Bush Tries To Occupy Shaky Middle On Immigration Reform
He appeared. He talked. And he didn’t quite conquer.
On talk radio shows listened to on a long drive from Northern CA to Southern CA President George W. Bush was being either lambasted or somewhat-guiltily-defended by callers and talk show hosts. Bush didn’t quite embrace the House’s hard line but he didn’t hurl kisses at the more conciliatory Senate bill either…although many felt that is the bill he clearly prefers.
In the end the questions remain: can an immigration package emerge from this Congress that doesn’t split the nation — and the Republican party? The New York Times:
President Bush proposed a plan on Monday to place 6,000 National Guard troops along the border with Mexico for at least a year, but urged Congress to find a balanced solution to illegal immigration that enforces the law and maintains the nation’s tradition of openness.
The first thing: this number is far less than many conservatives had wanted. It will likely be dismissed offhand as a drop in the bucket that won’t lead to authentic border control — but will be enough to offend immigrant rights groups. MORE:
Stepping into the middle of a debate raging within his own party and in cities and towns across the country, Mr. Bush offered a menu of proposals.They were intended to salve conservatives who have demanded concrete steps to stem the flow of illegal workers across the border and to accommodate many members of both parties and business groups who are seeking new ways to acknowledge the presence of about 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
“America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone,” Mr. Bush said in the address, carried by all the major broadcast and cable news networks. “We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone’s fears or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain.”
He combined a call for considerable increases in the number of Border Patrol agents and the number of beds in immigration detention centers with an endorsement of proposals that would give many illegal immigrants a chance to become legal and eventually gain citizenship.
He reiterated his proposal for a vast temporary worker program for illegal immigrants. But he also proposed to cut back on potential fraud by creating an identification card system for foreign workers that would include digitized fingerprints.
Independent thinking Americans on ALL sides of the issue need to ask themselves a question — no matter what their position is on immigration reform:
Why NOW? Six months before the mid-term elections, this issue has now become a hot-burner item that required a speech by the President from the Oval Office. Bush has probably (and perhaps unwisely) used the grandeur of the Oval Office for his speeches less than any President in recent times. Suddenly, immigration is an issue that must be addressed right now.
Overdue? Yes (this writer covered the Reagan administration’s immigration reform and amnesty as part of his job as staff reporter for the San Diego Union). But the political timing is patently obvious. The goal: to try and answer the clamor from Republicans irate that so little has been done on the issue. The dilemma: the GOP is split on this issue. So GWB aims for the middle ground — trying to take just enough of a position on each side to satisfy the whole.
You could see by just a quick look at the reactions how Bush could potentially find himself in a lose-lose situation (unless immigrants rights groups launch massive demonstrations that become unruly and spark a backlash among the general public).
John Hinderaker at the conservative blog Powerline writes:
He had his chance and he blew it. He should have given the speech I told him to. As soon as he started talking about guest worker programs and the impossibility of deporting 11 million illegals, it was all over. President Bush keeps trying to find the middle ground, on this and many other issues. But sometimes, there isn’t a viable middle ground. This is one of those instances.President Bush is being destroyed by vicious people who hate him. So far, he hasn’t seemed to notice. Apparently, he doesn’t think he needs any allies. He certainly didn’t win any with tonight’s speech.
In an editorial, the New York Times blasted Bush. Some excerpts 4 U:
President Bush’s speech from the Oval Office last night was not a blueprint for comprehensive immigration reform. It was a victory for the fear-stricken fringe of the debate….….Rather than standing up for truth, Mr. Bush swiveled last night in the direction of those who see immigration, with delusional clarity, as entirely a problem of barricades and bad guys. His plan to deploy “up to 6,000″ National Guard troops to free the Border Patrol to hunt illegal immigrants is a model of stark simplicity, one sure to hearten the Minuteman vigilantes, frightened conspiracy theorists, English-only Latinophobes, right-wing radio and TV personalities, and members of Congress who have no patience for sorting out the various and mixed blessings that surging immigration has given this country….
…It is still possible that a good bill will emerge this year, but only if Democrats and moderate Republicans hold firm to protect the fragile flame of good sense against the deter-and-deport crowd. This means sticking together to defeat destructive amendments on the Senate floor. It means overcoming this latest contribution from the ever-unhelpful president, who could have pointed the nation toward serious immigration reform last night, but instead struck a pose as Minuteman in chief.
The outlook: much will depend on how this is “spun” not just by official GOP spokespeople and talk show hosts, but by talk show callers and guests. Bush’s speech was clearly an Oval Office speech that was a valid address on a vital topic but it was essentially political damage control.
The question: will it control the damage of several years of little action on this issue? Or will his comments make it worse — by attracting opposition on all sides? (NOTE: Expect the most lockstep administration supporting commentators to immediately call the speech decisive and brilliant).
FOOTNOTE: One argument being made by a conservative talk show host in Northern CA today was that if Republicans don’t rally around and support their president and their party’s leader that the Republicans will lose in November. This host pointed to the Democrats, immigration activists, etc. and said they can’t be allowed to assume power.
So once again a nuts-and-bolts issue is being framed by some as one where support for a policy shouldn’t be based on whether it is sound, stringent or flexible enough, but on supporting the party line because that’s what it is.
Will it work this time? Or are the demands by some conservatives for a harder-line entailing mass deportations, a border fence and extensive militarization of the border going to be unmet?
Worst case scenario for George Bush: if in the eyes of many conservatives his border policy is the equivalent of his Dad’s broken “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge and they stay home in November. (But Congress will soon take up flag burning and gay marriage, largely to define the Democrats, so they may be shoved to the polls in November yet…)
UPDATE:
–Ed Morrissey’s interesting analysis:
Anyone paying attention to Bush’s immigration policies already knew he was a centrist on this issue. He may get some grudging respect from centrists and liberals for not caving to his base, but that won’t translate into support for a president they already consider the Second Coming of Richard Nixon. The only cause Bush helped tonight was the policy he has consistently put forth on immigration — which once again shows Bush as a man who follows his own lights and beckons people to follow.He’s not Clinton. At one time, conservatives appreciated that. Will they still when his tenacity denies them the policies they seek? We shall see, but initially he’s going to take a beating on the right…
…So much for border security. Two possibilities exist. Either Bush doesn’t care about border security, or the White House couldn’t coordinate its policy spokespeople to stay on message, or perhaps both. None of these options build confidence in this administration.
–Migrants in Mexico are already saying the Guard won’t stop them from trying to come over to the U.S.
–This collection of quotes suggests that Bush speech may have been a statement of intent more than a speech that led to people to switch their positions. If he intended to convince, it seems as if he fell far short — on both sides of the issue.
–Read what The Gun Toting Liberal predicted Bush would say and what TGTL says now.
–Liberty & Justice has an extensive roundup and concludes:”In the end it is obvious to everyone that Bush tried to find the middle-ground….What the results of this will be, will have to be seen; either both are dissatisfied, or both will be able to live with this plan from the President. …I guess I could leave it at this: most conservatives seem to be outspokenly negative about Bush’s speech, while it seems to be acceptable to liberal Americans.”
–GET THE SANDALS OUT DEPARTMENT: Majority Leader Bill Frist flip-flops again (and again, and again…)
12 Responses to “Bush Tries To Occupy Shaky Middle On Immigration Reform”
As I pointed out in comments at that CQ link, Bush is not a “centrist”. His proposals and his efforts to keep the border open are simply un-American.
The NYT has gone nuts(er). First, they confuse legal imm. with the illegal variety. Then, they use the loaded term “hunt” to describe the lawful actions of the Border Patrol. The Mexican government uses similar terms to the ones used by the NYT.
While “surging immigration” has certainly given many people benefits, it’s largely accrued to those who employ them. For instance, as greenskeepers.
And, what exactly is the NYT’s issue with “deter-and-deport”? Aren’t those necessary functions of a sovereign nation? And, won’t those be required even if the NYT’s dream legislation passes? If that passed will magical faeries make it unnecessary to deport people?
Exactly how serious is the NYT about the “reform” it supports? If they mock the enforcement of our current laws, what makes anyone think they won’t do the same thing about those who want to enforce their dream laws?
The idea of Bush as a Minuteman is ludicrous. He’s selling out the U.S. The NYT should be cheering instead of booing.
‘He may get some grudging respect from centrists and liberals for not caving to his base, but that won’t translate into support for a president they already consider the Second Coming of Richard Nixon.” – except he really hasn’t gotten that either.
I mean – what would be a centrist proposal for dealing with this problem? Not trying to be snide – I’m actually curious what it would look like. A link to a previous post that I might have missed would work, I suppose.
Bush’s problem here is that he is trying to confront a wedge issue of his own party’s making. Most Americans simply don’t care about illegal immigration. Yeah, it’s a problem. Laws aren’t being enforced. Cheap labor is driving down wages. Social services agencies are being taxed. But then again, any visit to, say, Chicago’s Pilsen or Rogers Park neighborhood will show you how much immigrants (including many illegals) are contributing to the economy. Chicago has more Mexicans than any city in America outside Los Angeles (a shock to many people). Illegals may start off as ditch-diggers, but many move on to become business owners themselves, as a trip down Clark Street in Rogers Park will show. So people are ambivalent about it. And in the end, they don’t really care. Well, except two groups. One, the immigrants themselves care (legal and illegal – many legal immigrants have illegal immigrant family members), for obvious reasons. And two, the anti-immigrant forces on the Tancredo wing of the GOP. To these two groups, immigration is the number one issue. And they cannot be appeased together. Bush tried to thread a needle and found the great American middle was unimpressed or uninterested.
This was my take on the Bush speech from the POV of a liberal at Fester’s Place
“This was a decent speech. Yet I don’t think it will do anything for Bush politically. If anything this speech reminds me of his stem-cell research speech in that it was designed to split the difference among the Republican base on a quasi-made-up social wedge issue. Until 9/11 happened, that was the big piece of Bushian “leadership” and it was not going over all that well. I think that the same will be said of this speech.”
The main problem Bush has is NOT that his proposals, while generally reasonable and well-meaning, do not go far enough to placate the republican base and are not persuasive enough to placate the more moderate segments of the republican party. Bush’s main problem is that he no longer has the political capital to bring enough legislators from both factions to push a bill through. Two years, or even a year ago, he might have been able to pull this off. Not now, when republicans are avoiding him like the plague
Don’t forget about the legal immigrants who feel victimized by a system that treats illegal immigrants better than they are treated and proposals to further reward illegal immigrants for breaking the laws that they diligently followed. They also care for obvious reasons.
Everyone here is talking about how this meets various political objectives. While politics are always there, and they have a certain relativity, what about the concepts proposed themselves?
As a whole, they seemed like a very good mix of steps that do what politics is supposed to be, i.e., the art of the possible. Compromise and accomodation aren’t dirty words, and in this case, it seems to me, a very reasonable set of goals, designed to work together to resolve a difficult problem, have been proposed.
Is it perfect? Of course not, as there is no ‘perfect’ answer. Everyone’s idea of perfect is different. Is it fair, can it work to the point of making an overall difference for the better? I think so.
What do some of the other regular commentators here think of the actual meat and potatoes of the proposals?
More like Ronald Reagan, here. Reagan was castigated for many of the same things (spending, being soft on immigration) but he could rally the people behind him and make Congressional Republicans and even many Democrats toe the line. Bush lacks that skill. It’s going to be an interesting fight. Being bullheaded has served W (if not the country) well in the past, but will it be enough this time?
That is an interesting question. While I understand “deport them all” is not a valid answer and isn’t one I would expect any reasonable person to support, it still bothers me that things such as “earned citizenship” would still result in treating people who broke our laws better than people who followed our laws, as some legal immigrants never get the opportunity to obtain citizenship.
I’m in favor of some form of “guest worker” program and find the idea Bush proposed to be an interesting idea I’ll have to spend some time thinking about before I come to a conclusion. I also think that legalizing illegal immigrants after they have done things like paying meaningful fines, back taxes, etc. could be reasonable, although it still bothers me that people who broke our law are allowed to stay while people who are following our laws are still stuck just waiting to enter our country. However, the “earned citizenship” concept just does not sit well with me at all. That seems like a clear case of treating people who broke our law better than people who obey our law when you consider the fact that many legal immigrants are not given this opportunity.
Even more importantly, I didn’t see the speech and haven’t yet read the full transcript but the reviews I have read didn’t discuss going after employers of illegal immigrants beyond Bush’s comments that they would not be able to hide behind “I didn’t know” with his ID proposal. What efforts are going to be made to go after those who hire illegal immigrants? Aggressive action in this area should be considered a necessity of any meaningful reform.
To me, the most important thing, though, is a streamlining of the legal immigration process. The “guest worker” program seems to address that to an extent but more is needed. I also haven’t heard much about that.
“Is George Bush Over?” Illustrated, graphically. (Guidance suggested for minors.)
But then again, any visit to, say, Chicago’s Pilsen or Rogers Park neighborhood will show you how much immigrants (including many illegals) are contributing to the economy.
Of course, then you do a bit of research.
And, you find out that one of the organizers of the Chicago 3/10 March serves on a Mexican advisory council.
And, you find out that the FDIC is working with the Chicago Mexican consulate to give home loans to illegal aliens.
Illegal immigration has completely corrupted our political system. Preventing that is much more important than money.
I don’t see Bush as a Centrist on this issue, or any other. He is a corporate shill. A continous flow of illegal immigrants keep wages artificially low for the business community. We pay 3$ a gallon for regular because of supply and demand, but real wages have not increased (they actually have decreased) for half of America because of an unfairly increasing supply of unskilled labor. This weakens labor unions and the working class, the Democratic strongholds. This gives businesses hiring the workers an unfair advantage, as market forces no longer apply. Also is why existing laws against businesses hiring illegals are almost never enforced.
Bush also is closely allied with Pres. Fox, who loves getting an additional 20 mil. pumped into his economy, when the illegals send money home. In return, Fox allows American corporations to move south of the border, and save overhead as they pay extremely low wages and no benefits. Its part of the move towards globalization, which Bush embraces. He wants to establish a permanent ownership class in this country, which is why the tax breaks mostly go to entrepreneurs.
Most of America sees this as a national security issue-Bush does not. He’s appeasing the conservative wing of his party when he talks about closing the border.
PING:
TITLE: On the Presidents illegal aliens speech: three cheers…
BLOG NAME: The Gun Toting Liberal
… go out to ME for predicting exactly what President Bush would say for the most part in yesterday’s post. Read my predictions from yesterday right here in case you missed them.
Sometimes I wish I wasn’t such a damned genius and that…
PING:
TITLE: Bush’s Way Of Dealing With The Immigration Issue
BLOG NAME: Liberty and Justice
In the end it is obvious to everyone that Bush tried to find the middle-ground. On the one hand he tried to compromize towards Mexico and American liberals, on the other hand he tried to give American conservatives something. [...] most conservatives seem to be outspokenly negative about Bush’s speech, while it seems to be acceptable to liberal Americans. For the record: I must agree to degree with The Left Coaster; I found the speech to be very good as well.
PING:
TITLE: Design and Hosting
BLOG NAME: Design and Hosting
Read more about Design and Hosting
PING:
TITLE: Day memorial
BLOG NAME: Day memorial
Read more about Day memorial
PING:
TITLE: Alfuzosin
BLOG NAME: Alfuzosin
Read more about Alfuzosin
PING:
TITLE: http://tinyurl.co.uk/rsb5
BLOG NAME:
Read more about
PING:
TITLE: http://tinyurl.co.uk/rsb5
BLOG NAME:
Read more about
PING:
TITLE: http://tinyurl.co.uk/lo62
BLOG NAME:
Read more about
PING:
TITLE: http://tinyurl.co.uk/5ah9
BLOG NAME:
Read more about
PING:
TITLE: Macie
BLOG NAME: Macie
Read more about Macie
PING:
TITLE: Kiara
BLOG NAME: Kiara
Read more about Kiara
PING:
TITLE: Raegan
BLOG NAME: Raegan
Read more about Raegan
PING:
TITLE: paxil
BLOG NAME: paxil
Read more about paxil
PING:
TITLE: inflammatory-disease
BLOG NAME: inflammatory-disease
Read more about inflammatory-disease
PING:
TITLE: hickey
BLOG NAME: hickey
Read more about hickey
PING:
TITLE: balding
BLOG NAME: balding
Read more about balding
PING:
TITLE: whiteheads
BLOG NAME: whiteheads
Read more about whiteheads
PING:
TITLE: whiteheads
BLOG NAME: whiteheads
Read more about whiteheads
PING:
TITLE: detoxification
BLOG NAME: detoxification
Read more about detoxification
PING:
TITLE: inflammatory-disease
BLOG NAME: inflammatory-disease
Read more about inflammatory-disease
PING:
TITLE: inflammatory-disease
BLOG NAME: inflammatory-disease
Read more about inflammatory-disease
PING:
TITLE: balding
BLOG NAME: balding
Read more about balding
PING:
TITLE: prozac
BLOG NAME: prozac
Read more about prozac
PING:
TITLE: prozac
BLOG NAME: prozac
Read more about prozac
PING:
TITLE: whiteheads
BLOG NAME: whiteheads
Read more about whiteheads
PING:
TITLE: skin-condition
BLOG NAME: skin-condition
Read more about skin-condition
PING:
TITLE: Fisker
BLOG NAME: Fisker
Read more about Fisker
PING:
TITLE: Jeep
BLOG NAME: Jeep
Read more about Jeep
PING:
TITLE: Holden
BLOG NAME: Holden
Read more about Holden
PING:
TITLE: Jeep
BLOG NAME: Jeep
Read more about Jeep
PING:
TITLE: Buick
BLOG NAME: Buick
Read more about Buick
PING:
TITLE: Peugeot
BLOG NAME: Peugeot
Read more about Peugeot
PING:
TITLE: Vauxhall
BLOG NAME: Vauxhall
Read more about Vauxhall
PING:
TITLE: Aston martin
BLOG NAME: Aston martin
Read more about Aston martin
PING:
TITLE: Buick
BLOG NAME: Buick
Read more about Buick
PING:
TITLE: Chrysler
BLOG NAME: Chrysler
Read more about Chrysler