.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

John Adams Blog

The blog of The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society www.johnadamssociety.org

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

The President's speech

I liked the speech and the proposed policy. I think the President is committed to securing the border. A lot of conservatives a criticizing him for not going far enough. However, with an additional 6000 National Guard going to the Mexican border, there will be over 12,000 personnel guarding the border. That should be enough if they are well managed. In all the President's speech was a pragmatic proposal considering the current political climate we are in. Sometimes we need pragmatic leadership.

I think a lot of conservatives love to hate Bush on the immigration issue. Take Hinderacker at PowerLine:

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.

Hinderacker believes that Bush's stance on immigration will destroy the Republican majority. I am not so sure. This time, the "middle ground" may be the correct course. Considering the current political climate, if the middle ground is not taken, we could get the status quo, which is far worse. Remember, the change that we are talking about would greatly inhibit the current flow of illegal immigration. There are plenty on the left who would prefer the status quo. I think if Bush can show results and provide leadership on the issue, his ideas will be accepted.

Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

The basic problem here is that many middle to lower class conservatives believe their country is being overrun and that the rich republicans are purposefully doing nothing about it because immigration from Latin America makes their (the rich republicans) lives better. So having more people at the border does nothing to put them at ease since they can be withdrawn anytime.

So I'm with Hinderaker. Without a wall, we can't have an amnesty program without the next 12 million Latin Americans being convinced that in 10 or 15 years, they will get amnesty. On the other hand, if we build a wall and institute an i.d. verification system with real penalties for hiring an illegal alien, then if we get illegal immigration under control, in five years we can talk about amnesty. At that point, it won't be such a problem that it will be a huge invitation for further illegal immigration since we will have shown we know how to stop that.

Oh. One more thing. In the fashion of polipundit.com, anyone who disagrees with me is a LIAR, LIAR!

4:42 PM, May 16, 2006  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

You still need troops to man the wall. A wall without troops is just a short term nuisance. Thus, you have the same problem even with a wall...you can withdraw the troops at any time.

Besides, if a wall was there, the illegals would just find another way to get in. Perhaps they would float in rafts up the coast or dig tunnels.

Hinderaker is just sour. He would have criticized Bush regardless. That is the state of things these days.

12:16 AM, May 17, 2006  
Blogger Harsh Pencil said...

The exact same arguments that walls are ineffective, that those who want to get in will find a way, could be used in Israel's case as well. But Israel's wall has been hugely effective.

Yes, there are troops there, but the wall itself means you need far fewer.

4:29 AM, May 17, 2006  
Blogger Sloanasaurus said...

I agree with your on the effectiveness of walls if they are manned. In Israel's case the wall makes total sense because they are striving for 100% effectiveness. Further, people who man the wall probably live only a few miles from work.

My point is in a country of 300 million, there will not be much difference with 20,000 troops manning the border or 5,000 troops. Further, with a wall you may be able to keep out 99%, while without a wall you could keep out 95%. Therefore, the wall really only becomes a symbol.

If a future political leader, such as John Kerry decides not to man the wall, then the wall becomes useless.

Instead we should "secure the border," which means building walls and fences only where they are most effective (such as in larger population centers and guarding the border with troops (or border patrol).

8:42 AM, May 17, 2006  
Blogger Scribbler de Stebbing said...

Where are the drones? A few months ago there was an unveiling of the drone squad, unmanned craft roaming about the border seeking bodies. And I've heard nothing since. Perhaps it was a technological fantasy (I've had a few of those) or the machines turned out to be too expensive, or, for all I know, it was a Rovian smokescreen.

8:33 AM, May 19, 2006  

Post a Comment