The military and the politicians use divide and conquer, and so can the citizen political movements

The principle is as old as history. Hillary Health Care is a good example from the early 1990’s application of the principle. After failing abysmally, the fall back strategy was to do it in small pieces, i.e., divide and conquer. Much of that went on after and for a short time, though the “campaign” was so poorly run it is obvious the Clinton leaders just backed off during their remaining term. And of course, the Bush leaders have other goals. With Hillary Clinton now running for President, the Hillary Health Care ideas are rising again like the proverbial phoenix rising from the ashes of the past. Only time will tell how all this sorts out.

The point of this post is parallel to the divide and conquer story preceding. The recent failing of the bipartisan effort in the Senate to come up with an improved immigration law, in many minds, is both a failure, and an opportunity. Many of us think the wonderful work of hundreds of thousands of citizens telling their senators by phone, fax, and email not to do it seems to have won out. This seems to be a case of the elected people and their hired minions listening to the people instead of doing some inside the beltway deal. And as the sermon often ends, “this is good”.

But the story and campaign is not over. We citizens in the USA do have an immigration problem thanks to all the past laws and apparently lax enforcement and funding of border control. Having 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants is bad enough, but the trend without action may be towards 50 million illegal immigrants in the not too far future. So why not use the divide and conquer principle to make things happen in the citizens interests, which also seems like bipartisan interests. In this is the opportunity to demonstrate bipartisanship for the benefit of our Country. In the divide and conquer principle, divide it up into do-able chunks that will gain Senate and House and Presidential cohesion that will become the law of the land.

The basic scheme is to do immigration reform in two “chunks”.

First, and foremost, is control of the borders, and as many hear it, control of the businesses that deliberately hire illegal immigrants. In this first chunk, I will defer to the politicians and citizens as to whether it is just enforcing present laws, or writing news laws that amplify the idea of controlling our borders. What ever gets sorted out, the massive mistrust of most citizens (5 out of 6, 3 out of 4, or take your own poll) in the willingness of the federal government to control the border has to be satisfied with, well, border control. The stories of only 2 miles or so of the 700 miles authorized last year say legions as to the distrust so prevalent today. Add to this discussion another story from the American Thinker:
Vasko Kohlmayer demonstrated two days ago that even the most absurdly inflated estimates for the cost of building a border fence are well within our means, in this American Thinker article. Loyal reader Tom Caneris suggested that an intriguing comparison can be made with the scale of the federal project to construct tall noise barrier walls along our freeways.

Take a look at these freeway noise barriers and see that there is more than a passing resemblance to various wall designs for the border barrier. Of course a border fence would have to be more robust, and it would not have the advantage of a nice highway to bring workers and material to the worksite. But it is not be that many orders of magnitude bigger a project than the highway noise barrier system.

Has the building of freeway noise barriers involved any national sacrifice? Have you ever fretted about how much money it has cost? Through the end of 2004, forty-five State DOTs and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have constructed over 2,205 linear miles of barriers at a cost of over $2.7 billion ($3.4 billion in 2004 dollars), more than the length of the US-Mexico Border (1,951 miles).

Second, and in the divide and conquer principle, then the other serious problems of illegal immigration can be addressed, as in what to do and how to treat the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants already here today. That is a big deal to so many American citizens.

Of course the application of the divide and conquer scheme requires “trust”. That the present comprehensive bipartisan proposal has failed in the Senate, at least for now, is a reflection of this lack of trust, deservedly so. As we go forward, can the other side of this bipartisan issue show “trust” in those who just want to have border control, and then expect these same people to go forward together in the near future? Most think so. In other words, the second “chunk” will fall into place if the first “chunk” begins to happen, finally. And all the second “chunk” issues can be debated fairly as in the first “chunk”. One suspects in this second discussion and debate that disingenuous party types trying to gain voting block advantages in voting will fall to those advancing the National Interests. Bipartisan types will squash them in the “trust” idea. But also allow for well intentioned do gooders who give equal priority to illegal immigrants and their children to our own children. This is also a good debate, and only citizens can vote.

In this is the great national debate about immigration. And maybe even it is the example of how we Americans can go forward to rule ourselves differently from the last few decades examples. Bipartisanship is not the same as the lowest common denominator, and here is an opportunity for citizens and politicians to show the American way. As always, use your vote and voice (voice mail, fax, or email) to make this happen, if you buy all this.