President Comes up Short on Immigration
Given that I blog and the president delivered an important speech last night, I feel somehow that I should share my thoughts with our readers. And while I am not as disappointed in the speech as Bruce and many others on the right seem to be, I was not entirely satisfied with it. I think it was a good start, but that he doesn’t go far enough.
I am pleased that the president recognizes the imperative of beefing up border security, but I fear he doesn’t “get” why so many of those once so enthusiastic about him are upset with his “guest worker” plan. So, I repeat what I said in an earlier post–he needs to meet the Minutemen.
Other conservative bloggers have more detailed responses to the speech. Michelle Malkin and the folks at Powerline were particularly disappointed. I kind of feel like the day after an election where you thought you had a chance of victory, but your man came up short. And last night, while taking a few steps in the right direction, President Bush came up short.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: I basically agree with Captain Ed’s assessment of the speech:
President Bush tried reaching for the center — a position he has occupied on this issue all along. He tried a one-from-column-A, two-from-column-B approach that probably will leave all sides more or less dissatisfied. His declaration that catch-and-release would end was the most welcome news in the entire speech. He delivered that well and sounded forceful and presidential, but most people will wonder why this practice didn’t end on September 12, 2001. His tone remained measured and firm and he insisted that Congress pass a comprehensive plan that includes both tight security and normalization.
Now read the whole thing and follow the links for some good discussion of the speech.
UP-UPDATE: I join the Anchoress in her call for calm (via JustOneMinute), a must-read post for all conservatives. I’m not going to let my difference with the president on this issue get in the way of my overall support for the man. He has been, on the whole, a good leader in a time of crisis and has appointed judges who will serve the nation well for the generation to come. I remain disappointed with his speech last night, but confident that he can otherwise continue to lead our nation in the right direction.
UP-UP-UPDATE: Tony Blankley’s right, the “single highest strategic objective is to secure the border.” I agree with him that the “president has moved measurably, but insufficiently, toward that position.” He suggests a compromise on this difficult use for throughout American history, “Even sordid compromises were indulged in to gain even larger objectives.” It’s a thoughtful piece, so read the whole thing. (Via Powerline.)
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Part of the problem, I think, is that by tackling this issue six years into his presidency, at a time when his poll numbers are very low, this feels like a desperate attempt to bolster lost support rather than fix the problem. I know he hasn’t wavered much from his earlier statements on the subject, but this all feels insincere. After all, unlike the 9 / 11 attacks, it’s not as if this is a new or suddenly pressing problem, it has been a neglected issue just as energy policy has been for the last 30 years. It should have been addressed allot sooner in his presidency. For what it’s worth, I do think the presidents approach is sensible, though some details need to be hashed over more.
Comment by sonicfrog — May 16, 2006 @ 5:12 pm - May 16, 2006
You know, Dan & Bruce, as the former governor of Texas and someone whose family is touched by 1st generation hispanics, there aren’t many policymakers who have a better sense than GWB of what a balanced, compassionate approach to the issues of illegal and legal immigration, protection of borders, and keeping the Amercian dream alive for those within and outside the US.
Let’s face it, until the sirens of the Right started a screaming mantra at screeching decibles about illegal aliens, it was NOT and issue on many policymakers’ radar screen. The ceaseless din from Fox, Dobbs on CNN and the MSM sensing a moving issue with gravitas, these matters would still not be even a blip on the radar screen.
From a compassionate, balanced perspective, I think GWB made the first needed steps. Does it solve the problem? Not likely. Will Congress and state governors get into and make it a spending and throw more money at the problem affair? Sure, you can bet on it.
The problem I’m having more with our right-tilting base in the party is that they’ve become enamored of the notion that the perfect should trump the pragmatic and the possible –complete with dewy-eyed longings for another RR. Politics is about leadership for sure, but it’s also about compromise.
The outline of GWB’s plan doesn’t answer all the questions –but it’s a good first step. Congress will likely muck it up.
Let’s not make the reach for the perfect stymie the possible or pragmatic.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — May 16, 2006 @ 5:27 pm - May 16, 2006
Matt, we agree that is was a good first step. I just wish he had gone further.
Thanks for your spirited and well-thought out defense of the president.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 16, 2006 @ 6:12 pm - May 16, 2006
My criticism previously given here.
According to this reaction round-up (hat tip Hugh Hewitt) - Andrew Sullivan, whom Mort identified mistakenly as a “conservative blogger”, found almost nothing to criticize in the President’s speech.
That, right there, should tell you the President’s approach isn’t principled, conservative nor workable.
Comment by Calarato — May 16, 2006 @ 9:29 pm - May 16, 2006
While I’m not wild about using the military along the Border, I think that IF you are sending the troops we would be better served by deploying several brigades or a full division of regulars as a long-term redeployment. To use National Guardsmen might sound more P.C., but those 6,000 troops are not being deployed there, they will be rotated in-and-out on a 2-week-asis every two weeks in lieu of their annual 2-weeks of combat training. Anyone who was a Boy Scout knows the anarchy the reigns at every summer-camp as Scout troops re-encamp fresh every two weeks. There will be no time for any sense of familiarity with either the terrain, nor with the Border Patrol detachments they are to support. They are talking about rotating 156,000 National Guardsmen through the Border deployment EVERY YEAR. That makes no sense.
It would make better sense to designate several brigades as “border troops” and permanently station then at existing bases along the boredr where they can rotate internally forwards to the Border and back to their nearby bases. While the US Army has never had “border troops”, there’s a long tradition of US Cavalry in along the western frontier. As we slowly withdraw units from Iraq, Germany and the Korean peninsula why not redesignate one light division for “frontier service”. And let them get trained for that duty, learn the terrain, and develop close relationships with their specific Border Patrol-partners and the local residents. THe more they know the rythyms of the local area, and the inhabitants and landowners along the border, the less-likely another young teenager gets shot while herding his family’s goats or cattle like that poor Valenzuela kid a few years back.
And having skillled, trained US troopers with helicopters, Strikers and Bradleys might deter the local drug smugglers and “renegade” Mexican Army units at the same time. Since this is an international frontier, the Posse Commitas restrictions for the use of regular US Army troops should be satisfied.
If you are going to send military troops, no half-measures this time. Send several 8,000-man brigades deployed along the border, and plan that they will be there the next 6 to 10-years. If someone’s imaginative, they could combine it with the Desert Training school and offer it as a route for hot-shot officers. The US Navy is developing a whole new Littoral Ops doctrine and career-path for it’s members. We now have plenty of troops and officers with real-world experience at desert combat and recon ops experience..let’s put them to work. Not the part-timers of the Guard who will spend half of their two-week deployment just driving to the Border.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — May 16, 2006 @ 9:48 pm - May 16, 2006
To say that the president fell short is putting it mildly.
I’m glad President Bush seemed to put border security at the top of the list, but until the border is secured nothing else should be on the table. The “promise” of amnesty — and any process that let’s illegal aliens obtain legal status without first going home and applying to come back legally is a form of amnesty — is going to encourage more and more illegal immigration.
I agree with stationing troops on the border until sufficient fulltime Border Patrol agents can be recruited and trained — but not the National Guard. Use regular forces. (Considering the burden the part-time troops in the National Guard have endured in Iraq it’s time to let them return to their families, jobs and businesses.)
Comment by Trace Phelps — May 16, 2006 @ 10:58 pm - May 16, 2006