What happened next was a tragic example of the desperate state of our current immigration policy. Hundreds of armed police and immigration officers raided the factory, creating panic among the workers. They handcuffed unarmed men and women in the same factory where the workers had already known nothing but indignity at the hands of their employer.

Though Kennedy speaks at length of the plight of “workers” and “undocumented immigrants,” with the passion of a champion of unvarnished liberalism, conspicuous by its absence throughout his entire editorial was the term “illegal immigrant.” The omission was clearly deliberate, for as a good liberal, Kennedy surely can appreciate the great strides those on the left have made by hijacking our political vocabulary to suit their agenda. Would it be asking too much of liberals to stop blatantly mischaracterizing the object of so much of their affections?

Such hypocrisy is especially ironic for liberal Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. Though he presently advocates giving illegal immigrants residing in the state driver’s licenses and the benefit of in-state tuition assistance, during the gubernatorial campaign, his position on immigration enforcement seemed to be one of complete and utter indifference. Since he often claimed during debates on the issue, that illegal immigrants were only trying to better themselves, he often seemed contemptuous of enforcement. Indeed, shortly after being sworn in as Governor, he rescinded an existing agreement between the federal government and the State of Massachusetts wherein State Troopers would have helped enforce federal immigration laws. He haughtily dismissed the policy as a gimmick and asserted that immigration matters were best left to the federal government.

That is exactly what transpired earlier this week when the federal government raided the factory in New Bedford and started the deportation process for those workers who entered the country illegally. And what is the response of the Patrick Administration? He now wants cooperation between the federal government and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to essentially halt the deportation process — ostensibly on humanitarian grounds. Patrick characterized the tactics employed in the raid as “heavy handed.” It would be enlightening however, if he and his ideological fellow travelers could provide us with the enforcement component of their plan — if any — to ameliorate the tidal wave of illegal immigration that has swept the nation.

Liberals never seem to inquire into the potentially disastrous ramifications of their policy proscriptions; it is sufficient merely to have benevolent intentions so as to maintain and perpetuate the illusion of their moral superiority. How else does one explain the principles enunciated in Kennedy’s editorial which amounts to a clarion call for open borders? There is no concomitant discussion by Kennedy nor by any other Massachusetts politician about the fiscal costs of such a policy.

Senator Kennedy and other advocates of amnesty and open borders are quite correct when they say that our immigration laws are broken. They have been broken for a long time because there have been no attempts at consistent enforcement. Indeed, Guatemalan President Oscar Berger is expected to ask President Bush shortly for a temporary halt to the deportations of Guatemalans living in the US illegally. This raises an interesting question: who should establish immigration policy for the nation, Americans or Guatemalans?

Some members of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation are calling for hearings into the raid. By all means, let’s have hearings. Perhaps we could flush out the positions of these politicians on immigration by posing the following questions:

Exactly whom would you allow into the country? Could any impoverished, disaffected individual looking to “better their economic situation” anywhere in the world be allowed to migrate to the United States solely on “humanitarian grounds?” Do they have a “right” to emigrate? Is the United States obligated to accept anyone who wishes to enter? What is the enforcement component — if any — of your immigration policy post-amnesty? Do you believe in the concept of sovereign borders? If not, why not?  What is the distinct advantage, if any, of “citizenship?”

It is imperative that the children of those arrested and detained be reunited with their parent(s). But an important question arises: once this occurs, does Governor Deval Patrick, Senators Kerry and Kennedy agree that they should be deported? If not, why not? Perhaps only then will we be able to discern the real posture of our politicians with regards to open borders and the very real perils of amnesty.