Decision ‘08

The President’s Immigration Proposal: Sensible Security

I missed the live coverage, but I’ve read the content, and I must say I the President’s immigration speech hit just about every note I wanted to hear. He talked about concrete steps to stop the flow of illegal immigration, but stopped short of being draconian; he talked of needed steps to end ‘catch and release’; he talked of the welcoming spirit we must have for immigrants who play by the rules; and he resisted calls to round up 11 million people and drag ‘em away in front of the whole world (and for those who support the mass deportation of all existing illegals, I don’t think you’ve seriously considered the images - it would be brutal).

The most controversial passage is here:

…[W]e must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are here already. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully, and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration.

Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant, and that any proposal short of this amounts to amnesty. I disagree. It is neither wise, nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently, and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record.

I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English, and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship, but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I’ve just described is not amnesty, it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.

There’s a bit of sophistry, to be sure, in claiming such a policy sends illegal immigrants to the back of the citizenship line, as Mickey Kaus states in pointing out that the real end of the line is back in the home country:

…[I]f we allow those who come here illegally to gain a huge queue-jumping advantage over those who follow the rules, we create a large incentive for others to evade the rules and come here illegally.

Mickey’s got a point, and this may not be the end of it…but it’s a damn good start…

18 Responses to “The President’s Immigration Proposal: Sensible Security”

1 Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The President’s Immigration Speech Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
[…] Decision ‘08: I must say I the President’s immigration speech hit just about every note I wanted to hear. He talked about concrete steps to stop the flow of illegal immigration, but stopped short of being draconian; he talked of needed steps to end ‘catch and release’; he talked of the welcoming spirit we must have for immigrants who play by the rules; and he resisted calls to round up 11 million people and drag ‘em away in front of the whole world. […]
2 Macmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Shut up whiners

NOTE: Vent to the Whiny-Baby Republicans out there:
3 Evan Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
I’m glad to hear he’s in favor of a fence, that catch-and-release is ending, and the National Guard will be sent to the border (like Bill Frist said, sending the National Guard is the least we can do). The President need not make much of case for these action steps - I think they are pretty self-evident.

However, I don’t understand the President’s logic on the semi-legalization of those who are here illegally by sending them to the “back of the line” as a matter of fairness to those who are here legally. As long as they are in line, doesn’t that legitimize the fact that they are in the country? Likewise, how do you determine who’s been here for 2 years? 5 years? 5 months? etc. (Not to mention the awkward reference to those illegals who “otherwise have a clean record”. How can someone have a law-abiding record when there’s no official record for them since they are here illegally?) With the current infastructure, these are pipe dreams at best, and will ultimately only create more bureaucracy, which requires more money, which means we pay for it as taxpayers.

There’s an element of assumption in the President’s guest-worker proposal that illegals will simply “do the right thing”. To me, this assumption sounds based off the commonly liberal notion that humanity is “basically good” and will ultimately do the right thing when given the chance. I believe this is a mistake and to me, it represents the fundamental problem with the President’s position on immigration - he has an ideological opposition to enforcing or supporting those policies that would effectively secure the border (mostly deportation in large numbers).

I am not in favor of mass deportation - mostly because it’s not possible or practical with the personel and resources available to the Border Patrol. However, the borders must be secured and those who are here should be found and sent back to their country of origin. There is no quick fix to this problem. Any real solution will take years to implement and take effect, but I think the priorities should be clear: secure the border and enforce the laws in place now.
4 Mark Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Evan, thanks for the comments - I recognize there is some distance between your position and that of the president, and I’m closer to the president on this one than I am to you. Nevertheless, we can respectfully disagree in the knowledge that this is an ongoing issue.

I must say, however - and I’m not naming names, yet - that the reaction I’m seeing from some conservatives is so overly hostile - and the Spanish nicknames for President Bush so borderline racist - that I fear this is one of those moments when reasonable voices like ours are going to be drowned out by the asinine yelping of various extremists.

Not the finest moment for conservatives as a movement, and one that may have a political cost attached…
5 Fred Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
If the law says that anyone illegally in the country must leave and get in line to come back legally before applying for citizenship and the President’s proposal is to allow them to skip that on their way to citizenship, how exactly is this not an amnesty?
6 Mark Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
It is, really, for all intents and purposes - I agree with you there - call it ‘delayed amnesty’, I suppose…
7 Sean P Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
I think this is another one of those issues where the best resolution is the “least bad” option. Neither amnesty nor deportation is truely palatable, so I have to relucantly support amnesty, regardless of how its dressed up.

Where Bush has lost me on this issue, however, is his complete unwillingness to actually enforce the border during his administration. Unless the border is secured FIRST, an amnesty bill is simply going to create another wave of illegal immigration. This was something he should have made a priority immediately after the November elections at the absolute latest if he wanted to pass his guest worker program on his watch. Now, the hard core anti illegal immigration crowd (as represented, here in Southern California, by John & Ken at KFI) don’t believe a word he says and will not support guest worker under any circumstances.

If Bush wants to see his agenda eventually enacted, he needs to concentrate on border enforcement for the duration of his Presidency and leave the passage of the eventual guest worker/ amnesty bill to his successor.
8 Evan Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
It is “delayed amnesty”, which was one of my points in my first comment. Mark, of course I will never oppose the right of those who disagree with me to speak out, and I certainly dislike the so-called borderline racism of those who let their emotions get the best of them (I’ll be eager to see who you are referring to if it gets to the point you do name names).

Much of the hostility, I think, comes out of total frustration when you throw this issue together with an spend-happy Republican Congress which is very slow to recognize the importance of judicial confirmations and social issues (e.g. marriage). That’s not an excuse to let emotions get the best of them - people should take responsibility for their actions and words - but I do wish the Republicans would be more…well…Republican.

To me it boils down to this, if you are more in line with the President here, explain to me how a guest-worker program will be financially feasible, bureaucratically possible, and secure in operation without first ABSOLUTELY committing to securing the border and being serious about removing those who shouldn’t be here? It’s not that I’m against a guest-worker program ultimately. I just don’t see how it makes sense (or how we will be able to pay) for a program that doesn’t accomplish the things that will make it work in the first place (secure borders and minimal chance for successfully crossing over illegally - thereby creating an air of legitimacy to those who legally enroll as guest-workers). I think it’s a reasonable question, and it seems that the small-government, conservative leaning Republican party would be more in favor of enforcing the laws on the books and giving more resources to those things which accomplish that end, and NOT favor the creation of more programs which dry up tax dollars and create more bureaucratic red tape.
9 Jake Jacobsen Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
You know guys the reason people are so upset is because this is a carbon copy replay, nobody particularly enjoys being robbed the same way twice. You use words like realistic and pragmatic do describe a fundamental injustice.

We accepted the 86 amnesty predicated on enforcement that never came. President Bush has made precisely the same deal. Wall? He never mentioned an actual wall tonight, he talked of a “high tech” wall that has already been tried and failed on the Canadian border.

Guard troops on the border? They can be removed. Not to mention the presidents chat with Vincente Fox on Sunday evening where he assured our good friend Vincente that he had no real desire to enforce the border.

My question to you is very, very simple. All the tools the president required to deal with the problem of illegal immigration and a porous border have been at his disposal for the last five years. Why hasn’t he done anything? Moreover, why is workplace enforcement down 95%?

Why did workplace enforcement only happen the week before the president thought he would get his bill, why troops on the border now?

Why is the president holding border security and enforcement hostage to his guest worker/amnesty program?

Could it be he has absolutely no intention of doing real enforcement? That’s where my money is, and seeing as it has quite a bit of historical precedent I feel pretty comfortable with that position.

This is a despicable scam, I used to think well of this president I voted for twice. Now I hold him in a similar regard to Bill Clinton, not because he isn’t doing what I want him to do, but because he is lying to me while trying to do something he knows I won’t accept.
10 Diggers Realm Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 1:56 am
The Whole Truth About The Presidential Address On Immigration: What It Does And Doesn’t Say

To sum up my reaction to President Bush’s presidential address on immigration in one word it would have to be bullsh**. This is the only presidential address that President Bush has made on immigration. Let’s go through his points –…
11 dmac Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 9:16 am
I don’t believe that all of the conservatives who are upset are necessarily out of line on this one -Bush seems to be entirely deaf to their concerns about actually having an enforceable border. You need a wall to do that (for starters) - what’s the problem with that?
12 Mark Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Well, dmac, a wall is attractive - but I’m not sure (I admit I’m no expert) that it is feasible along the ENTIRE border. I know Bush did mention ‘high-tech fences in urban corridors’, for what it’s worth…
13 T. Longren Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Bush: No Amnesty, No Mass Deportation

I was impressed with President Bush’s speech lastnight. He did’t get out of it though without looking like a jackass, thanks to CNN. CNN cut to his rehersal speech for some reason, Bush was in mid-sentence then stopped to look over at an …
14 Dadmanly Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 9:35 am
The President on Immigration

The President gave his speech on immigration last night, and effectively charted out what is being widely described as the �middle ground.�
15 Polimom Says » Pulling the (wingnut) weeds Says:
May 16th, 2006 at 11:44 am
[…] And from Decision ‘08 comes this: I missed the live coverage, but I’ve read the content, and I must say I the President’s immigration speech hit just about every note I wanted to hear. He talked about concrete steps to stop the flow of illegal immigration, but stopped short of being draconian; he talked of needed steps to end ‘catch and release’; he talked of the welcoming spirit we must have for immigrants who play by the rules; and he resisted calls to round up 11 million people and drag ‘em away in front of the whole world (and for those who support the mass deportation of all existing illegals, I don’t think you’ve seriously considered the images - it would be brutal). […]
16 David Says:
May 20th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Hi I don’t know about this whole ball games but if it about taking illegal mexican out of our country then let me get this straight whether or not the mexican will still be coming anyways reason why I say this is because it been going on for decade and not change .. Plus our own government isn’t having eyes open and being so damn puzzle of what the heck going on let me tell you . This is going to be dirty and ugly as far as putting military on the border.. What best is to have the fence then let them come in legally then get in to the american dream land but if our government and other sayin hell no then there is a big racist going on here so understand we all are human so have some common sense about civil right and respect all kind and gender and national ethics… MR Bush you got the ball games upside down where is freedom and respect?? Oh not to mention what is Minutemen is that some kind of supremecy group or something?? Well hope we all have our dream come true as lady of liberty and FREEDOM
17 CC Coleman Says:
May 21st, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Bush is the biggest disappointment in politics I’ve seen yet.

What a flaming RINO!

I can’t wait for the Demo-Rats to begin Impeachment Hearings on him and I’ll support them.

They will want to burn him for the “WAR…”

… and I’ll cheer them along for his sellout of the American people on Immigration!
18 Immigration to Canada Says:
July 24th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
I hope it really helps both, immigrants and non-immigrants. Cheers! Alex B.