Thread: Ruben Navarrette: Bush still fighting the last war

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/11/navarrette/

Commentary: Bush still fighting the last war
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- Do you feel safer than you did five years ago? Republicans hope the answer is yes and that you'll give them full credit.

Of course, on a related note, they also hope you've developed full-fledged amnesia.

They hope you've forgotten all about immigration reform and how the White House and GOP-controlled Congress were going to fix a broken system and seal a porous border -- things that make many Americans feel less safe and less secure.

Five years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration is still fighting the last war.

We require that air travelers remove their shoes and toss out water bottles before boarding airplanes when what we should worry about isn't a repeat of something that already happened, but something that hasn't yet been dreamt up.

It is worse with immigration where Bush -- despite having a good grasp of the issue -- doesn't want to fight at all, perhaps since it means firing at members of his own party.

The shame of it is that the president has plenty of weapons in his arsenal. According to the Republican National Committee, Bush has, in the last 15 months, raised $166 million for the coffers of 27 Republican candidates, the national GOP and its state chapters across the country.

You'd think all that money would buy some respect. Instead, fellow Republicans slug away at Bush and dismiss as "amnesty" his plan to match workers and employers.

Bush should hit back by withholding fundraising dollars from any Republican member of Congress who doesn't start singing the praises of the White House approach to this pressing national issue.

What Bush has in mind isn't amnesty. Lately, he is said to be "intrigued" by the compromise proposed by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. Their plan puts enforcement first, rejects amnesty, and requires that the border be sealed before anything is done with the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Yet Bush hasn't endorsed the Hutchison-Pence plan, or any plan for that matter. He's planted himself on the sidelines. And the clock is winding down.

In fact, both the White House and the GOP Congress are said to have resigned themselves to doing nothing on immigration reform before the November election.

Instead, they intend to play to their strengths -- or what they consider their strengths -- national security and the war on terror.

Anti-illegal immigration activists object to that, claiming that you can't preserve national security without border security and that the two policy areas are intrinsically linked.

I cringe when I hear that. It suggests that, five years after the September 11 attacks, we still have trouble with basic concepts, like distinguishing between terrorists and immigrants.

Allow me to assist. One group takes innocent lives and wants to come here to do us harm. The other risks their lives to get here to do the cooking, laundry and gardening. The first step to being more secure is knowing the difference.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. Read his column at www.signonsandiego.com.

What Bush has in mind isn't amnesty.

Amnesty is certainly what he has in mind. Whether or not Jorge calls it that is irrelevant. A rose by any other name is still a rose BOOSH!
He is just trying to hope that Americans are stupid enough to believe him.

I cringe when I hear that. It suggests that, five years after the September 11 attacks, we still have trouble with basic concepts, like distinguishing between terrorists and immigrants.

Talk about basic concepts, this guy can't be that dumb. Surely he realizes that if illegal aliens can waltz over our borders by the thousands each day, terrorists can do the same.

Anti-illegal immigration activists object to that, claiming that you can't preserve national security without border security and that the two policy areas are intrinsically linked.

I cringe when I hear that. It suggests that, five years after the September 11 attacks, we still have trouble with basic concepts, like distinguishing between terrorists and immigrants.

That would be ILLEGAL immigramts. And there is the intention of "terrorists" to slip across the border with "illegal immigrants." He seems to be having trouble acknowledging this basic concept. Denial is a terrible thing.

Ruben Navarrette seems to have trouble keeping his thoughts straight. He’s constantly contradicting himself. Let’s compare statements in this column to ones he’s made in the past.

“What Bush has in mind isn't amnesty. Lately, he is said to be "intrigued" by the compromise proposed by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. Their plan puts enforcement first, rejects amnesty, and requires that the border be sealed before anything is done with the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.”

– Ruben Navarrette 9/11/06

Here he is using the “seal borders first” argument as the basis of why we should support this plan. But he already undermined his own argument 2 months ago when he said:

“Those legislators say that Congress should focus on “enforcement first” and put off any talk of guest workers or legalizing the undocumented until the border is secure.
Good luck with that, folks. Putting off immigration reform until we “secure the border” is like saying we’re going to put off welfare reform until we end poverty, or that we shouldn’t curb racial preferences until we end inequality. Here’s the thing: We’re never going to end poverty or inequality, just as we’ll never totally secure the border. If we wait for that goal to be achieved before going on to the next phase, we’ll be waiting forever.”

Ruben Navarrette 7/16/06

Then again, this may not necessarily be a contradiction. The fact that he believes the border will never be sealed is probably the very reason he supports the Pence plan. We’ll get the amnesty he wants, without the enforcement he doesn’t.
Now, to another contradiction:

“Anti-illegal immigration activists object to that, claiming that you can't preserve national security without border security and that the two policy areas are intrinsically linked.
I cringe when I hear that. It suggests that, five years after the September 11 attacks, we still have trouble with basic concepts, like distinguishing between terrorists and immigrants.”

– Ruben Navarrette 9/11/06

So here he is criticizing the anti-illegal movement linking terrorism and immigration. Yet in a column written THE PREVIOUS DAY, he criticizes us for doing THE EXACT OPPOSITE!

“Tune in to the immigration debate, and you'll hear little about the concern that terrorists might enter the United States through the U.S.-Mexico border. What you'll hear are gripes about how immigrants behave once they get here – from not learning English to having too many babies to living 12 people to a house.
The concerns aren't tied to the war on terror. They're tied to what some people call the culture war.”

Ruben Navarrette 9/10/06

Well which is it Ruben? My guess is that he has such a knee-jerk reaction to criticize anything having to do with the anti-illegal immigration movement that he never stops to think how illogical and contradictory his various arguments sound.