I respect you for bringing up this news item. But I have to ask, why do you continue to "defend" the President on this issue? Exactly what is defensible about his administration of the border? This is not a rhetorical question. What is your understanding of the consequences of the massive level of illegal immigration we now have? That is not a rhetorical question, either.
Do you respect and defend the speech the President gave about the border?
I would really like to see your own analysis of why the President has refused to stop illegal border crossing. The things he has advocated seem to be transparent attempts at PR, rather than an honest attempt to enforce effective border security. So what's going on?
Fascinating. You really thing the fence and the attempt to relieve the pressure through an incentive to enter the country legally are PR?
Then I'll repeat it my reasons, Robert. And I won't be rhetorical, either.
First, I don't defend our failure to prosecute cases of illegal entry. I, too, believe that as long as we merely deport people who cross the border illegally so that they can try again the next night, we are wasting our time. Unfortunately, what you seem unable to recognize is that doing more would require massive spending and a massive increase in bureaucracy- the very things the Hard Right criticizes this president for when it's not having a fit about the border. Dubyah just can't win, it seems.
What is defensible about the President's approach to the issue is that unlike yours it is in contact with reality. It recognizes the difficulty and complexity involved in securing the border, and that making an impact on illegal immigration is simply and literally impossible by enforcement measures alone. With the libs whining on one side and the simplistic red meaters screaming on the other, he's trying to put together a program that will actually have some impact on the problem rather than simply making the base feel good.
Secondly, he recognizes the impact draconian measures would have not only on those who have broken the law, but on their children and families- many of whom are U.S. citizens. In case it hasn't dawned on you, Robert, every child born of an illegal alien in the United States is in fact a U.S. citizen. I don't think it's a bad thing to be reluctant to deport large numbers of American citizens who have done nothing wrong, or to disrupt extended American families which frequently include several naturalized or native born adult citizens. There would be consequences for people other than those who have broken the law involved in simplistic, draconian measures, even were they likely to be effective.
Finally- and I make absolutely no apologies for citing this as a a legitimate and weighty reason for avoiding the "deport 'em all and let God sort 'em out" approach- Latinos are the fastest-growing ethnic group in America, and would be even if illegal immigration ended today. They are a culturally conservative group that places a huge value on the family, and they are very frankly the key to political power in the United States for the foreseeable future.
Throughout his career, George W. Bush has worked to bring them into the Republican- or conservative, if you wish- column. They supported him in unprecedented numbers in Texas. In 2000, as a baseline, Al Gore carried the Latino vote by 30%; as a result of the President's efforts, John Kerry only carried them by 10% in 2004.
Latinos and illegal aliens are not the same people. On the other hand, very few Latinos do not have friends or even relatives who entered this country illegally. The President is trying- with no help at all from the Red Meaters- to walk a tightrope: to find a way to resolve the problem of illegal immigration without permanently alienating Latinos and guaranteeing liberal Democratic control of Congress and the White House for the next century. This would be a good thing to avoid.
I would remind you, by the way, that the third-party fantasies of some to the contrary, the Republican Party is the only vehicle through which conservatism has any possible chance of being remotely influential in this nation's politics, much less coming to power.
The consequences of illegal immigration on the scale it is currently taking place include the drastic overburdening of our healthcare and educational system and many other areas of the nation's infrastructure. It is a crisis of the first magnitude- which is why it is so important to find solutions which actually accomplish something, rather than simply making us feel good and helping us get our frustrations about the issue out of our systems. Yes, I respect the President's speech. I respect efforts to deal in reality and to solve problems rather than simply storm and rage at them ineffectually.
Now I have a question for you. The President's speech, which you are so scornful of, represents more than any other President has done to address the problem of illegal immigration in our history- more than Clinton did, more than Bush 41 did, and more than Reagan did.
How come you aren't cursing the memory of Reagan for having done less about this problem- as well, by the way, for running up a much larger deficit?
Our difference on this issue between the Hard Right and the Center Right is simple, Robert: we like to be effective. You guys like to be emotionally gratified, even if it means being totally ineffectual. We like to solve problems; you like to rage at them.
Anonymous said…
From the American Patrol Report:
... Begin quote
"The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment -- even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents. "There was a felony they were committing, and now they can't be prosecuted. That sounds like amnesty to me," said Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican who offered the amendment yesterday to strip out those provisions of the immigration reform bill. "It just boggles the mind how people could be against this amendment. The Ensign amendment was defeated on a 50-49 vote."
For the record, though, check the dictionary on the words "amnesty" and "pardon." Amnesty would be the remission of all penalties for illegal aliens in general.
Just thought that getting a dictionary definition on record would put the misuse of the term by Sen. Ensign and others in context. This action by the Senate is bad enough on its own terms, and those fifty senators need to be called to account.
First, by maintaining a sense of proportion, and deciding whether this one issue is worth voting against a particular senator about- bearing in mind whether his opponent would be better or worse.
And then, if you decide that it is, vote against him. Better still, if he's up for re-election in two or four years, support a primary opponent who is apt to be more to your liking.
But don't vote against a senator who was in the minority simply because he's a Republican. That would be irrational.
Comments
Do you respect and defend the speech the President gave about the border?
I would really like to see your own analysis of why the President has refused to stop illegal border crossing. The things he has advocated seem to be transparent attempts at PR, rather than an honest attempt to enforce effective border security. So what's going on?
Robert
Then I'll repeat it my reasons, Robert. And I won't be rhetorical, either.
First, I don't defend our failure to prosecute cases of illegal entry. I, too, believe that as long as we merely deport people who cross the border illegally so that they can try again the next night, we are wasting our time. Unfortunately, what you seem unable to recognize is that doing more would require massive spending and a massive increase in bureaucracy- the very things the Hard Right criticizes this president for when it's not having a fit about the border. Dubyah just can't win, it seems.
What is defensible about the President's approach to the issue is that unlike yours it is in contact with reality. It recognizes the difficulty and complexity involved in securing the border, and that making an impact on illegal immigration is simply and literally impossible by enforcement measures alone. With the libs whining on one side and the simplistic red meaters screaming on the other, he's trying to put together a program that will actually have some impact on the problem rather than simply making the base feel good.
Secondly, he recognizes the impact draconian measures would have not only on those who have broken the law, but on their children and families- many of whom are U.S. citizens. In case it hasn't dawned on you, Robert, every child born of an illegal alien in the United States is in fact a U.S. citizen. I don't think it's a bad thing to be reluctant to deport large numbers of American citizens who have done nothing wrong, or to disrupt extended American families which frequently include several naturalized or native born adult citizens. There would be consequences for people other than those who have broken the law involved in simplistic, draconian measures, even were they likely to be effective.
Finally- and I make absolutely no apologies for citing this as a a legitimate and weighty reason for avoiding the "deport 'em all and let God sort 'em out" approach- Latinos are the fastest-growing ethnic group in America, and would be even if illegal immigration ended today. They are a culturally conservative group that places a huge value on the family, and they are very frankly the key to political power in the United States for the foreseeable future.
Throughout his career, George W. Bush has worked to bring them into the Republican- or conservative, if you wish- column. They supported him in unprecedented numbers in Texas. In 2000, as a baseline, Al Gore carried the Latino vote by 30%; as a result of the President's efforts, John Kerry only carried them by 10% in 2004.
Latinos and illegal aliens are not the same people. On the other hand, very few Latinos do not have friends or even relatives who entered this country illegally. The President is trying- with no help at all from the Red Meaters- to walk a tightrope: to find a way to resolve the problem of illegal immigration without permanently alienating Latinos and guaranteeing liberal Democratic control of Congress and the White House for the next century. This would be a good thing to avoid.
I would remind you, by the way, that the third-party fantasies of some to the contrary, the Republican Party is the only vehicle through which conservatism has any possible chance of being remotely influential in this nation's politics, much less coming to power.
The consequences of illegal immigration on the scale it is currently taking place include the drastic overburdening of our healthcare and educational system and many other areas of the nation's infrastructure. It is a crisis of the first magnitude- which is why it is so important to find solutions which actually accomplish something, rather than simply making us feel good and helping us get our frustrations about the issue out of our systems. Yes, I respect the President's speech. I respect efforts to deal in reality and to solve problems rather than simply storm and rage at them ineffectually.
Now I have a question for you. The President's speech, which you are so scornful of, represents more than any other President has done to address the problem of illegal immigration in our history- more than Clinton did, more than Bush 41 did, and more than Reagan did.
How come you aren't cursing the memory of Reagan for having done less about this problem- as well, by the way, for running up a much larger deficit?
Our difference on this issue between the Hard Right and the Center Right is simple, Robert: we like to be effective. You guys like to be emotionally gratified, even if it means being totally ineffectual. We like to solve problems; you like to rage at them.
... Begin quote
"The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment -- even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents.
"There was a felony they were committing, and now they can't be prosecuted. That sounds like amnesty to me," said Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican who offered the amendment yesterday to strip out those provisions of the immigration reform bill. "It just boggles the mind how people could be against this amendment.
The Ensign amendment was defeated on a 50-49 vote."
...End quote
Robert
For the record, though, check the dictionary on the words "amnesty" and "pardon." Amnesty would be the remission of all penalties for illegal aliens in general.
Just thought that getting a dictionary definition on record would put the misuse of the term by Sen. Ensign and others in context. This action by the Senate is bad enough on its own terms, and those fifty senators need to be called to account.
Robert
And then, if you decide that it is, vote against him. Better still, if he's up for re-election in two or four years, support a primary opponent who is apt to be more to your liking.
But don't vote against a senator who was in the minority simply because he's a Republican. That would be irrational.