Rather than try to segment the issues, wouldn't it simplify things if GWB united the party by taking an anti-amnesty position? This is the first time GWB and I have parted on an issue and I am angry about it. I am not conservative, in fact much more liberal than I will admit, however, I am loathe to understand his position on this issue. It's the first time I'm asking myself WTF is he doing over there?
By taking the postion he has, isn't it HE who has divided the party, not only risking losing in November, but risking impeachment and risking losses in the war on terror?
"Rather than try to segment the issues, wouldn't it simplify things if GWB united the party by taking an anti-amnesty position?"
It wouldn't unite the party. I think that amnesty, eventually, is morally necessary. So do a lot of other conservatives, particularly Catholics. There are 18 million people here. They have lives and jobs. Their lives are precarious because they don't have legal protections. Putting up a fence stops the flow. That is something that most conservatives can agree about. Uprooting and hounding those already here is not something we're going to agree on. I think they need to be allowed to settle, eventually, because to try and deport 18 million people is too cruel.
Bush likes Mexicans. He has them in his family. Even if it would unite the party by opposing any grant of amnesty, ever, he wouldn't do it because he thinks that morally wrong.
That's why I say that the better course, to preserve the Republican Party and get good progress on the border issue is to agree to DELAY discussion of amnesty until NEXT year or afterward, but get the Fence approved THIS year and start building it.
The Border conservatives have to be given something substantial, something that will largely solve the problem long term. Amnesty is so divisive that we can't resolve it, so we need to kick the can down the road. Once the fence is up and running, and illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle, it will be possible to revisit the issue of amnesty and it will be in a different light. Maybe it won't win. Eventually it probably will. But if there's a fence up, than any amnesty that eventually happens will truly then be a one-time-only, final issue, because there won't be a trans-border flood to refill the ranks of the illegals.
Bush can't just flatly oppose amnesty in order to bring you back, because then he'll lose me and he'll be making war against his own convictions. But what he and I CAN do is postpone that issue, get a fence up first, let everybody cool off, and then make our moral arguments again in an atmosphere where it doesn't seem like we're just trying to empty out the compartment just to let more come in through the revolving door.
The position that divides the party is the refusal to approve a fence, and the refusal to decouple the fence and amnesty. The pro-business lobby doesn't want a fence, and doesn't care about amnesty so long as more cheap labor keeps flowing in. THAT'S the default position if nothing gets done, but it's a big win for business lobbyists from industries using cheap labor, and it means a Democratic triumph in November.
Republicans have to do something on the border.
The most effective thing is to build a fence and talk about amnesty again in a year or two, in different circumstances.