Soapbox Tuesday
I touched on this last night, but since today is the day I look at political issues, I figured I would revisit the immigration issue and Bush’s address to the nation last night. My biggest concern with his speech wasn’t what he was proposing… in a lot of ways I can support some of his concepts he brought forth… but my concern is focus on his ability to get the job done anymore and today’s vote in the senate seemed to back that up. This is going to be an uphill battle for Bush. Even though an amendment that would put legal machinations on hold until border security was dealt with was defeated in the senate, the margin of the defeat should have Bush worried. The bill lost 55 – 40, but 33 of the Senate’s 55 Republicans, including most of the GOP leaders, voted for the amendment despite Bush’s on air pleading to make a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
Bush is not carrying his own party into this battle. The Democrats are saying he needs to do more than just call for a comprehensive reform and the Republicans are telling Bush he needs to speak to his own leadership before moving forward. Bush’s response: "There needs to be a comprehensive bill in order for us to achieve the objective," Bush said. "And the objective is, on the one hand, protect our borders, and, on the other hand, never lose sight of the thing that makes America unique, which is we're a land of immigrants and that we're not going to discriminate against people." Maybe it’s just me, but it sure seems like someone has told Bush what the buzzwords are for this topic but not the meat behind them.
The basis of Bush’s plan is this: 1) Increase the border patrol at first by using 6,000 National Guard troops and over a year replace them with newly hired officers. Use the troops to training and monitor equipment only; no troops will be on guard duty. 2) Create a guest worker program that would allow immigrant workers to take temporary jobs in the United States and be forced to return home once that time has expired. 3) The controversial part of the plan involves allowing some of the 11 million illegals to work towards citizenship by paying fines and back taxes. But they must have been working for a number of years (not specified) and have learned English.
Critics of the plan see the last measure as amnesty for those who have knowingly broken the law and unfair to those who gained their citizenship properly. Another issue is that there are two bills currently in congress. The one in the Senate is a comprehensive plan that takes all matters into account. The one in the House is streamlined to only deal with the border security issues. The two conflicting bills will have to be worked out in a conference between the two divisions of congress. House Republicans are seeing Bush’s support of the Senate version of the bill in a very negative light and is not being well received. "It offers a perverse incentive -- the longer and more flagrantly you have broken immigration laws, the easier it will be to get on the so-called path to citizenship," Rep. J.D. Hayworth, an Arizona Republican, told CNN. "I don't believe the American people will appreciate that. Rep. Tom Price, a Georgia Republican, issued a statement saying, "thinly veiled attempts to promote amnesty cannot be tolerated."
Now I’m all for the increased border patrol efforts and think the National Guard as a short term fill in while new officers are being hired is a good thing. I’m not a fan of the guest worker program because I think that a number of those who come to the country to work that way will not return home but will then become illegals just like we have now. As for the amnesty (though Bush won’t call it that) I can’t quite get behind that. You are basically rewarding someone for being good at breaking the law. If a jewel thief steals a diamond from a very secure location, do we let him have it because of the effort he showed as long as he pays for the damage to the security system and taxes on the diamond? I know it’s a far-fetched metaphor but it has some validity. I think anyone who wants to be a citizen should have to go through the same process as everyone else. In the constitution the line says that among those truth we hold to be self evident is that all men are created equal… shouldn’t that mean everyone has to do the same thing to get the same reward?
I touched on this last night, but since today is the day I look at political issues, I figured I would revisit the immigration issue and Bush’s address to the nation last night. My biggest concern with his speech wasn’t what he was proposing… in a lot of ways I can support some of his concepts he brought forth… but my concern is focus on his ability to get the job done anymore and today’s vote in the senate seemed to back that up. This is going to be an uphill battle for Bush. Even though an amendment that would put legal machinations on hold until border security was dealt with was defeated in the senate, the margin of the defeat should have Bush worried. The bill lost 55 – 40, but 33 of the Senate’s 55 Republicans, including most of the GOP leaders, voted for the amendment despite Bush’s on air pleading to make a comprehensive immigration reform bill.
Bush is not carrying his own party into this battle. The Democrats are saying he needs to do more than just call for a comprehensive reform and the Republicans are telling Bush he needs to speak to his own leadership before moving forward. Bush’s response: "There needs to be a comprehensive bill in order for us to achieve the objective," Bush said. "And the objective is, on the one hand, protect our borders, and, on the other hand, never lose sight of the thing that makes America unique, which is we're a land of immigrants and that we're not going to discriminate against people." Maybe it’s just me, but it sure seems like someone has told Bush what the buzzwords are for this topic but not the meat behind them.
The basis of Bush’s plan is this: 1) Increase the border patrol at first by using 6,000 National Guard troops and over a year replace them with newly hired officers. Use the troops to training and monitor equipment only; no troops will be on guard duty. 2) Create a guest worker program that would allow immigrant workers to take temporary jobs in the United States and be forced to return home once that time has expired. 3) The controversial part of the plan involves allowing some of the 11 million illegals to work towards citizenship by paying fines and back taxes. But they must have been working for a number of years (not specified) and have learned English.
Critics of the plan see the last measure as amnesty for those who have knowingly broken the law and unfair to those who gained their citizenship properly. Another issue is that there are two bills currently in congress. The one in the Senate is a comprehensive plan that takes all matters into account. The one in the House is streamlined to only deal with the border security issues. The two conflicting bills will have to be worked out in a conference between the two divisions of congress. House Republicans are seeing Bush’s support of the Senate version of the bill in a very negative light and is not being well received. "It offers a perverse incentive -- the longer and more flagrantly you have broken immigration laws, the easier it will be to get on the so-called path to citizenship," Rep. J.D. Hayworth, an Arizona Republican, told CNN. "I don't believe the American people will appreciate that. Rep. Tom Price, a Georgia Republican, issued a statement saying, "thinly veiled attempts to promote amnesty cannot be tolerated."
Now I’m all for the increased border patrol efforts and think the National Guard as a short term fill in while new officers are being hired is a good thing. I’m not a fan of the guest worker program because I think that a number of those who come to the country to work that way will not return home but will then become illegals just like we have now. As for the amnesty (though Bush won’t call it that) I can’t quite get behind that. You are basically rewarding someone for being good at breaking the law. If a jewel thief steals a diamond from a very secure location, do we let him have it because of the effort he showed as long as he pays for the damage to the security system and taxes on the diamond? I know it’s a far-fetched metaphor but it has some validity. I think anyone who wants to be a citizen should have to go through the same process as everyone else. In the constitution the line says that among those truth we hold to be self evident is that all men are created equal… shouldn’t that mean everyone has to do the same thing to get the same reward?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home