"But of course appropriators are not bound by thisdirection: authorized doesn't
mean funded. A serious enforcement bill would have authorized an increase of up
to 14,000 in fiscal year '07 and beyond, and laid down a real trigger of funded
and deployed at some level telegraphing seriousness of purpose."
This is a key point in the weakness of this bill. It is based on actions that are authorized to be taken in the future. The problem is that there is no reason we should trust that these actions will be taken. There is no money set aside for these actions in the bill, which undermines that they will be taken. My fear is that this bill will make the public believe that action has been taken to solve the problem, when the action has been postponed and a new problem was created. Congress does not need to fund these actions in the future and I would be willing to bet that if the public loses interest in immigration the funds will flow to areas that will get more attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment