The Washington Times makes some interesting points in an editorial today (EXCERPTS):
Put plainly, when Mr. Bush talks tough on border security and enforcement, conservatives don’t believe him, and they have the facts to back them up. Last week’s address to the nation, during which Mr. Bush proposed adding 6,000 Border Patrol agents by 2007, wasn’t the first time he’s made such a promise. When one considers that it was just a couple of years ago when Mr. Bush promised to add 2,000 agents every year for the next five years, only to submit a 2006 budget calling for only 210, it’s no wonder why conservatives remain wary.
Here’s one instance where the administration can reverse its abysmal
record on employer sanctions, which dropped from 417 who had been fined
for hiring illegal aliens in 1999 to just three in 2004.Also, the administration should stop advertising how many illegal
aliens it has apprehended and start telling Americans how many it has
deported. Mr. Bush’s trumpeting of his administration’s arrest and
deportation of 6 million illegal aliens is actually a decline compared
to any five-year period under Mr. Clinton.
These points can play a potentially useful role in getting the Bush administration to get serious about border security. A "Bush weaker than Clinton on border security" meme would do a lot of good right now. Hopefully the blogosphere will start percolating the idea.
The points that the Washington Times raises illustrate why I simply do not trust President Bush on the subject of the border. All his tough talk about putting the national guard on the border (in a neutered form that won’t let them do hardly anything) and beefing up border patrol agents means nothing. It’s just empty show.
The same goes for his declarations about ending "catch and release." It’s easy for politicians to talk tough about what they’re going to do with personnel, but personnel can fall through the cracks at budget time or get de-funded later on or get reassigned or be forbidden by policy to do their jobs or simply be unable to respond to the magnitude of the problem they’re facing given limited resources. Personnel is too variable and too easy to reassign or neuter by policies of inaction.
That’s why I’m not going to be satisfied with anything less than a fence that completely seals the border. Fences can’t be reassigned or used as part of a shell game nearly as easily as personnel can. They stay there and do their job until structural damage is done to them. They’re not perfect, but they are effective and less susceptible to political subversion than personnel is.
THEY’RE ALSO THE COMPASSIONATE SOLUTION.
Jimmy,
those of us who aren’t apologists for the bush white house have known for a while that bush isn’t really a conservative, and the border issue proves just that.
I couldn’t agree more David B.! I grew up learning that us conservatives believed in integrity and small government. The government is more into my life (and everyone else’s) than they ever have been–and I’m not only talking about tapping phones. In short, he is not a conservative for many more reasons, but if they were all written down, all the blogs in the world couldn’t contain the volumes!
Since Jimmy’s post doesn’t address the issue of Bush’s conservatism or lack of same, and since “those of us who are not Bush White House apologists” includes you, me, Jimmy, and the Times writer he cited, I’m not sure what your point is, David B.
The border issue doesn’t “just prove” something about Bush, whether a point about his conservatism or something else. The border issue is something that matters in itself, and it’s that that the post is about.
boy, that hits ‘im where it hurts…i’ve always felt a little sorry for GB2. if these weren’t such desperately dark days, his dim little lights would never have been noticed.
It is not news to anyone who has been in the border areas that the Border Control underwent a deliberate stand-down after Bush took over. There efforts were inadequate to the task before. They were not allowed to do their jobs afterwards.
Now really, I think we should see if there is any of the Berlin wall left to help us with this fence.
Possibly some signs – don’t mess with my Lincoln Navigator rights.
And a mote would be good.
Oh, damn, it’s desert and then they could have some water to drink from.
I know, fill it with snakes.
But of course a measure of a mans worth is his natural born nationality and family.
It’s about blood, after all.
Maybe, we should bring in some of those boys of the Little Geneva Reformed Confederate Theocrats.
Oh, wait, is this a Catholic blog?
ummm, doesn’t appear to be from this post
Another example of: “You don’t agree with me so you’re not a good Catholic.”
G. M., a water barrier is a “moat,” not a “mote.”
A “mote” is what your neighbor has in his eye, in comparison to the log in your own.
What America needs is far fewer Nativists and a lot more Natalists.
Baby Boomer Americans busied themselves for decades by aborting, contracepting, and sterilizing the country out of a replacement generation. The Little Lord Fauntleroy generation they managed to bequeath, and of which I am a member, is too miniscule and too spoiled to do the work that is needed to keep our country afloat, the most essential of which is to be fruitful and multiply.
Enter the illegal immigrants to do what we have failed to do. We should thank God they come from a Catholic country. Perhaps this is Divine Providence at work in the Catholicization of the United States.
There’s the famous Mexican lament: “So far from God, so close to the United States.”
For us Americans, it’s a blessing: “So far from God, so close to Mexico.”
Steven,
You are right.
I gave bush the short shrift, and I apologize.
I like him, but not his policy.
P.S. for those wondering, I’m not a liberal.
At this point, the War on Terror is about the only thing that Bush has done right (sorta).
Ditto with Congress. Throw the bums out.
This is my apology for the earlier comment – if I could I would erase the comment.
I do appreciate that Mr. Akin attempts to carry the message of the Catholic Church in his blog.
KS,
There may indeed be the action of the divine in the eventual latinization of the U.S., whether providence or retribution is not clear. However, you should not raise your hopes that a Catholicization will result. There simply is not the evidence that the Mexican immigrants are bringing a healthy Catholic faith with them. If anything, catechesis in Mexico is worse than in the U.S. Many have no real faith and many more become protestants of some type or other without even knowing they have left the Church.
I like him, but not his policy.
Regarding President Bush, just wondering what virtue there is in making such a statement. How can someone like somebody they do not know or have even ever met? What we see is only a media image.
from what I know of the man’s religious values,
and because he believes his decisions are morally just, I DO like him.
what I mean is that GWB is a moral, albeit a misguided, leader
Poor President Bush.
At least that’s how it looks to this Aussie, seeing things from a distance. He took the lead in the War on Terror, and has done a lot to put conservative, pro-life, “constructionist” judges on the bench, thus addressing the two major challenges for our Western civilisation according to social conservatives, Islamist fascist expansionism and our demographic and moral self-destruction through the culture of death. These alone make up no small achievement. Are there any other likely candidates on either side who you can be confident would have done this? Wasn’t the out-of-control activist judiciary seen as one of your biggest problems in the culture wars?
Wasn’t Germany a mess for quite some time before reconstruction and democratisation were completed? And there were no insane insurgents possessing a religious hatred of the West there to deal with.
Ah yes, but his fiscal policy has been loose! Deficits abounding! Well, yes, but some of that helped you avoid a recession early on. And recent evidence indicates his taxing has been strongly redistributive overall as discussed at http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/04/26/PM200604264.html. How could Catholics object strongly to that, whatever doctrinaire Republican libertarians might think? Aren’t his policies on the homeless also bearing fruit (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/14/MNG74IRMTN1.DTL)? Is his encouragement of and assistance to Faith-based charity worth nothing?
As for Hurricane Katrina, I am always amused at how people believe we have a chance against nature. Our “powerful” technologies rely heavily on electricity grids, which nature can take out at the click of a finger, so to speak. Every time a government has to respond to a major natural disaster I hear the same bleating about incompetence and inefficiency, because so many think that Western Governments are or should be omnipotent and omnipresent. But they’re not, and planning for these things seems like planning for a war. You have to do it, but much of it will be useless if the disaster’s big enough. And apparently FEMA’s response was better than ever before in scope and speed.
Bush’s policy on immigration seems to match what his view was for years before he was elected. The weird thing here is that so many of those who criticise him for not being economically rationalist/neo-liberal/libertarian enough want him to be rigidly anti-libertarian and restrictive of (labour) trade here.
I think the real reason the social conservative base is turning on him is that they know that their side is in deep political trouble over Iraq, and are also striking out at the man who has not made all their dreams come true. The question they have to ask themselves is, if they continue this tantrum to the ballot box (or are too busy stamping their feet to vote), what sort of government will they get?
President Bush may not have achieved all that was desired, but consider the alternative – would you have preferred to end up with either Gore or Kerry? Where would we be in either of those scenarios?
Cui Bono? Is that Sonny Bono’s brother?
Fr. M Kirby,
I never expressed my dislike for bush over anything other than immigration, and I agree with you about bush’s achievements. I don’t like my thoughts referred to as ‘bleating’. Bush is disregarding his SWORN duty to protect and defend us where it is most important – on our own borders! isn’t that something I am allowed to be angry over?
Fr. M. Kirby,
You are right about President Bush appointing better judges, and we should NOT lose sight of that.
Your analysis of the deficit spending is also correct, though I am terribly disappointed in our Republican lawmakers, who have wallowed in pork as much as their Democrat predecessors.
Rather than lead in this area, Bush has appeared to use spending to TRY and buy cooperation, though it hasn’t worked.
I admit that he has done a fair job keeping the economy humming, appointing judges, and in the war on terror.
The mind reels at what President Kerry would have been like.
David,
Sorry for any offense caused. As an outsider to the US I should not have been so dismissive in tone. However, I should note that the word “bleating” was used in reference to the almost inevitable and seemingly naive complaints about Gov’t efforts after major disasters, not about views on border protection. On the latter I have some sympathy with the pro-fencers, given what I understand of the issue, but find it hard to fault Bush for pretty much sticking with the same position. Maybe he’s mistaken, I don’t know, but I cannot doubt his integrity, especially given the flack he’s getting.
Fr M Kirby
thanks for clarifying your post.
Friends?
David,
Of course!
Fr M Kirby,
I was going to say we should get together for lunch, but since you’re tied down with priestly responsibilities and since I live over 9,000 miles away, I guess (sniffle) a long-distance relationship will have to suffice.
see ya around!
Fr M Kirby
I hope you aussies understand American’s sarcastic wit.
Hmm….let’s liberate Iraq, yet we are being invaded by Mexico.so much for commonsense
I find it interesting to remember how President Bush has compared himself to Abraham Lincoln (a war time president).
Abraham Lincoln saw himself as God’s general.
George W. Bush sees himself as God’s hammer.
Two very different viewpoints. Pres. Lincoln saw himself as awaiting his superior’s command while Pres. Bush has seen himself as the instrument of God to do as he wished whenever he wished with God’s authority and blessing.
I find it interesting that Mr. Bush’s hammer can only be used for destruction and vengence (Iraq, those that oppose him [or is that Tom DeLay’s “hammer”?]). I would that he could see his hammer as also to be used for construction (Katrina aftermath, strong borders).
Good comments, Father Kirby. Picking up on some of your and Neal’s comments, I want to add my 2 cents. I’ve found that in most elections the choice is between bad and worse, rarely between good and bad, and never between good and better. If the choice were between good and better, it wouldn’t matter much who won, but, when the choice is between bad and worse, it is vital to make sure that worse is not elected.