"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Thursday, May 18, 2006

Desperate Bush Turns To the National Guard

Joe Conason at the New York Observer has an opinion piece on the president and his "panicked" decision to dispatch 6000 National Guard troops to our border.

Mr. Conason appears to believes:

(T)he public now regards Mr. Bush with a cynical eye. Conservatives no longer trust him on the issue of immigration, while liberals, moderates and independents no longer trust him at all. It is sad, because he once had the opportunity—and the sincere motivation—to lead the nation to a more enlightened policy toward immigrant workers and their families. His welcoming attitude, dating back to his years in Texas, has long been his most admirable quality as a political leader.
If as Conason says regarding Bush's "enlightened policy...dating back to his years in Texas," is correct why would Conservatives no longer trust him? He has spoken on the illegal immigration issue as he always has, with a stance many disagree with. The president has been taking a beating on this issue and has tweaked his stance; although not enough, so that he will continue to take a beating on this issue. Once again, we have an example of a supposedly unbending leader, bending. Granted, we have had to scream alot and will continue to do so, as you cannot start in the middle to resolve a problem like the one at our border without starting at the beginning. Not much point in fixing the pipe at the center of your house if you are not going to address the sieve at the water main.

The other group Conason refers to are the, "liberals, moderates and independents." Any attempt at lumping "liberals" into a group that "no longer trust him at all," is ludicrous; the Left or Liberals have never trusted this president and never will. Conason writes as though Bush was once loved and admired by them and that just isn't so.

Conason also believes Bush's previous stance or attitude on our southern neighbors brought in more of the Latino vote, which is likely so. However, he feels this group will or is lost. Perhaps, but not likely if they are realistic, live here and didn't hop across the border illegally. Why would they be any different than anyone else that follows the rules and has that expectation on others that follow. This certainly is not the entire Latino community's attitude, but I'm sure it is with as many as it is not.

"waited too long to lead on this issue," a statement by the author that I don't disagree with, that said, our government has "waited too long to lead on this issue," for several decades and have only paid it lip service. According to Conason, his stance "has opened space for the ugliest elements in American society to reassert their brutality and prejudice."

To that I say, the "ugliest" has always been there and always will be. We cannot not do something because of what may rear it's ugly head; it is the manipulation of the subject that has allowed for the "ugliest" to appear, as the majority argument is not based upon xenophobia or anti-immigrant sentiment, but upholding the law and respecting ourselves and our nation enough to protect it.

An out of context quote that Conason uses is from WorldNetDaily:
“If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of six million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society,” he wrote, “it couldn’t possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don’t speak English and are not integrated into American society.”
The quote is an extreme example in an effort to make the point that nothing is impossible, at least that is how I choose to take it as there is nothing humane or respectable about the actions of the German nation under the leadership of the Nazi party.

Conason's plan to resolve this issue "
is a hemispheric development effort to improve wages and social conditions in Mexico and Central America," the first step of which:
Would be to inflict serious penalties on large employers, such as the meatpacking industry, that exploit illegal labor. Make those lawbreakers shoulder the extra fiscal burden of education, health care and law enforcement that falls on cities and towns. The next step would be to break down the barriers to labor organizing in those same industries. Make sure that workers are free and unafraid to join unions, as they are supposed to be in a Western democracy, regardless of their immigration status.
This is just as simplistic an idea as any coming from our government and is not the end all. What do you say to the consumer paying more for their food when those prices rise? I'm not saying "exploit," but I am saying nothing is ever that simple.

My main argument is and always has been to tighten the border FIRST, then we can seriously discuss the next steps. Otherwise the border security is going to get lost in the mix as it already is.

Read the opinion here if you feel the need.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks