Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,829

    Bush Aims For Failure on Immigration

    Bush aims for failure on immigration

    By CRAGG HINES
    First published: Sunday, April 15, 2007

    Back in the mists of time, when George W. Bush emerged from the unprepossessing governorship of Texas to cast his fate with the wider world, his calling card read: "Compassionate conservative."

    Given his political heritage, that was not an unfathomable marketing tool. Clearly he was not a thoroughgoing centrist like his senator-grandfather nor world-wise like his president-father. But it would have seemed a fair judgment in the run-up to the 2000 presidential election that Bush would, on some key issues, apply both the principles of compassion and conservatism without regard to shifting political passions.

    Given his background in Texas politics, one of those issues conceivably should have been immigration. And so it had seemed to be, even after a dormancy of several years following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

    But President Bush went to Yuma, Ariz., last Monday for a little chest-thumping over the unsubstantiated meaning of fewer border apprehensions. He and the White House made clear along the way that in addition to enforcement, the only other piece of the immigration puzzle the administration really wants to address is making immigrants available on some wholesale basis to the U.S. economy.

    Bush's speech was a confirmation of what some immigrant-advocacy groups have always contended about the approach of the Republican President: that his is a corporately driven vision, no matter that even many businesses do not share it.

    Judging by the Yuma speech and White House poop sheet, those groups are, at least as things stand now, sadly correct.

    Bush talked once again about "comprehensive" immigration reform, but some of the plans he seems to be warming to are guaranteed to fail -- as well they should.

    Where is Bush's call to "honor the tradition of the melting pot" in a plan that would, as suggested in a White House draft that has made its way to Capitol Hill, demand $3,500 for a three-year worker visa (payable on initial issuance as well as each unlimited renewal) and a fine of $10,000 to have any chance of moving from an illegal to legal status.

    Bush is no longer even talking a good game. And when he was, he did not spend much political capital on the issue. Now that meager account is empty, and Bush seems willing to throw in with some of the politicians who never tire of exploiting immigration.

    When Bush returned to the immigration issue following his re-election in 2004, he repeatedly called for a "comprehensive" approach. That was seen to mean increased border enforcement, a temporary worker program and a means to regularize the more than 10 million illegals already in the country -- no matter how effective the Border Patrol in any sector from Brownsville to San Diego.

    When House Republican leaders in December 2005 rammed through a reprehensibly one-sided enforcement bill (which one of the measure's few Republican opponents called "worse than nothing"), Bush was largely silent, prompting the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to ask him to take a stand against the measure.

    Bush made a 17-minute nationally televised address on May 15 last year that laid out a more balanced approach but emphasized the enforcement component. He also made sympathetic noises about the only truly comprehensive bill on the market in the last Congress, the Kennedy-McCain bill that passed the Senate 62-36 later in May 2006. (Now McCain has taken a powder, lest his advocacy of a good bill remind the righteous right why they don't really like him.)
    By the time of the Senate vote, the Bush administration was having to balance its seemingly sincere desire for immigration reform with the desire of its hard-right colleagues in the U.S. House to use the issue to maintain their control. Democrats retook congressional power in an election that turned far more on Bush and the Iraq war than on anything the President or other politician thought about immigration.

    Even back in Texas, Bush was always explicit in his opposition to illegal immigration. But he seemed more pragmatic on stemming the tide and dealing with the millions already in the United States by whatever means.

    In the first, otherwise desultory months of his administration, one of the few issues on which President Bush showed much promise was his slow but steady progress on immigration -- both as a domestic political issue and as a key ingredient in U.S.-Mexican relations.

    The week before the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush met in Washington with President Vicente Fox of Mexico for talks on immigration as an issue with consequences on both sides of the border.

    In the Democratic response that weekend to Bush's regular Saturday radio address, Rep. Ed Pastor of Arizona commended Bush and Fox, adding: "But more than talk is needed."

    Some of us would just be happy to get Bush back to that kind of talk. Back there in the mists of time.

    Cragg Hines writes for the Houston Chronicle. His e-mail is cragg.hines@chron.com.

    http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/st ... TextPage=1

  2. #2
    Senior Member jp_48504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,168
    I stay current on Americans for Legal Immigration PAC's fight to Secure Our Border and Send Illegals Home via E-mail Alerts (CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP)

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    12,855
    Even back in Texas, Bush was always explicit in his opposition to illegal immigration. But he seemed more pragmatic on stemming the tide and dealing with the millions already in the United States by whatever means.
    Is this author DELUDED? Or just smokin' something extra powerful?
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member SOSADFORUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    IDAHO
    Posts
    19,570
    This author is delusional! but then 2/3 of the worlds meth is consumed by Americans, I'd say he is consuming 1/3 of it by himself
    Please support ALIPAC's fight to save American Jobs & Lives from illegal immigration by joining our free Activists E-Mail Alerts (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,829
    2ndamendsis wrote:
    Is this author DELUDED?

    No, he's just a

  6. #6
    Senior Member SOSADFORUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    IDAHO
    Posts
    19,570
    Quote Originally Posted by olivermyboy
    2ndamendsis wrote:
    Is this author DELUDED?

    No, he's just a
    Like you picture Oliver, I think I see the resemblance!
    Please support ALIPAC's fight to save American Jobs & Lives from illegal immigration by joining our free Activists E-Mail Alerts (CLICK HERE)

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,829
    SOSADFORUS wrote:
    Like you picture Oliver, I think I see the resemblance!
    I'm sure my donkey is much cuter and smarter!

  8. #8
    Senior Member SOSADFORUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    IDAHO
    Posts
    19,570
    Quote Originally Posted by olivermyboy
    SOSADFORUS wrote:
    Like you picture Oliver, I think I see the resemblance!
    I'm sure my donkey is much cuter and smarter!
    Yes, it's in the eye's there much more intelligent.
    He would make a much better president I'm sure, at least we would not have to worry about him running off at the mouth so much, especially concerning subjects he evidently knows nothing about!
    Please support ALIPAC's fight to save American Jobs & Lives from illegal immigration by joining our free Activists E-Mail Alerts (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •