Keyes Clearly Sees

I am only vaguely familiar with Alan Keyes, although he seems to give every appearance of being genuinely conservative. In 2004, he ran the U.S. Senate in the state of Illinois race against one, Barack Obama, despite the fact that Keyes did not live there, even though he had earlier chastised Hillary for doing something similar in New York. Yet this inconsistent burst of spontaneity does not seem to have marked a permanent regressive change in the man, as evidenced by today's column.

During his speech Monday night, President G.W. Bush acknowledged in a breathtaking understatement that, "We do not have full control of the border." If this were the beginning of his first term, and he had expressed a determination to correct the failed policies of a predecessor, that statement might imply no dereliction of duty in his administration...

The president and others suggest that we must urgently address the crisis of the millions of immigrants who are in this country illegally. But this crisis is the direct result of years of willful neglect by political leaders who have sought their own political advantage and profit for their financial backers, at the expense of America's vital interest...

We have the right to be more than a little doubtful about the credibility of politicians who tell us that we must urgently dash forward to resolve a problem greatly aggravated by their own willful incompetence.

Indeed, Mr Keyes, and well put I might add. It makes precious little difference why both parties are complicit on border security--politicians don't wish to risk alienating an ever-growing Hispanic population; lobbyists who represent corporate interest, dependent on illegal labor, can be most persuasive; globalists see no need to protect borders; doing something about a serious issue would set an unfortunate precedent. It is more than enough to know that they are, in fact, complicit. There appear to be a fair amount of house republicans to whom the aforementioned egregious cowardice does not apply--at least insofar as immigation reform is concerned--but the pusillanimity which pervades the senate is thick enough to choke Neville Chamberlain, and irreconcilable differences between the two houses will render meaningful legislation highly unlikely until after the November elections.

Keyes, and others like him, are tired of waiting for our leaders to lead. Reform cannot be postponed indefinitely, and each subsequent promise of action from the republicans followed by a period of platitudes and inaction causes doubt to embolden in the most fervent believer's heart. I need hardly mention that while the issue of immigration is slowly destorying the unity in the republican camp, the democrats epitomize disunity, and have not seen fit to develop cogent and consistent party positions on any issue save their dislike for Mr. Bush. Leadership, especially on immigration, will not come from the party of Pelosi.

Third parties have played the role of spoilers in American history, especially in recent times--just ask George's father or Al Gore. If the republican party does not grow a backbone and do something to impede the onslaught of illegals as well as begin to send back the vast majority, if not all, of the aliens who erroneously dub the U.S. "home", the Constitution party, which has no qualms about either deportation or border security, may play the spoiler in 2008. This will give Hillary the presidency, as I have long asserted, nor do I much care. In order for me to prefer one party to the other, one must do something which is genuinely preferable.
Sealing the borders and cracking down on businesses which hire illegals seems as good a place as any to start.

Keyes asks:

The border security crisis serves to reveal a deeper one, which has at its heart this question: If the elites produced by both the existing political parties are no longer willing to defend the nation's borders, how can we trust them to defend its life?

The unfortunate answer, Mr. Keyes, is that we cannot.