’s pen would not have
made them instant citizens, it would have made them instantly legal
and that does constitute an immediate reward.
Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid, if you’re against the war and support
amnesty, fine. But fight for those positions on their merits – not
through proxy causes or the disconnected relabeling of your own.
Alan Nathan is a columnist and the nationally syndicated host of
"Battle Line With Alan Nathan."