My personal view of this particular issue is that Bush's bracero program was well-meant and sincere but probably still-born. I'm not against immigrants, I'm for them. But there are laws and controls about immigration that are very much within the rightful purview of the federal government, and it is unjust to expect immigrants from one country to respect them when immigrants from others are allowed to openly flout them.
People speak of "sealing the border" as if it were an easy thing to to - it isn't, and no one is going to snap his fingers and stop the flow of migrants. But clearly the effort expended at the current time is simply not up to the challenge.
Mind you, conservatives who do insist that the federal government do something about this are voting for a larger, more expensive, more pervasive government. That grates against a lot of conservative principles, and is justified only by a problem of considerable magnitude. The issue at hand is whether this problem has reached a magnitude that will justify more government. Clearly the consensus of people living in that area hints to me that it has.
It need not be all federal; indeed, state efforts in this regard should be strengthened - more local government is preferable, IMHO, to more federal government. Many in the federal government will fight that, some out of an elitist desire not to let locals subvert national policy for their own interest, and others out of the true conviction that it really is a federal issue when all is said and done. But that sort of internecine warfare does very little to address the problem.
There is also a partisan aspect to this that is a sad fact of modern politics. Republican strategists are reluctant to take courses of action that will alienate the Hispanic vote, especially now that it is trending their direction. Democrats are pushing for full voting rights for illegals out of the conviction that they will benefit from their numbers. Both of these positions are, in my view, short-sighted and sordid but they're an inescapable feature of practical politics.
So what's a thinking conservative to do? Petition the government insistently for one. Vote locally depending on the issue for another. Strengthen state and local efforts first. And let government at all levels know that inaction is no longer an option, and that the "vigilantes" are there for a pretty good reason.
This is the reason for the apparent paralysis. I honestly believe that this is at the root of it. All the Democrats see, when they view home videos of thousands of Mexicans marching like a human snake across the borders........is VOTES for them. Meanwhile, the Republicans don't want to alienate those already here and partially assimilated. What they don't realize is that a majority of the Latino community don't want this uncontrolled illegal flood, either!
Thanks for your reply, Bill!
Take care!
Char :)
It does not go against conservative principles to expect the federal government to fulfill its constitutional responsibility of protecting the nation's borders. The military and border patrol are two aspects of the federal government that are necessary.
Protecting the border certainly can't be compared to a great society social program.
Agreed. This is why its doubtful that the GOP will retain the senate or white house in 2008. The GOP has become the party of fiscal liberal/social conservatives. (By social conservative, I mean "morality" not anti social programs. The GOP has shown that is very much in favor of social programs.)
Unless things drastically change, their will be no energy in the 2008 GOP campaign. It will 1996 all over again.
The GOP has essentially made illegal Mexican immigrants the power center of the party. Instead of Bush being remembered as the president that stood up to terrorism, he risks being remembered as the president that surrendered our national sovereignty to Mexico.
Good description of why we are Americans. It's what we do. It's our duty. It's our Country.