"The Holy Family with St Mary Magdalen" by El Greco 1595-1600, Museum of Art, Cleveland
You know posts like this really tee me off. On Monday I said the vultures were out and of course they were just revving up, culminating into the usual feeding frenzy. So now if we disagree with the President on anything, it's labeled "Bush cult impeachment hysteria", and we, the supposed Bush cultists are now Judases reincarnate and ready to burn the President, and
that the cult-like reverence for Bush would begin to disintegrate once he weakened and it became clear that he was too weak and unpopular to support the movement. They would then turn on him and depose him and seek to replace him with a new leader.[...]
Ever since he dropped below 40% - and he is now at 29% - that is what has been happening. Harriet Miers was the real start. Dubai was next. And we now have open warfare. Dissent of this type was never seen for the first four years of his presidency - except from those who were deemed outcasts - which is why the open conflict during the Miers nomination was so notable. Because it was so new.
Please try to explain this to Tom Maguire, Jeff Goldstein and that circle - slowly and clearly - so that I don't have to repeat this explanation every week for the rest of my life to the hordes of people who come here from those blogs and excitedly and with great self-satisfaction make this same "point" over and over like they've discovered the cure for cancer.
Eh? Glenn Greenwald my friend, you are full of bull.
I along with a large majority of the President's supporters, wrote this on Monday:
The Address. It is quite obvious that the Administration is not committed to border control, and are just giving us lip service. This was a lame speech with some sort of an apologist center solution where 6,000 unarmed National Guard officers will be decorating the border for one year, not apprehending illegals, but ahem, deterring. Yeah right. This half way message has not even been communicated down from the President to his foot soldiers, who are clearly stating the opposite to what we are being told. Fence, what fence? Julie Myers does not even know what we are talking about. Is that a border, what border?
I have no problem with reason and patience, if we are talking about the same solution, but I fear we are not. Political suicide may be fashionable, but does it have to be televised?
John is right "He had his chance and blew it". The vultures are already circling. Jeff is right there: "And?"
Disappointing to say the least, I just hope that my assumption in my original text post above is correct, otherwise, we would have lost credibility for absolutely nothing. At the moment, even this is beginning to sound better, and the "Open border drinking game" better still. We are now resorting to reminiscing about our accomplishments, and going off the wall completely? Sorry Mr. President you have totally lost touch with reality here.This is certainly one sell he did not make. Check here and here for the rest. It's time to turn toward Mecca, and our favorite Allah.
Does the President really think we are such cheap dates? Heard it all before? Or should I say it may not end up being the way it was before....Fausta wisely thinks this is a start. I dearly hope she is right.
And? We disagree with the President on the immigration issue, and so what? The Dems don't even have an immigration plan to disagree on. We are Bush cultists whilst the going is good, then we abandon the cult the moment we disagree with the President. If we support Bush, we are cultists, if we oppose him, we have decided to miraculously ride tandem with someone else in order to follow in a different direction. Yeah right.
Illegal immigration, illegal immigration ... it won't go away, not for a long time, probably never. We did not create it, it has been created over many presidencies, but we are nevertheless lumbered with it.
But what if we stepped out of the box and considered abolishing the illegality entirely. This may sound shocking to most of us, but it is by no means without precedent, and I'd like to simply explore that avenue, if for no other reason but to tee the likes of Glenn right off.
President Bush is painfully aware that it has been done before, and as Nathan Smith writes over @ TCS Daily (via my dear friend the Anchoress) "His core beliefs -- hope for the future, the dignity of every individual, a love of freedom -- shine through every time Bush speaks", irrespective of what political reality forces him to say on the subject.
"First, the United States must secure its borders," Bush began. "This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation." That wasn't what our forefathers thought. Before 1918, the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning, for the US did not require passports. But then came the first half of the 20th century, those dark times for liberty, when collectivist ideologies ravaged Europe, while milder forms of social engineering began to be practiced in America. A legacy of those times is that an archipelago of US consulates around the world now have arbitrary authority to admit, or not, the millions of people who wish to come here.
Bush's former economic adviser Larry Lindsay, in a recent article in the Weekly Standard, threw a bit of light on the grotesque unfairness and inefficiency of this system, an ongoing national disgrace of which most Americans are totally unaware. Illegal immigration is caused by the laws that make some kinds of migration illegal, and it will continue as long as they do. No matter how much we militarize or fortify the southern border, there will be visa over-stayers, and Canada, and boats, and planes. Yet every politician has to claim that illegal immigration can and will be stopped. Including Bush.
I know that border control, legal as well as illegal immigration and war on terror are in many ways intricately linked and that the necessity to be vigilant in that respect must be undertaken with the utmost determination and resolve.
Therefore, when we speak of 'illegality' and the need to uphold the law, it seems to me a worthy thought-experiment to consider reviewing the root cause for much of the outrage, i.e. the legislation which gives rise to the illegality. The much hated suggestion of 'Amnesty' would equally drop away.
When debating the way forward, much has been said about the need to separate the measures which are supposed to stem the flood of illegal immigrants crossing the borders from the measures which are supposed to deal with the 12 Million illegal immigrants already in the country, so I just reiterate, that the separation of those two issues is absolutely critical. That being said, the 'illegality' and dogged resistance to 'pardon' law-breakers as a matter of principal seems to time and time again derail any sensible debate intent to outline a practical way forward at every turn.
So what if President Bush's immigration reform should pass in order to lay the foundation to 'legalize' illegal immigrants as a first step to convert the majority to tax paying citizens in the long run. Doing nothing whilst endlessly bickering ultimately achieves only two things:
- "illegal immigrants live and die "in the shadows," because they are better off than they were in their home countries. We can't restructure the incentives so that immigrating illegally is a bad idea."
- There is no chance of diverting any portion of the Billions of Dollars which are currently repatriated back to Mexico and other nations instead of being collected as Inland Revenues.
We need to acknowledge and respect President Bush for his uprightness and willingness to stand up for what he believes. It has been an admirable quality of his which I have always respected, and one which still carries me a long way to wishing to come to an agreement on this issue. Especially when we are quibbling over an issue as thorny and complicated as this one surely is. "Disagree, don't destroy".
With luck, Bush's immigration reform passes. It will be a big improvement, even if ultimately the country needs something more hard-headed. And I think Bush is a hero for raising the issue and standing up to his base to do (sort of) the right thing, especially at the cost of wrecking his approval rating.
That's the difference between Bush and Clinton. Clinton, the Eisenhower Republican, was a feel-good president. He radiated complacency. Iraqis starved in the stranglehold of US-led sanctions; we didn't have to know or care. Illegal immigrants filtered in, helped us prosper, but stayed conveniently invisible. Clinton kept the divisive issues below the radar, and reaped a huge harvest of popularity for it.
Not Bush. Bush thinks Iraqis deserve to liberated, undocumented workers legalized. Why? His arguments that it serves US self-interest (war on terror, border security) never quite make sense. His real reason is that he believes in "the dignity of every individual." That's what's so subversive about Bush. We all mutter that "all men are created equal." Bush really believes it and tries to live by it, and his push for a better world is making a lot of people upset.
I have read so much over the past few days, much good and much quite frankly deplorably bad and distasteful. But best of all I enjoyed reading "Text & Reax: Bush’s address on immigration" and "Blog meltdowns, egos and echo chambers" penned beautifully by the ever graceful Anchoress, God bless you for pointing me towards the way to resolving the issue, rather than simply flying off the handle and screaming "lame".
The one thing I am not negotiable on is the border control, the 335 mile fence and 500 miles of vehicle barriers. For the nitpickers the cost is here. Any Senator who votes against that resolution is not serious about border control. (Finally....see Update below)
Rick Moran seems to be feeling the same. A.J. Strata talks of olive branches springing up everywhere. Well almost...
A representative from Mexican President Vicente Fox claims that if the US National Guard troops detain illegal aliens crossing the US-Mexico border, the Fox government will file a lawsuit against the Bush Administration in US federal court.
At first, such a scenario appears ridiculous until you remember some of the people serving as judges in the US at the state and federal levels. In the words of Ann Coulter, these are some of the people who hallucinate when they read our Constitution.
Mark Steyn shares his own experiences with the so called "guest worker" programs in Europe, which have of course proved to be an abysmal failure:
No civilized society should have a guest worker program. That’s what countries like Saudi Arabia have, and that’s what Germany has with the Turks, and it hasn’t worked out well for them. If there are jobs that people need doing in this country that they can’t find Americans for, then those people should be admitted on the same basis as any other legal immigrant.
To the Dems, my middle finger is firmly pointing up. This is one victory you should not celebrate too quickly...
UPDATE: The Senate has finally voted 83-16 to build the fence! Obviously not without a few Dems kicking and screaming in the process....Anyone has a body count?
Not without cost though:
...is it worth it? And given past history and yesterday's vote against enforcement first, you already know which provision--the amnesty, not the fence--is the Senate's top priority and which will be in place first.
House Republicans aren't falling for the ruse, and continue to push for enforcement FIRST
Ed concurs:
If we were not at war, if terrorists did not target us for attack, this would not be necessary. However, we need to proceed realistically and figure out a method in which we can deliver some punishment for illegally entering the country while incentivizing the illegals to declare themselves -- and that is predicated on border security and much more robust enforcement.
How can one not look at this as an amnesty bill, when immigration law breakers are by definition not being prosecuted?
RJBJ,
Let's assume that you're correct in defining Bush as a baddy and Clinton as a (relative) goody in this controversial area of surveillance because Bush, unlike Clinton, has not followed the letter of the law, FISA, or gotten court approvals etc etc. We hear this mantra constantly. You have selected a quote from former CIA Director that seems to back it up too (saving us the need to query NY Times experts et al.) In reply, I will only raise a few points.
(1) I notice that even your supporting quote from Clinton's CIA Chief Tenet, a man not generally considered top drawer (who Bush, inexplicably, hung on to) is pre-9.11.
(2) Are you implying that history's greatest terrorist attack on U.S. soil did not create the need for changes in domestic surveillance? Or do you think that things could stay the way they were under Clinton?
(3) Do you believe that Bush is just over-reacting to the threat of Islamo-fascism, or do you believe he has a more sinister desire to compromise your civil liberties?
(4) Do you believe that Bush critics might be taken more seriously if they seemed to care, like adults, about giving secrets and classified matters away to the enemy, or do you believe this "enemy" thing is just an overblown concoction of the Bush people?
(5)Since security seems to be directly connected to your view of Iraq, and you do not believe that talking to an extremely professional volunteer U.S. armed force of grown men and women--- must of whom are very proud of their service--- in terms like Tim Russert's "getting our kids out of harm's way" is not extremely condescending and insulting, let me ask: What do you want the U.S. to do in Iraq, if not cut and run?
(6) Since we are constantly hearing from the Libstream and from a Glenn Greenwald (however you classify him) about the Bush "violations" of our civil liberties, how many individuals can you name who have been "violated"? A round number would be fine. Or maybe even one or two. I really am interested in knowing who they are and what happened to them.
ps. Re Clinton's being a "finer civil libertarian" than Bush, do you know anything about the 1100 FBI files which the Clintons reportedly ordered and obtained?
Posted by: gringoman | Thursday, May 18, 2006 at 11:43 PM
I actually consider Glenn Greenwald to be quite conservative. In essence I think that he believes very strongly in a small government, protection of individual rights and a government which must obey the law.
To people who automatically declare him a lefty; one should consider the fact that most of us don't know a lot about his opinions on a widerange of topics.
That is exactly why I think he rants about 'conservatives' quite a lot; he doesn't understand how they can support an administration which, in his eyes, broke the law and continues to do so.
Posted by: Michael Galien | Thursday, May 18, 2006 at 12:44 PM
Great stuff!! Thank you for supporting us while we spent the year in Iraq kicking butt! Keep attacking! Capt B
Posted by: Capt B | Thursday, May 18, 2006 at 11:19 AM
It fits perfectly with their scenario that Bush, as super-klunk, has over-reacted by putting the military in harm's way. The condescension to Americans in uniform is enormous.
Gringo, your above statement misses the fact that "putting the military in harm's way" is not a solitary reason for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. It's actually a conclusion, drawn from numerous reasons, that it's not worth it, it's not effective, to keep our troops in harm's way. You know, why keep them in harm's way when their very presence compromises their mission's original goals? Instead of being liberal "condescension," it is a logical conclusion that some have arrived at.
As for ECHELON, I can't speak for Greenwald, but it's widely known to have been put into place during the Cold War, and during the Clinton administration it followed FISA law, if you believe the CIA's George Tenet who told Congress in 2000 that:
"We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."
If you want to believe Tenet, well, that's up to you. The Bush administration, on the other hand, has explicitly stated that they are under no obligation to FISA law. Whatever Clinton did with ECHELON is not something I agree with. Whatsoever, if it involved American citizens and abused the power of intelligence gathering. However, what Clinton did was at least legal - it had the FISA court's approval and oversight. Bush's NSA program is obviously a step down in terms of civil liberty and potential for abuse.
Once again, I don't pretend to protect Clinton and whatever abuses he may have perpetrated against the liberty of the American people. However, it's obvious that under the Bush administration the numbers of intrusions into American citizen's privacy and protected and legal activities has increased massively. To claim that Clinton's activities are "well beyond any Bush "encroachment" on civil liberties" is plainly false.
One place to look is in the realm of National Security Letters. From a WaPo article:
"The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters -- one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people -- are extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans."
"Issued by FBI field supervisors, national security letters do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress. The executive branch maintains only statistics, which are incomplete and confined to classified reports. The Bush administration defeated legislation and a lawsuit to require a public accounting, and has offered no example in which the use of a national security letter helped disrupt a terrorist plot."
The main issue today isn't the spying on Americans in and of itself, which, however, I find totally unacceptable no matter who does it, the main issue is accountability and oversight.
Posted by: Ron Jon Bon Jovi | Thursday, May 18, 2006 at 04:29 AM
The problem with lawyerizing National Security---which is clearly what Greenwald and virtually the entire Libstream have been doing--is that it really all comes down to trust and political views. (You might, as the Romans understood, add personality, or character.) Hasn't the Libstream made it clear, over and over, that they see 9.11, the jihadis etc as essentially a problem for law enforcement, not the military? From this view everything else flows, including Glenn Greenwald.
It fits perfectly with their scenario that Bush, as super-klunk, has over-reacted by putting the military in harm's way. The condescension to Americans in uniform is enormous. Forget Mother Sheehan. Have you heard Tim Russert on the need to "bring our kids home" where they'll be nice and safe? Here's a (formerly)working class dude who has now learned the art of New York limo liberal patronizing, the male nanny in a thousand dollar suit, who has even convinced himself that he understands and respects military personnel. It's breath-taking and another not-so-subtle example of the determined drive to feminize American men. (Ok, this is off-track a bit, maybe.)
The more central point is that the liberal--or today's version---does not take the GWOT very seriously, in contrast to Bush who, despite his various failings and probably mistakes even in Iraq, does take it seriously and at least has a clue as to what is at stake for civilization and the world. A Greenwald, who probably could never see himself in uniform, except possibly as JAG attache for court martials, views BushThink as some kind of wingnut nonsense, and will parse the statutes accordingly. Another lawyer, just as smart, but with the contrary world view, can parse just as skillfully, if he's worked up enough to do it. This is what they do. It's gotten to the point now where they are even beginning to micro-manage the U.S. military. Libstream seems to like this.
Whatever you want to call Greenwald, he clearly fits in with the Liberal jihad against Bush (and I'm still waiting to hear from the knowledgeable whether he got equally worked up against Clinton for the enormous Eschalon program, not to mention those 1100 FBI files collected by Billary---something that appears to be well beyond any Bush "encroachment" on civil liberties.
Conclusion: Much of this all comes down to trust. The Left distrusts Bush with the NSA etc. The Right (with some exceptions) trusts him to be principled. With the Clintons, the Right does the distrusting, while the Left (with some exceptions) goes easy on them. My impression is that the majority of Americans want the current surveillance and are stunned by liberals who don't mind telling Al Quaeda exactly how they are being surveilled, so long as they think it will score them a point against Bush. Amazing. (But the Libs have a point about this not being a "real war." If the WH treated it as a "real war," why would these Libs not be clapped in prison by now, if not worse, for treason?) Which is another way of saying that Team Bush is not without culpability either, by enabling the trivializing of what it calls war. In this area, it did not have the courage of its convictions. It was clearly cowed by the Libstream and its media. For the U.S. today, even war has to be politically correct. No one escapes. This means no one. ( Is that a bit of a smile materializing on the mummy of Josip Stalin?)
Posted by: gringoman | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 10:48 PM
Here's the thing that gets me about how lefties get so giddy when Bush's base gets restless: the base is usually (as in this case) upset that Bush is betraying the principles of the base by moving towards a position more appealing to the left.
With Bush's poll numbers, 45% of the country will disapprove automatically. The remainder (conservatives) will disapprove only as he moves further to the left. So if Bush's approval is at 30, that means his current stance on the relevant issues is further to the right than it would be if his polls were at 20. The lefties don't understand this. Since Bush represents the epitome of what a "conservative" is in their minds, they think the public as a whole is leaning further left when Bush is at 20 then when he's at 30. The opposite is true.
As for immigration, I'm as disgusted as anybody with Bush's inaction and posturing. It's such a racket, and none of our leaders (except Tancredo and a few others I suppose) want to change anything: the Dems want to import enough socialists and racial-victimhood patrons to regain a majority of the voters, and the GOP ("Mexicans doing the jobs Americans won't do") is using this imported labor as a de facto abolition of minimum wage and labor standards for the least desirable jobs.
If the Chinese could build a wall 4,000 miles long 2,000 years ago, there is absolutely no reason why the richest and most advanced country in the history of the world can't build a wall half that length today. Our politicians are selling us out, that's all there is to it.
Posted by: Gormless Norman | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 10:30 PM
I have stated before that my first goal on illegal immigration is to start doing something rather than waiting around arguing how we can do everything. The idea that we have to get it right the first time, a common big-government attitude, is what's killing us.
As to Bush not being a small-government conservative, I think we always knew that. His approach from 1999 on was to answer questions about big government by saying "tax cuts will fix that." He delivered what he said he would. As the deficit is still in about the same range as a percentage of GDP as it has been for years - perhaps a bit better - and Bush has at least made some cosmetic attempts at reducing government, I never expected any better.
The idea that the conservatives are abandoning their "idol" Bush is just silly. Most of the movement of poll numbers are the movement of the people in the wide middle of the electorate, people who have a few hot-button issues or are overinfluenced by the popular ideas of the moment. While this is crucial at the time of elections, it doesn't mean much to the ideological discussions between elections. Conservatives have had about the same complaints and praises of Bush in 2000 and 2006. The GWOT elevated him in our eyes. The appointment of highly-qualified judges of more restrained temperment was another plus. We had hoped that small-government ideas would rub off on him more because of the company he keeps, but that hasn't happened. The idea that there is some wild difference in the amount of support he receives from committed conservatives may be more of a projection by those whose political loves operate differently. On our side of the divide, people actually agree or disagree with each other without idolozing or hating them.
As to Glenn Greenwald, I credit him with honestly holding values common to civil libertarian attorneys. His POV is common among attorneys of that stripe, both Right and Left - but especially Left. He is convinced that the NSA surveillance is a gross breech of citizen liberties, and his views on everything else the Bush administration does is colored by that. Having been convinced that the WH is dissembling and evading responsibility on that issue, he very readily concludes they are capable of doing so on every issue, and in fact are doing so. While there is some intellectual defensibility to the former position, he rides it into the leftoid conspiracy area of the landscape.
Greenwald's entire argument rests on the idea that there is NO justification for the NSA surveillance, so all attempts by the administration to claim that there are are mere deceits. That is an excellent attitude to debate to take into court - it is a repulsive one in political discussion. I find that attorneys often fail to appreciate this difference. Even if one finds the administration's justification - that it is directly constitutional and congress's jurisdiction is limited - inadequate, it is certainly not nothing, and respected attorneys who have no dog in this fight have agreed with it. For Greenwald to insist with mounting fury that the NSA surveillance violates the law, and that the president thus is holding himself above the law is a willful refusal to attend to the argument.
I will repeat, people might find the WH argument inadequate, but it is not nothing, and pretending that it is to score rhetorical points doesn't move us any further. Greenwald may truly believe that allowing this precedent is seriously dangerous to the Republic in the long run. But he simply dismisses out of hand the idea that "this is war and different rules apply, as stated in the Constitution." Perhaps to a lawyer the law is everything, and views of Constitutionality outside of a set framework are not privileged.
To the side question of whether he is a liberal: yes. A left-libertarian perhaps, or more an opponent of conservative government than a true liberal, or something of a classical liberal, but yes.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 08:31 PM
gringoman asks: Maybe I mis-characterized him as a "leftist" in the sense that most ACLU types would much rather be thought of as "civil libertarians" rather than "leftists." It does sound more benign, no? By the way, would calling him an "ACLU type" be defaming him? And did he explode against Clinton and Eschalon like he does on Bush at a time
He's certainly a civil libertarian, but as one of his earliest posts shows, he's also a "gun nut." The ACLU isn't too excited about the 2nd Am. He's posted in comments at his blog that he objects to an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause, and prefers to see Congress confined to enumerated powers.
As for his political history, if you read the preface to his book (it is linked I believe at the sidebar of his blog) it will state he hated both parties, and tended to figure the extremes in both would cancel each other out. So, he avoided partisan politics. But right now, Bush's GOP holds total hegemony in federal govt, and so is effectively unconstrained.
I would sincerely encourage you to read his book, as I have done. It doesn't quote one left-wing source, unless you consider citing the NYT for the story on the NSA warrantless surveillance program to be that. Indeed, it is heavy with citations to Scalia and conservative judges like Michael Luttig. Not to mention one quote after another from Publius and other Founders.
I know many think he's a raging lefty, in part because a lot of those link to him, and he to them. But in this political landscape, who else could he meaningfully forge a coalition with? NRO? Redstate? Powerline? But he also was recently published in American Conservative magazine, a "paleo-con" outlet. I wouldn't characterize him as a paleo-con, especially since he totally agrees with my guest posts on the evils of the drug war, and he doesn't oppose same sex marriage. (I write as "Hypatia" over there.) But there is enough confluence that they wanted him to write for them.
Posted by: Mona | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 07:27 PM
North by Northwest,
Well, I think we both agree that "You can't deport 11 million" is pure canard, since nobody is really saying that anyway---if you discount a few rabid rightwingers (or provocateurs for hire, a favorite disinformatsiya ploy from the Left.) The fact that even Bush continues to use this canard tells me more than I want to know about him. It's the kind of thing you'd expect from a devious Dem, hustling the poverty vote.
That said, do you really think these illegal millions would hang around if the U.S. cuts off (1) free medical (2) free schools (3) food stamps (4) counterfeit documentation (5) driver licenses (6) citizenship for illegal babies etc etc?
But Americans won't do it. I'll bet you know why.
And so the social cataclysm will proceed and develop, and the folks or their children will be surprised to wake up one day and realize that the Third Worldization of the USA has finally become undeniable, with scenes such as what we see in the "advanced giant" of Brazil in recent days in Sao Paulo. About 100 policemen gunned down by heavily armed criminals. Oh, by the way, re your belief that it's best to submit and legalize them: Most of these criminals in Brazil are not illegal aliens. They're citizens, you know. The cops take the brunt of it. The white elite, whether they spew Left or spew Right, are generally safe in their elegant and well-guarded little communities.
Well, you remember US "exceptionalism" right? It was a reality once, and then....Are you---or your younger kin---preparing for it?
Posted by: gringoman | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 05:14 PM
Clicked "Post" a bit too hastily ;-)
John Hawkins & Co. rely in essence on the notion that self-deportation can be 'induced' by cracking down on employers. I am not aware that there is any successful precedent to support that notion. Now, that in itself is no argument against trying. However what are the alternative measures if and when such policies failed to deliver? As a policy maker I would want to get my mind around that before cracking some eggs.
As to "they broke the law, pure and simple"; true, but scale does change things. You can't ignore the numbers. It's not what any law abiding citizen wants to hear, but it is nevertheless a fact. And Bush isn't prepared to dodge that reality, which ought to earn him respect. Question is, has his administration done enough to communicate the underlying reasons for his stance? Answer, hell no!
Posted by: North by Northwest | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 05:02 PM
gringoman,
Got it. And yes, I admit, I fell into the deportation trap--mainly because I had just read on another comment thread someone passionately defending the practicability of such an undertaking. That being out of the way, I reiterate my doubt, that you can deter illegals to return to utter destitution.
I follow the logic though and sure you can instigate a massive crack-down on employers of illegal workers, starting with the farming industry. It might even work, although it might also massively backfire, politically that is of course. It's a risky business.
The result however won't be illegals returning, but rather dispersing into the hands of gangs, underworld, prostitution or much less visible means to make ends meet - it'll multiply tales of human exploitation on a grand scale (a rather sad indictment for far too many citizens but there it is). The U.S. is too large and fragmented to adequately police odd jobs up and down the country.
Instead, engaging with some kind of a carrot-stick campaign, offering incentives which on the one hand allow visible employers to manage the transition and on the other convert illegals to taxpayers seems a more sensible rout to take. Mind you, paying taxes doesn't have to go hand in hand with becoming a citizen. There are a number of countries where tax liability is a function of time spent in the country irrespective of your resident status - in fact, if I am not mistaken, the same applies for the U.S.
Posted by: North by Northwest | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 04:29 PM
Mona,
I'll bow to your familiarity with Greenwald, something I can't claim. Maybe I mis-characterized him as a "leftist" in the sense that most ACLU types would much rather be thought of as "civil libertarians" rather than "leftists." It does sound more benign, no? By the way, would calling him an "ACLU type" be defaming him? And did he explode against Clinton and Eschalon like he does on Bush at a time, now, when the USA has entered it's post-9.11 history? I'm asking out of a curiosity which you may be able to satisfy. And did Mr. Greenwald also fume against the 1100 FBI files which Billary accumulated against "enemies"? Or are such files just a figment of Republican imagination? By the way, I consider Republicans as potentially, if not actually, as corrupt as the Democrat plutocrats and their black and white lieutenant demogogues. Bush was not my first choice in 2000, or even 2004. He was just first when it came to every Democrat face I looked at. And I don't think for a moment that the NAFTA Bubba or most Dems are any less New World Ordure than he is.
Posted by: gringoman | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 04:09 PM
UPDATE: The Senate has finally voted 83-16 to build the fence!!!! Obviously not without a few Dems kicking and screaming in the process...
Posted by: Alexandra | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 03:48 PM
North by Northwest,
Just in case it's not perfectly clear that I was not attacking Alexandra for becoming a "softie," let's clear it up right now. I was not. I thought I made it clear that she was trying to open up the debate, and that her timing suggested the pressures from the extremely powerful IIL (Illegal Immigration Lobby.)And of course I don't mean direct pressures, like somebody complaining to her. Besides, do you think I'm dopey enough to accuse a warrior woman of being a "softie," a woman who can post, in addition to scenes of haute refinement---including summits of noblesse and tenderness--- images that can curdle the blood, offend the queasy and even shock the emsaculatos? Sure, I'm not totally immune to folly, but who is?
Now, as for your other point about "deporting 12 million." I must have been very unclear here, or else you mistook my mention of this Red Herring cliche for my endorsement of it. If you'll recall, I pointed to John Hawkins' post today at Human Events about these dumbed down talking points being flung at us every moment by the IIL and the Lamestream media. So, to clear this up, here is an extract from Hawkins on this particuluar Red Herring--there are many others-- now being served up for the gullible everywhere===========================================
There’s no way we can round up and deport 12 million illegal aliens..... Who are these people saying that we should do that? Certainly they may exist, but I can’t name one off the top-of-my-head. Can you?
What people are actually suggesting is that we crack down on the employers of illegal aliens with fines and even jail terms, so that they’ll quit hiring “undocumented workers”. Then, if the illegals can’t get jobs here, most of them will leave. After all, they came here to work. If there’s no work, there’s no reason for them to be here. That means we won’t need to round them up because most of them will self-deport.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14910
Posted by: gringoman | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 03:47 PM
Mona,
populist, anti-federalist, big govt
The Democrats have nothing but that to offer. That's the bind.
Posted by: igout | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 03:30 PM
I confess to not being very interested in doing exegesis on, for example, a Glenn Greenwald. I'll accept the fact that he's a clever leftnik lawyer who really exists and isn't just some bionic ACLU bot. When he starts harping on how Bush supporters have been shocked to find that their "idol" is a "fraud," the guy is clearly revealing himself as a common partisan who thinks he can hide it with uncommon pirouettes from the law books.
This sort of stuff really cracks me up, and it demonstrates Greenwald's thesis so very, very well. He's not a lefitist. Got that? Not. Criticism of George Bush is not coterminous with lefitsm.
If you read his many, many posts about conservatism and Bush, you will pick up that Greenwald is almost obsessed with the fact that Bush has abandoned both small govt and the rule of law. This would explain why a libertarian (or, if one prefers, classical liberal) such as myself, who has usually voted GOP, now abhors that party -- and I find much to agree with in Greenwald's posts. Further, as a lawyer myself I am competent to know that his analyses of Bush's absurd notions of Executive power are not pirouettes, or any other dance step. They are accurate.
I will likely vote Dem in '06 unless they nominate a slate Fidel Castros. And that is because of everything that has become so sick about the current, populist, anti-federalist, big govt GOP. A pox on it.
Posted by: Mona | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 03:10 PM
Gringoman,
Do you really believe that deporting is an option? Or are you saying it is possible in principal, irrespective of the political impossibility? I for one happen to believe that it is neither possible nor politically feasible. Now, as soon as the practicability of deportation is in serious doubt, which I believe it to be, what alternative do you suggest should I reasonably consider?
As to Alexandra's 'decent' to a "balanced" softie, I can't quite follow you there. A "thought-experiment", as she calls it, is hardly a shift of position, but rather an attempt to examine this, as Alexandra aptly put it, "thorny and complicated" issue. The call to "disagree, don't destroy" is what seems to have inspired today's post and the leading image. I think you may have misunderstood the image of the holy family to represent the embrace of mediocrity as opposed to the representation of unity and embrace to the fundamental values governing our leadership as the head of our national family in the struggle against dissent and demagoguery.
The immigration issue is unfortunately predestined to be 'hijacked' so as to wage a war of words. Emotions run high and strong language runs very little risk of ever being put to the test. I would hope that all of us resist falling for that kind of superficial satisfaction, but instead keep a cool, practical head and our feet firmly on the ground.
Posted by: North by Northwest | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 02:35 PM
I'm keeping tabs on the Constitution Party for '08. The Minutemen founder may run for prez on their ticket. Remember, strictly in terms of numbers, Wallace sunk the Dems in '68, Perot the GOP twice.
Posted by: Jeremayakovka | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 02:14 PM
I think that Bush tried to compromize; that is my impression. I think that he simply does not want to protect the boarders as much as some conservative Americans would like.
Of course I do not know Bush's reasons for not wanting to protect the boarders as much; could be out of convictions, could be because he considers them economically valuable, doesn't want to stretch the troops, for other political reasons, I don't know.
This entire discussion about immigration is getting highly interesting though.
Oh yeah; Alexandra; this is one of the most powerful paintings / images you used so far. Greatly enjoy it.
Posted by: Michael Galien | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 01:21 PM
The funny thing about the rabid Bushophobes is that the more clever they get, the more clueless they get. I confess to not being very interested in doing exegesis on, for example, a Glenn Greenwald. I'll accept the fact that he's a clever leftnik lawyer who really exists and isn't just some bionic ACLU bot. When he starts harping on how Bush supporters have been shocked to find that their "idol" is a "fraud," the guy is clearly revealing himself as a common partisan who thinks he can hide it with uncommon pirouettes from the law books.
Even if you grant that some who voted for Bush--like I did--and have been disappointed by him--like I have (and deeply so on his cave to globalizing and the rotten gobierno of Mexico), the lefties (bots or otherwise) seem to think that their "heroes" are not patently obvious frauds and obnoxious demogogues to boot, constantly flashing in our faces their stupid race cards and felon-based "compassion" and class war platitudes from the 19th century (as if we don't see what racists and ambitious controllers they are behind the weasel facade.)
When chortling about Bush's low poll ratings, these clowns almost always forget to remind you that the ratings for most of their pols are just as low or even lower. It's hilarious. And they think they're fooling Bush's "fools" who have been gulled by the elitists of the Right instead of the elitists of the Left who are favored by Victor Navasky followers.
And of course, the constant drumbeat by their Libstream enablers in the media does take its toll. In fact, you can see it on this very blog. North by Northwest has taken up one of the canards used by the Left and and by crafty "conservatives," the canard/red herring/straw man that "you can't deport 12 million." (John Hawkins at Human Interest has a good piece today on how these canards for dummies are being used to facilitate the epic invasion going on today.) You can even see how the "progressive mind blow" has affected Alexandra today. Yesterday she had a powerful image showing the serpent eating up the American flag (as trackbacked by gringoman.com) Elemental and cutting right to the dilemna. Today, she becomes the "balanced" softie. The image reverts to tenderness, Holy Family, compassion etc (where the Left, the Right and the Catholic Church can all come together in wonderful huggy-hug as America is turned into the Latino ideal of the elites presiding over the semi-educated, semi-literate masses who at least have heaven, if not the middle class and Glenn Greenwald's law books to look forward to.)
How could the Catholic Church or the Leftniki object to lifting up peon Mexico by bringing the USA down? It's the perfect embrace of Marxism with Christianity, cheered on by the Bishops and Secular Sammy.
As for the new "Is George Bush Over?" (illustrated not for minors or morons), gringoVision not only stands behind the question, but will continue to ask it, and will remind any gloating leftniki that the text, relating to our President, concludes with.......
".Butt of Impeachniks, surrender monkeys, Soros workers, Mother Sheehan....Conflicted commander...Euro-weenies mock....The Rekookista mocks...."
Posted by: gringoman | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 01:13 PM
Gibbon, vol. 1, chap. 26 The Goths implore the Protection of Valens, A.D. 376
I like this part especially, concerning the deliberations of Emperor's advisors:
"...feeble and timid minds, who consider the use of the dilatory and ambiguous measures as the most admirable efforts of consummate prudence.... But the most experienced statesman of Europe has never been summoned to consider the propriety or the danger of admitting or rejecting an innumerable multitude of barbarians, who are driven by despair and hunger to solicit a settlement on the territories of a civilised nation. When that important proposition, so essentially connected with the public safety, was referred to the ministers of Valens, they were perplexed and divided; but they soon acquiesced in the flattering sentiment which seemed the most favourable to the pride, the indolence, and the avarice of their sovereign. The slaves, who were decorated with the titles of praefects and generals, dissembled or disregarded the terrors of this national emigration - so extremely different from the partial and accidental colonies which had been received on the extreme limits of the empire. But they applauded the liberality of fortune which had conducted, from the most distant countries of the globe, a numerous and invincible army of strangers to defend the throne of Valens, who might now add to the royal treasures the immense sums of gold supplied by the provincials to compensate their annual proportion of recruits."
And, no, I am not saying Bush is proud, indolent or avaricious. I think he is a good and decent man who loves this country, but nevertheless he is on the verge of destroying it--and us.
Posted by: igout | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 12:40 PM
"That's the difference between Bush and Clinton. [...] Clinton kept the divisive issues below the radar, and reaped a huge harvest of popularity for it."
I think this is a very important message which we need to keep in mind. We applaud the President for staying the course on the GWOT, which surely was not to his political advantage. Common decency would demand of us to give him the benefit of the doubt with regards to border protection and tackling the issue of illegal immigrants already in the country.
Personally, I think a lot of us who voice strong opposition to 'Amnesty' and who are in favor of 'Deportation' simply don't know enough about the logistics such undertaking would entail. My hunch is that Deportation (a) it is not in our national interest and (b) not doable.
More and more I distrust what Tancredo says. IMO it is plain nonsense to claim that one would be able to take jobs away from the illegal immigrants and even if by some miracle it could be done, that that would deter future illegals from trying to get here. Each and every new illegal has nothing concrete other than destitute at home and hope for a better future over there. There is nothing short of shooting every illegal at the border that will filter through as a deterrent. Q&A like this one highlight that Tancredo is more likely than not an political opportunist who knows that what he demands will never happen but might get him elected because it's what many citizens want to hear.
No, I believe they won't.
Posted by: North by Northwest | Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 12:06 PM