The news came Thursday afternoon: The folks who put together the online version of Roget's Thesaurus have added a few choice synonyms for "obstructionist," including:
--Right-winger.
--Rightist.
--Tory.
Tory! Are there still Tories on these shores? Some of us thought that designation went out with the Revolutionary era--even if an occasional group of nonconformist students at some Ivy League school uses it to advertise its conservative leanings. We hear tell that Tories still hold considerable sway across the pond in Parliament, but has anybody around here seen hide or wig of one since the tricorn hat went out of style?
But if you're looking for modern obstructionists, there's never been any shortage of those--on the right or left. Consider this front-page news story on that same Thursday about the (semi-)border between the United States and Mexico. Its subject: All those children now flowing into this country--and then waiting to be picked up by American border patrols preparatory to being thrown into this country's maze of a legal system. Maybe for years. Or until they're old enough to melt away into the shadows that now cover millions of illegal aliens in this country.
It seems Republican leaders in Congress are willing to give this Democratic president about half the money he seeks to shelter and process these kids. They say they might think about appropriating more funds to handle this flood of the littlest illegals, but first they want the president to do what he can to fix the problem, not just spend more money on it. Like reforming the law that encouraged all these children to set out for the United States in the first place.
It seems that in the days of yore, way back in the (George W.) Bush administration, Congress passed a law that was supposed to help protect kids in Central America from the sex-trafficking trade, which had grown into a whole, illegal industry. That law specified that those kids--not Mexican kids, not Canadian kids, just Central American kids--were to get extra help and additional judges to preside over their deportation hearings when they showed up here. So when word of the new law got around in Central America, mamas and papas with vulnerable kids began loading them up and shipping them north, hoping they'd be allowed to stay here while their hearings were pending, and pending, and pending . . . . You can see the result today by looking at pictures from the border.
Republicans want that law fixed--so that kids from Central America sneaking across the border are treated like any others. And once word about the law's having been changed got around, families down in Honduras and Guatemala and points south might stop sending children on dangerous trips with who-knows-who at the wheel.
That's why Republican leaders in Congress are out to tie more spending on the border to reforming this law. It's something the president, too, said he would support. Till he changed his mind. Now his people are opposing it, and digging in their heels. Just why escapes us, but any number of excuses for the Democrats' inaction are being offered.
The second-ranking Democrat in the House, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, says he spoke with the White House last week, and that the administration now opposes changing the law--and so do the Democrats in the House.
Nancy Pelosi, who's always good for a quote (for Republican fundraisers), says she's against fixing the law, too: "Is the only immigration bill we're going to have one that hurts children?"
Hmmm. You'd think that keeping these children out of the hands of the well-nicknamed coyotes who escort them north would very much help these kids. Because right now they're being taken across deserts in who-knows-what kind of transportation, and then flung across the Rio Grande with nobody on this side to care for them until men in uniform show up. That's helping them?
The politics behind the Democrats' opposition to this simple fix is easy enough to spot. Why not use the plight of these kids to make Republicans look mean and anti-Hispanic? That could help in the upcoming elections. What does it matter if a few--or tens of thousands--of kids are hurt?
Over in the Senate, Democrats have put forth their own plan, and there's no mention in it about changing the law, either. Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Left Coast, said she wants to give the Department of Homeland Security more "flexibility" when it comes to these kids, but she's not flexible when it comes to fixing the law. Or the heckuva problem it's caused.
Congress is supposed to take a recess later this week. There are already stories coming out of Washington suggesting this partisan impasse won't be broken before the summer break.
And whose fault is that?
Blame the obstructionists. Or, if you would prefer to use a synonym, try left-wingers, leftists or Democrats.
Editorial on 07/28/2014