Security First vs Comprehensive Reform

I wouldn't have gone into this, but today brought news that there was a Senate vote yesterday that declined to fund the 370 mile fence/wall/barrier that they earlier had voted to build.

This is a perfect example of why those of us in favor of Security First™ believe that if security is postponed, to be passed as part of a "comprehensive" bill, there will be no pressure among the Elected elites for true security at all.  Security will never come, just like the Democrat-promised spending cuts that were supposed to follow Reagan's tax rate increases never came.

If a "comprehensive" bill that includes some kind of amnesty is the first and/or only one passed, there are three things that can be guaranteed.  First, it will include less wall, less fence, and less security than would be included in a separate Security First™ bill.  Second, the security provisions of such a bill will be inadequate to stop the tide of illegal immigration.  Third, the "amnesty" provisions will be far less beneficial to the citizens of the US than they would be if we waited to devise them until after we knew just how effective the security measures actually were.  This will be true whether the bill is drafted by Republicans or Democrats.

Those who lack this understanding of our view of Congressional politics tend to look upon Security First™ as just code words for "anti-immigration."  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The truth is illustrated by yesterday's Senate vote.

(Extensive original comments available on Today's Illegal Immigration Diary at Redstate.com, published in 2006.  Have patience, loads slowly.)