"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

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Let's get off the fence and into border reform

An editorial from The Alberquerque Tribune:

In their show of nonpartisan, cross-border solidarity, Southwestern border governors, including New Mexico Democrat Bill Richardson, could have been a tad more pronounced last week in hollering for border help.

They did send up another warning flare that immigration reform cannot wait. They called on Congress to stop delaying and enact a comprehensive federal law governing it this year.

Considering that two of the governors, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Rick Perry of Texas are Republicans, it probably was the most that could be expected.

That's because Republican members of Congress have been seen as dragging their feet on the controversial issue for fear it will hurt their re-election chances.

Since Republican members have been dragging their feet so as not to hurt their re-election bids, the most that could be expected of the two Republican governors was signing the letter.

"In a show of non-partisan, cross-border solidarity," which is another way of saying they did nothing, but met and sent a letter.

The "immigration" issue is all of the Republicans making. I would be near the end of the line of people sticking up for politicians in general, as they tend to be all about themselves; but the "all about them selves" thing is a very non-partisan symptom of being a politician.

More from the editorial
italics mine, (the letter criticized):
House and Senate leaders for delays in fashioning a bipartisan compromise between the hard-liners in the House, who favor get-tough enforcement against millions of illegal immigrants, and progressives in the Senate, who want a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for those already illegally here.
"Hard-liners" would be Republicans who just want one thing - GET TOUGH, which means nothing more than arresting and cleaning out all the "illegal" riff-raff. On the other side we have "progressives," which is a very misleading name for Democrats and is about as effective as a "letter" written by border governors.

From the letter:
"We urge you to get back to work and pass legislation that puts the interest of taxpayers first and solves this crisis once and for all."
Oh, ok. Is the the roll the dice craps game of "comprehensive" or piece by varifiable piece reform in the interest of "taxpayers." Maybe we could just leave it to the "progressive" members of the political elite, since that implies "progress." Perhaps if pols spent more time working on terms that sound good and actually did something things would be a little bit nicer.

According to the editorial, the governors should have sent a letter to the president and that Bush should spend whatever political capital necessary to broker an agreement; afterall, he does "favor the more restrained Senate approach."

The restrained approach is which? One can assume it is the "progressive" approach which leads to progress - or one can assume and more accurately so, that the "restrained" approach is one done in a "
piece by varifiable piece reform" way.

Why would throwing every stinking thing into the pot be considered "restrained?" You got me.

Quoting an observation of governor Richardson of New Mexico:
"As border states, we have found we share more in common than in conflict, working together we can accomplish more than if we allow the border to keep us apart."

Or "if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the United States and Mexico, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Bush, open this gate! Mr. Bush, tear down this wall!......" Very "progressive" and par for the course from the Left.

The Tribune said that Gov. Jose Natividad Gonzalez-Paras, of Mexico's Nuevo Leon, said it best:

"It is not with armies or with walls that this immigration problem will be solved, but with a vision of shared responsibility."

Perhaps if Mexico's government "vision" were better we wouldn't have to come up with something for both sides of the border.

In closing the paper has this to say:

Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate majority and minority leaders and the president should take a lesson from Gonzalez-Paras and the other border governors. They should resolve to adopt an immigration and border security vision in which the United States and Mexico and immigrants and citizens can come together - not be subdivided for political advantage.

Let's not "subdivide for political advantage," or some silly internationally understood reality like a "border."

Did you happen to see any of these posts yesterday from member sites of the Coalition Against Illegal Immigration?

Red Hot Cuppa Politics – “Obrador Calls On Supporters Not To Recognize Calderon Government

Morning Coffee – “Media Bias & Immigration

The Uncooperative Blogger – “Groups Support Border Patrol Agents Who Shot Smuggler” AND “Cops Comment on Maywood Protest

CommonSenseAmerica – “Illegal Immigration: Your Help Needed NOW!!!

**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