May 15 - I had to attend a meeting tonight so didn't hear the speech but the transcript of the president's speech calling for legislation to reform immigration laws is here and no, I was not impressed by a speech that was short on action but at the end, he did score some points for those still willing to listen.

He placed securing the border in the the lead-off position thus acknowledging that problem is the biggest national weakness as well as the biggest concern of Americans. Nevertheless, the plan proposed is to continue to have no concrete means to stop the flow. Deploying the national guard seems much like window dressing given the mission objectives:

So in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems, analyzing intelligence, installing fences and vehicle barriers, building patrol roads, and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities -- that duty will be done by the Border Patrol.

It was interesting that he inserted that we would not "militarize" the border by which it could be inferred that we won't be building the North American equivalent of Hadrian's Wall but I have a feeling that it is precisely at that point that he probably lost much of his audience. Americans are fed up, and when we get like that we aren't in the mood to hear vagaries in place of firm, decisive action.

In truth, I think many Americans would like to see a structure on the border that makes it clear that we regard maintaining control over who enters our country seriously. I don't think we could countenance killing those who try to enter but we want them stopped cold.

Continuing to "work co-operatively" with Mexico pre-supposes either that the Mexican government is currently co-operating (most believe they aren't) or that the status quo is as good as it is likely to get. I believe most Americans find that unacceptable and would prefer to see the president honestly lay out the difficulties with the Mexican government rather than pretend they don't exist.

Ending the catch and release system would be an improvement and instituting a temporary worker program with tamper-proof identification cards is a future regulatory device for immigration control but what about those now in the country?

You see, this is where I diverge from those who want them deported. Those who have the guts to pack up and leave everything they know in order to face an uncertain future in the U.S. on the chance they can build better lives are in fact of the stuff of which we are made. The difference is that our ancestors passed through Ellis or Angel Islands and although technology rarely made criminal background checks possible, names were recorded, papers stamped and given to the new arrivals, and there were stringent (for the day) health exams with sometimes heartbreaking results when someone who failed was sent back.

Some of those people who entered were political refugees and a small number of them continued their activities - among the most notorious were the anarchists who planted bombs and the infamous "deranged anarchist" (or so history notes him) who killed President McKinley - and then too Americans became fed up and demanded the federal government take action by deporting the "troublemakers."

We've been through this before and despite the problems we survived and we thrived. One key difference, however, between now and the past is that nobody seriously entertained the notion that the school curriculum be taught in Italian or Gaelic, and the expectation was that those moving here would speak English and strive to become Americans by learning and accepting the heritage of the U.S.A. It worked, the proof being the many great Americans we study in history classes who are not definitely not of Anglo-Saxon origin.

That brings us to the dilemma of how to deal with the millions already here. That portion of the speech spelled out a recognition that this is America, English is the recognized language in schools and in the public sphere, and we cherish our heritage and are willing to share it. The rest can be summarized fairly neatly as Compromise, Compromise, Compromise. That's not a bad thing: our ability to compromise has guided the Union through many inflammatory issues but the compromise has to stick. Sadly, both houses in Congress have been more adroit at ducking substantive issues of late and grabbing the cheap headlines than providing leadership (Dubai port contract, anyone?) and I suspect I'm not the only one who understands that there's a serious flaw when new legislation is passed to obscure the fact that current laws are not enforced.

The fact that unemployment is so low would seem to argue that indeed those working and living in the U.S. are -- despite their undocumented status -- contributing to the wealth of the nation, and although payroll taxes are not being deducted and paid on their behalf, they are paying taxes through their rents and sales taxes on purchases.

Getting co-operation from the states and towns is going to be another problem but the taxpayer, also known as the electorate, may well have the final word depending on how local candidates present the issues and choices.

The Minutemen project gave tangible evidence of the growing unrest by Americans at the government's lethargic response to the porous border. It's not necessarily a bad thing when the people take the lead in the face of government inaction, but Congress has had that "deer in the headlights" look for well over a year and people on all sides of this issue have noticed and the vacillations and grandstanding has diminished respect for the legislature.

That diminished respect may be the true casualty of this crisis. We have a respect for our institutions that invariably transcends those who are elected or appointed to them, but the polls indicate so deep a disappointment in Congress and the Presidency as to be dangerous at a time of war when leadership is not only desirable but mandatory.

[No, I'm not going to address the demonstrators and boycotters. This is going to sound harsh but a monumental error of principle was made when ANSWER took over leadership of their cause; although the president was right to remind us of those who have fought for this country valiantly and courageously in order to obtain American citizenship, those few names pale in comparison with the hundreds of thousands we saw demonstrating and holding up traffic - not only on a weekday but also a schoolday - under the auspices of ANSWER's political agenda. Even stupider are plans to hold demonstrations on Wednesday in response to the president's speech. ANSWER's goal is to create an image of much put-upon victims, and they won't hestitate to turn people into victims in order to realize that goal.

Hispanics need to regain control over their cause and get better leaders. Maybe then the issue can be discussed with people who are serious about a just and fair resolution. Until then, we're discussing this with ... ANSWER.]

04:26 - Well worth staying awake for: John poses those Questions Not Answered by Bush's Illegal Immigration speech.

Posted by: Debbye at 01:42 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1093 words, total size 8 kb.