http://ocregister.com/ocregister/opi...le_1142782.php

Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Bush offers Band-aid on immigration
He deserves points for trying to find common ground, though he probably won't succeed


THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


President Bush was unusually sober and judicious in trying to stake out something resembling a middle ground on the emotional and increasingly politicized subject of immigration. That his worthy effort is likely to fail suggests just how polarizing this topic has become, and how little interest seems to exist in finding common ground.

The first part of the speech Monday sounded like an effort to reach out to his natural base of conservatives, who have been restive lately over the administration's spending habits, over things not going well in Iraq, and mainly, if polls are reliable, over the belief that the president just doesn't "get it" about illegal immigration. Thus he emphasized hiring more Border Patrol officers, improved technology, a renewed commitment to border enforcement – and in the short-term assigning as many as 6,000 National Guard members to supporting and administrative function along the border.

There are reasons to criticize this approach. It doesn't amount to "militarizing" border enforcement, but it asks people trained for military service to perform essentially civilian law enforcement activities. If the National Guard is only asked to do administrative and construction work rather than direct law enforcement, couldn't civilians be hired in nonsworn-officer positions?

One can understand a hope that National Guard members, who join knowing they could be called up at any time, could be mobilized more quickly than administrative civilians. But the plan reflects a potentially troubling urge to turn to the military whenever a problem seems intractable. That is unfair to the military, even as it could increase the role of the military in civilian law enforcement in troubling ways.

The Senate immigration bill not only includes a guest-worker program similar to what the president advocates, it increases quotas for legal workers in every category and includes a path toward regularizing the status of the 11 million or 12 million workers now here illegally. It may have enough votes to pass, unless one of several "killer amendments," like a requirement that all those here illegally to return to their home countries before beginning a regularization process, is approved.

If the president has any political capital left, he might improve the chances for the Senate to pass a bill by Memorial Day, as Senate leaders have vowed. The question is whether the president's speech will influence the House.

The House passed a bill last December that focuses on border enforcement and makes being in this country without documents or government authorization a felony, which it is not the case now. It has no provisions for a guest-worker program or a path to citizenship for those already in the country illegally.

To get it to the president's desk both Houses of Congress must approve the same bill. Has the president influenced enough House members that a reconciliation committee can find ways to incorporate elements of both the House and Senate approach, or will compromise be politically infeasible? With an election in November, one doubts whether serious legislating is possible.

It is a sad irony that when a president often criticized, including by us, for seeing the world only in black and white tries to do nuance he stands in danger of alienating those who have been his most faithful supporters. We give him points for trying, and for acknowledging that government rules cannot repeal the law of supply and demand.

Sadly, we doubt his talk will affect the debate very much.


[/url]