Posted on 05/16/2006 5:36:42 AM PDT by kellynla
For my next trick, ladies and gentlemen, I will perform a death-defying stunt -- no, not climbing a 300-foot ladder, diving through seven rings of fire and landing perfectly safely in a glass of water. That's easy once you know how to do it.
Instead, I shall advise you on how to interpret President Bush's speech on immigration that you heard last night but that was delivered several hours after this column was written. Very simply: Ask yourselves the following questions:
Did the president use the phrase ''comprehensive immigration reform'' several times? That's revealing because this phrase is an example of smuggling. He hopes that by wrapping a ''temporary guest-worker program'' and the ''not an amnesty'' provision to legalize the 12 million illegals already here -- both of which are unpopular -- inside a tough-sounding popular promise to secure the border with the National Guard, he will persuade most Americans to accept the first two proposals.
Did the president spend a large part of his speech on promising to secure the border by sending the National Guard there? Heigh-ho. This is the umpteenth time that Bush has promised to toughen up border security with a new initiative. He does so whenever there is public disquiet about illegal immigration.
Yet this kind of mini-initiative is fundamentally irrelevant. As this column has repeatedly pointed out, porous borders are the result of uncontrolled immigration as much as its cause. You cannot control the borders, however many patrols you hire or fences you build, if you grant an effective pardon to anyone who gets 100 miles inland.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Now, whether these things are true or would be true will be irrelevant to Hillary. But I think this would be enough to get Hilary elected. The House needs to stand strong.
As far as Hillary getting elected, I do not think it is based so much on what the President does or doesn't do. There is not really anyone stepping up in the Republican Party and showing much leadership. It is improbable that anyone from the House could mount a viable candidacy. No sitting House member has been elected President since Garfield and that was some unlikely set of events that got him elected. The problem with Cheney as Vice-President has always been that he is filling the best position from which a candidate can mount a campaign. Hillary's greatest strength is the inablility of the GOP to field a strong leader that inspires confidence. I saw Senator Allen on Fox last night, he seemed to be dancing around the immigration in a way that says that he understands the issue, but my gut says that he probably does not have the stuff of which successful candidacies are made. Personally, I have always really liked what little that I have seen from the Governor of South Carolina. I feel the best shot against Hillary would be a Southern or Mid-South governor. There just are not any Republican Senators that could take on Hillary.
"fear of Mexico"
You mean, it's "conservative" to promote policies that could drastically destabilize a major nation on our southern border? It's not "fear of Mexico," it's wanting to preserve our security. That kind of long term thinking impresses me as being much more conservative than trying to build a razor wire fence around ourselves. I'm not ignoring what you're saying, I just think you see things in much too narrow a way.
And I won't insult you if you don't insult me.
Thanks for a thoughtful reply.
I think the US Government is fearful of the unrest these "men of military age" would be causing if they were at home and unemployed. Too bad they're not more worried about the unrest they're causing here. Guess they figure we're big enough and strong enough to absorb the impact. That is a very dangerous gamble.
I've been holding my fire on this issue (for the most part), because it's easy to get it wrong when there's so much emotion involved. I'm guessing I'll get some flaming, but these are my honest feelings on the matter, and it's taken a lot of soul-searching. That said, this is what I gather of this entire mess:
1) We have at least ten million undocumented workers.
2) We can't generalize them as "criminals" in the sense of terrorists who come here to harm people and property. What they are doing is illegal, but the human spirit cannot be corraled (see "fall of USSR"). And from what I can see (and I don't profess to be the authority on it), MOST undocumented workers are here because they want a better life for their families. Of course there are legitimately criminal forces in the mix, but those people will always find a way in (see "9/11 terrorists"), whether or not we deport those who are not here to harm us.
3) If we profess to be pro-life, pro-family, we shouldn't devalue these people because they did what was obviously best for their families while our government knowingly -- KNOWINGLY let them come in. Here's a gut-check --> How do we feel about the unborn children of pregnant illegal immigrants? Do we punish the child by withholding assistance to the undocumented woman? Do we think, "no loss", if she decides to get an abortion? The answer shouldn't be difficult.
4) We can't deport twelve million people. They're here. They're woven into the economy. As unfair as it is to those who are waiting LEGALLY, the blame ultimately lies with the government not fulfilling its duty to protect our borders. This would be the equivalent of arresting everyone who ever downloaded something from Napster - it was wrong - it was technically criminal - but no one chose to enforce it. Are we all criminals anyway? Or does unwillingness to enforce give license to otherwise well-meaning people to "break the law"? (Who here doesn't speed? I know it's not a great analogy, but the essence of what takes place is similar)
5) Someone is hiring these people. Again, it's against the law, but the government chooses NOT to enforce the law - for political and economic reasons, in all likelihood. If the government enforced the law and the job pool dries up, the impetus to come here will slow considerably.
6) It is our sovereign right to seal our borders. Our government has CHOSEN not to do so. This can and must be done. If it means building a WALL, then BUILD A WALL.
"Up to" 6000 National Guard troops is a band aid on a gaping head wound. No one, it seems, but the White House, believes this is going to make a difference.
7) It is our sovereign right to legislate a national language. ENGLISH. We need to assimilate the people who are here. Congress has the power to do this, and the ACLU can pound sand.
8) Worker amnesty is actually employer amnesty. Again, if the workers are criminals, so are the employers. Where's the outcry against the people enabling this migration? Scapegoating the worker and giving a pass to the employer is like criminalizing the drug addict while legitimizing the dealer.
9) It appears that George W. Bush has given up his presidency. He needed a powerful statement followed up with powerful, decisive action (read: WALL), and instead he's proposing two-week office jobs and plenty of nightlife in Nogales and Tijuana. No bite, no resolve.
So, I'm willing to believe that there is a place for the people who are already here by our government's negligence in protecting our borders. I believe that, whether we like it or not, we have a moral duty to help the poor - especially those who are working and contributing their labor to the economy. We have enough actual citizens who are doing nothing and suckling the government pap. At least these people are breaking a sweat.
BUT
We need to seal the frickin' border, and do it with some decisiveness. In other words, NO MORE.
ULTIMATELY
The government sold us out. They sold us out by not securing the border, and they sold us out by giving employers a free pass. As easy as it is to scapegoat the immigrant, in reality, it's the fool who spreads honey all over his body and complains that he's covered in ants.
This is typical politics.
They've certainly been out in force on this thread.
A sign of desperation to point out how similar W is to RR?
Ok, for you, it's desperation when logical connections are drawn.
I'd say that your side is much more desperate. You're going to lose this battle on immigration reform, and you know it.
Don't count Allen out yet. He's staying real low until next year. Let McCain et. al. be front runners. Front runners never win. And Allen has the unique qualifications of being both a Senator and a former Governor.
I think the President's policy goes a long way to address this "flooding" you refer to, and in a much more effective and long term way than the mere building of a wall (which I believe would accelerate the political destabilization of Mexico to dangerous levels).
Diplomacy not backed up by the threat of force is no diplomacy at all.
It is "fear of Mexico". You're afraid of what might happen if we got tough on them.
Which is funny, cuz the *primary* feeling of most folks here in Texas is that this won't end until the US puts pressure on Mexico to reform, or else.
And that's something that crosses conservative/liberal bounds. I saw Edward James Olmos last night push for the same thing.
It's a 'root cause' analysis. The root cause of all this is that Mexico is so corrupt and dangerous it's people are willing to risk all to get out of there. Unless you fix the cause, all the band-aids in the world won't help a bit.
And you *are* ignoring my main comments, about "conservatives are for smaller govt and border security".
I'm assuming you're 'afraid' of dealing with that, too.
And so, what you'd really like is to just "nuke 'em." Right mr. whatever you are?
Wonder how the fiscal conservatives would feel about spending the money to build and maintain the wall, and hiring more INS agents to guard it?
And by this measuring stick, Bush has been more 'L' than 'C'.
Which you are ignoring.
That's why you keep saying things like, "all or nothing attacks" and "one-issue voters". You're pretending Bush has only given one issue for conservatives to be upset.
So, you're ignoring my point, while just repeating what you want to say over and over again.
I get it that you support Bush no matter what. But merely repeating that is not a dialog. And is not going to help the R party in the fall.
The money we'd save in health-care costs alone would off-set that, without a doubt.
We already have national guard troops on the border?
For a year?
You really consider that a serious plan?
In case it hasn't been said, Welcome to the Free Republic.
Might want to wait a few more days before bashing the President.
Although it is a popular sport of late at FR, from newbies it is still not such a great idea if you want to stick around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.