President Bush's immigration plan is a start in the right direction.
Let’s cut to the chase here, folks. The speech given by President Bush on Monday night on immigration was the equivalent of getting poked in the eye. At least, that’s the way most hard-core conservatives feel, and none too few Democrats and moderates.
But is what Bush proposed Monday night so pro-illegal immigration as to send rock-ribbed conservatives off the reservation? Don’t be too sure.
We have seen this type of reaction before, where conservatives and Republicans suddenly become “one-issue warriors,” as in “He (Bush) better appoint Bork-like jurists to the Supreme Court, or the Bush presidency is a complete and utter failure.”
If not the issue of judges, then tax policy, government expansion, or military policy. Just name it, and you will find a near-segregated constituency that will cry that the Republican Party has died because Bush has decided to call for only 6,000 new border guards instead of 36,000, as some have stated.
If anything, what Bush stated in his immigration speech was a policy outline, not a set-in-stone directive. We have all seen how deft this president is when asking for one thing, getting another, and declaring victory.
It is the Senate that now calls the tune regarding immigration reform, and if you know the Senate, you know that border security has been of secondary importance when compared to a guest-worker program, or as I call it, “amnesty-lite.”
One must look to the House of Representatives for any security measures along the border. Most Americans who believe that illegal immigration is the number-one problem that faces America today turn to the House, not the Senate.
But, in brief, let’s look at the president’s proposal:
Bush has called for 6,000 new border security guards, which will more than double the total amount of border guards since Bush took office. The National Guard was never going to sit on the border with guns at the ready, so get over it. As border enforcement agents are trained, Guard forces are to be whittled down. By the end of 2008, 18,500 border guards will police the borders.
Bush then called for a virtual — and real — security fence, or cordon, set up along the Southern border. Says Bush: “We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We'll employ motion sensors, infrared cameras, and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings.”
The third spoke in the Bush security wheel is holding employers accountable for hiring illegals. Bush believes that the “key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law, and leave employers with no excuse for violating it.”
Fourth, the president wants to put an end to the “catch and release” program, work with governors and fund states more generously to help the federal government fight illegal immigration, clear away bureaucratic underbrush when deporting non-Mexicans back to their countries of origin, and build more holding facilities and provide more bed space in order to hold more illegals for deportation.
All of the above are considered positives, or so one would think. Yet, many on the right have dismissed these proposals out of hand. Why? Because the other aspects of the president’s plan, like the temporary or guest-worker part of it and the refusal of Bush to even entertain the idea of removing some of the 12 million illegals in the country, have seriously poisoned the well regarding any immigration reform outside of security measures only.
Even the president’s acknowledgment of America being a “melting pot” bought side-long glances and derisive laughter from most. It’s what happens when you realize that a government agency, like the DMV, has its driving test in a dozen different languages, thereby highlighting the root cause of immigration resentment: assimilation.
Bush has stated that illegal immigrants that are here already “should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it.” Yet, in the end, that is what they will get: citizenship via lawbreaking. But the prospect of deporting millions cannot be accomplished without actual rioting and general mayhem. Could you picture Los Angeles if mass deportation was implemented? There is not only compassion in what Bush proposes, but a large and pragmatic dose of reality.
Sure. It isn’t enough, but it’s a damn site better than before, is it not? I did not see this kind of effort from any other recent administration, including that of President Reagan’s, who granted out-and-out amnesty to some three million-plus illegals in 1986.
Which brings me to say that the problem of illegal immigration did not start on January 20, 2001, the day president-elect Bush was indeed sworn in as President Bush. Also, there is not one single idea for immigration reform to be heard from by anyone on the left. I do not see anything except scorn and finger-pointing from the Democratic Party as a whole. Truly, it is a pathetic non-statement from a party that casts itself as the party of “inclusiveness.”
Conservatives and Republicans would do well to remember that a president’s term is made up of numerous victories and loses. Like terrorism and Social Security, illegal immigration was a problem of crisis proportion left over from the previous administration which primarily dealt with politically low-risk issues.
If these proposals were actually implemented and built upon, then there is every reason to believe that illegal immigration can be vastly reduced, and finally controlled.
It is a good start where there was none before.
“If these proposals were actually implemented and built upon, then there is every reason to believe that illegal immigration can be vastly reduced, and finally controlled.”
This is the key phrase of the article.
A fence, with enough border agents to patrol it, would accomplish this all by itself. Unfortunately, this is also the least likely thing to be accomplished by this President in a timely manner.
The ‘amnesty-lite’, as Mr. Fiore puts it, will be put into effect immediately, of course.
I don’t believe the President would have touched on securing the border at all if it wasn’t for pressure from his base.
The House has it right. Secure the border and then deal with the illegals here. If you put out the amnesty first (or have a ‘comprehensive’ plan passed), we’ll probably get an even bigger influx of illegals than we have now.
Goodbye Republicans…Jackasses
Hard-core conservatives? It isn’t just hard-core conservatives, conservatives or ‘moderates’. Even “hard-core” liberals, including black and Hispanic-Americans, are up in arms over this one. It cuts across all ideological boundaries. Many of those demanding border-closure aren’t affiliated with any party or ideology; their only viewpoint being one of alarm regarding an out of control situation and an unresponsive government. It seems the only ones holding out for some kind of “wink-wink” amnesty are politicians, the media, those employing large numbers of illegals, and the illegals themselves.
When you strip down Bush’s proposals, he’s offering the same sops as before, and has preconditioned border closure to granting amnesty. Worse, he has pre-loaded the debate to guarantee there must be loopholes through which poorly screened and unscreened immigrants will continue to pour. What is wrong with this proposal is it does not seal the border sans any and all conditions, conditions that make a travesty of the very effort. This sends exactly the wrong message. It tells those still coming in they’ve done no wrong and run no risk in breaking our laws, trashing our fence, and stealing what is not theirs. They understand this only placates Americans, and has no impact other than to slightly retard migration. It rewards those already here by absolving lawlessness, removing all risk of deportation, and conceding liberties that are not their due. Finally, it tells Vincente Fox he can continue trashing our sovereignty while underwriting his own misgovernment and ridding Mexico of its many ‘undesirables’ through mass emigration.
Exactly what has Bush proposed? He proposes we put up high-tech fences only where fences are least needed (at legitimate border crossings) and increase border-guard density from 12,000 to 18,000. As an interim measure, he is calling up National Guardsmen to perform support duties until permanent guards can be hired, trained and placed. On the surface, this looks like a daring 50% increase in guard-force and a first step in closing parts of the border. What he does not state is that 1500 miles of border will remain unfenced and lightly guarded. He has stipulated National Guardsmen will not have any authority to arrest or turn back unlawful aliens. Their job is purely “supportive” and otherwise undefined. By implication, he promises force will not and cannot be used to protect our border. Without, at least, the potential use of force, border-security has no meaning and can be ignored with impunity. This invites lawless marauders to simply tear great gapping holes in our fence; meaning guards will be kept busy mending it and stopping no one. He has ruled out any use of guardsmen for the kind of duty for which that organization was created and is meant to perform: the armed defense of our borders authorized to use lethal force, if necessary, to stop an invasion. This is the grist of the speech, though under-voiced, as it negates all pretense to upholding the law. In 1914/15, Black-Jack Pershing chased Poncho Villa and similar renegades back into Mexico. Though he failed to capture Villa, he effectively suppressed raiding into the U.S without the aid of any fence. Pershing wasn’t restrained by Washington in the use of force, and did make examples of captured Mexicans.
Wouldn’t it be better to put up ‘low-tech’ fence (well marked with warnings in both languages that trespassers may be shot at) along the entire border, than high-tech only along highly-populated sections of it? A fence is no better than the determination to deter that stands behind it. With a fence but no authority to shoot, we can watch on closed circuit TV as illegals cut their way through. I expect they’ll wave at the cameras as they pass through. Even assuming some force is allowed and that most illegals are now coming through in high-density areas, why wouldn’t they just shift their movement to circumvent our high-tech border by crossing further out? Instead of wasting guardsmen in support of border crossings, put them in companies out where the border is now unguarded and make the companies mobile to maximize coverage. Authorize them to use sufficient force to discourage illegal crossings and, thereby, reduce the number now dying of thirst. A continuous fence that is effectively patrolled will put a much bigger dent in the numbers coming through; and will be far more effective than the deliberate half measures proposed.
Bush’s speech is directed at Congress and the Senate, rather than the people. He has, in effect, told Congress what legislation he will not pass; actions he will not authorize, and promises he will sign away more than he should. He has put himself on record in order to marshal support for his agenda and to control the direction of debate. Because of this speech, any Congressional proposal that does not support some kind of amnesty must automatically be rejected and run the risk of alienating all who still support open borders (i.e., Democrat base and big money contributors). Bush’s speech has given the lobbyists and fellow politicians all they could hope for. Yet, he’s treading on thin ice thinking this answers the problem, and risks losing both his base and general support. If he hoped to assuage the public, he has miscalculated. He still enjoys support over and above that given Democrat alternatives, but he needs to recognize we won’t be so easily fooled and he should rethink this position quickly.