About Bush’s Immigration
Speech
The angel is in the details
Let’s cut to the chase here, folks. The speech
given by President Bush on May 15th on immigration was the equivalent
of getting poked in the eye. At least, that’s the way most
hardcore conservatives feel, and none too few Democrats and moderates.
But is what Bush proposed 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. It is in the House that most Americans
turn to who believe that illegal immigration is the number one
problem that faces America today.
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. (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060516/a_guard_help16.art.htm?POE=click-refer)
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. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060515-10.html)
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 crises proportions 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.
|