If the pro-amnesty reactions to the outbreak of swine flu (like Eviatar's) are any indication, advocates for sane immigration policy are going to have an uphill battle in Congress this year.

The swine flu crisis this week played perfectly into the hands of these pro-amnesty advocates (like Eviatar). They characteristically and reflexively seized on the crisis and the various rational calls for temporarily closing the border to control the spread of the disease as “restrictionist,” “anti-immigrant,” and “predatory.” Seemingly, the more rational and essential the need for some control over the border, the more hysterical and shrill (and predictable) the attacks by the pro-amnesty lobby on those who propose these rational measures.

When it comes to immigration, the facts often don’t seem to matter to pro-amnesty advocates. The only thing that seems to matter is using each and every opportunity possible to smear and vilify any person or proposal that is in even a small way at odds with their rabid and inflexible devotion to the idea of amnesty. Whether it’s a suggestion that unlimited immigration and amnesty might pose a threat to American workers or a modest proposal to temporarily close the border in order to forestall the threat of a pandemic, the simple, rational recommendations of the day becomes fodder for pro-amnesty activists to claim that “immigration reform” is absolutely essential to solving all of the United States’ problems.

Pro-amnesty advocates unabashedly argue that the crisis of the day — whatever it may be — has been manufactured by anyone who suggests that immigration should be rationally managed in any way.

It is difficult to convince high-pitched pro-amnesty advocates (like Eviatar) that anything but completely opening the U.S.-Mexico border to all comers at all times is the solution, whether the problem is a flu pandemic, drug-related violence or high unemployment.

Pro-amnesty advocates (like Eviatar) are using this occasion, like so many before, to claim a “consensus” on “comprehensive immigration reform” (which means “changing all of the laws to agree with what I think should be done”) among all “serious advocates, legislators and policymakers” because, by definition, everyone who doesn't agree with them isn't “serious” or to be taken seriously!

The biggest hurdle to getting any kind of real, rational, coherent immigration reform passed this year, or any other, may be getting the real, sober, rational policy arguments of those who understand that immigration must be managed and controlled in some way heard above the hysterical shrieking of pro-amnesty advocates (like Eviatar) who don't understand this and viciously attack all those who do.

The calls for border restriction were prudent and the failure to heed them was not. There are many, particularly in the Latino community, who regard any restriction on movement across the border with Mexico as offensive. Barack Obama, a man I supported in the election, but the most politically correct president in our history, chose not to take appropriate action to protect our country for political reasons.

Call on our Congress to pass an immigration law to state that any child born in US Territory will only be a citizen if one of the parents at the time of birth is a US citizen. This simple law would end the misery and hideous cost of dealing with the Anchor Baby issue. This would provide a correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It will end up at the Supreme Court.

Before any discussion of amnesty we need to finish the border fence and mandate enforcement of E-Verify. Until we stem the flow of illegal aliens discussion of amnesty needs to be taken off the table. Are we going to keep this charade of immigration laws in our Country and turn a blind eye to this issue. Allowing illegal aliens to populate our Country is not fair to them or to the Citizens of this Country. The Government is here to protect its Citizens and not illegal aliens.

Her concluding sentence, that “there appears to be, at least among most serious advocates, legislators and policymakers, consensus about the need for comprehensive reform.” is not supported by the facts. The 800,000+ members of NumbersUSA and the majority of people in the USA are against comprehensive reform as she understands it and we are “serious advocates”.

In March 2009, Rasmussen reported that 74% of voters do not believe the federal government is doing enough to secure the country’s borders; 68% of U.S. voters favor strict government sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants; and 67% of voters also say that if law enforcement officers know of places where immigrants gather to find work, they should sometimes conduct surprise raids to identify and deport illegal immigrants.

Eviatar further insists that a Congressional “hearing was full of powerful arguments for why comprehensive immigration reform would boost the U.S. economy, enhance public safety and reinforce American values of hard work, family unity and entrepreneurship. “ as if no one should be allowed to question a Congressional hearing where witnesses are carefully selected to arrive at a particular conclusion that Congress people want. So, why is Ms. Eviator writing for the Washington Independent? What’s independent about it?

Then she criticizes those who suggests closing our southern border might be a sound public health measure including radio host Savage, Fox News hosts Beck and Sustren, Rep. Massa (D – N.Y.), and even the L.A. Times for suggesting that closing the border with Mexico might be an appropriate response to a flu pandemic. Notice she failed to include V.P. Biden, who ineptly warned against anyone traveling by subway or plane.

As a retired government epidemiologist (Masters from Johns Hopkins and Ph.D. in Environmental Biology and Public Policy) I have worked with CDC for many years and am familiar with the thinking that go into questions like border closings, school and event closings, quarantines, etc. Here’s what the Washington Post reported in 2007:
Flu Pandemic Deaths Avoidable, August 13, 2007; A06
“A long-awaited analysis of the experience of 43 U.S. cities, published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, disputes the conventional wisdom that neither communities nor individuals could have done much to alter the deadly march of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic.

The study found that U.S. cities that closed schools, banned public gatherings, isolated flu patients and quarantined people exposed to them suffered less than cities that did not do those things.”

Regarding quarantine and travel, WHO now says, “Today, international travel moves rapidly, with large numbers of individuals visiting various parts the world. Limiting travel and imposing travel restrictions would have very little effect on stopping the virus from spreading, but would be highly disruptive to the global community.” It says “very little effect”, not “no effect” and seems to weigh deaths against disruptive economic effects. Diana West, a Columnist questions the WHO reasoning in a manner that a good journalist should.

Questions that should be put to our government and the WHO are contained in West’s intelligent and nuanced review of the close-the-border question in yesterday’s editorial “Swine Flu Should Prompt Closure of U.S.-Mexican Border”, May 01, 2009. Please see her article at: http://townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2009/0…. She says:

“While the U.S. government went ahead and issued a travel advisory on nonessential travel to Mexico on Monday, it has still in no way restricted travel from Mexico, not even for a day or two to assess the path and scope of the outbreak. . . . There is something screwy going on.”

She concluded:
“Of course, when it comes to the U.S.-Mexican border, there's probably a deeper, more psychological reason it remains open: Our government doesn't want to close it, not for anything. George W. Bush didn't want to secure the border, not even to stop terrorist incursions or illegal immigration, and Barack H. Obama doesn't want to secure the border, not even to stop terrorist incursions, illegal immigration, drug cartel violence or what is being billed as the 21st century plague. It might set a dangerous precedent. It might demonstrate to citizens of both countries that the United States is capable of controlling its borders. To the globalists and amnesty proponents of the past and present administrations, that is the scariest prospect of all, scarier even the prospect of the great flu pandemic of 2009.”

Eviatar is clearly one of those globalists and amnesty proponents. She has a law degree and can’t resist advocating her position rather than being a journalist who should be covering this story in a fair and balanced way.

Jerome Blondell, Ph.D., M.P.H.