I Have a Bone To Pick with GW Bush

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

William Safire's editorial today is heating up an important debate. There are two camps: "This is war." vs. "This is Orwellian." I want to open a third camp. "This is ridiculous."

Our borders are wide open. Terrorists could blindside us at will. The foreign threats are much greater than the domestic threats in this war of terrorism. So naturally, we do NOTHING about that. Instead, we strip away our privacies. Sorry. That doesn't fly. If it were truly important to take away our privacy, the borders would have been secured a year ago.

It appears that it is easier to ask us to live in fish bowls than to tell illegal immigrants that we cannot afford to have such loose border control anymore. It appears to be a political calculation. Does that not reduce the lost privacy aspect to nothing but political calculations? Which is more important? Our safety? Or as Dick Morris says it, the 'browning of America'? But hey, the 'browning of America' ends when the borders are secure. Thus, the ridiculousness aspect only grows.

GW Bush is well intentioned, I'm sure. But his political calculations reveal that taking away our privacy can't be all that important, if he isn't willing to tick off parts of the Hispanic community by securing our borders.

This is my suggestion, for what it's worth:

1. First seal the borders.

2. Mention a timeline for this lost privacy. No 'continuation triggers' either. Settle for 4 years of this lost privacy. Then destroy the data of all non-suspects. Only keep data of suspects that is deemed worth keeping by a warrant.

3. Non-citizens can be monitored and that info can be filed at will. Americans generally would like that idea.

4. Put someone in charge other than Poindexter. Why give ammo to the desperate DNC? It makes no sense.

If GW fails to heed this advice, I forsee political havoc. And I will be a part of it.

[Democratic_Machiavelli]

Oh, I see what you're saying. You're talking about the lower and middle levels of the organization. As far as I know, the ones in charge of the INS are appointed by Bush, are not part of any union, and those are the people who, IMO, should be fired. Those are the people I was referring to who will be shuffled around at best.

Union workers, from what I know of them, just take orders (and very slowly at that). All they care about is if they have a job and as much money as the market will allow (or more). Personally, I hope you're right and the entire INS loses every single person who is currently on the payroll.

[CapedCrusader]

GW Bush is well intentioned, I'm sure.

He's well intentioned about securing the Latino vote.