Patterico's Pontifications

9/14/2007

The Bush Administration was Not Prepared …

Filed under: Immigration — DRJ @ 10:51 am



[Guest post by DRJ]

… for the backlash on immigration reform, according to WH Press Secretary Tony Snow:

“Outgoing White House press secretary Tony Snow said today that the Bush administration had underestimated the ferocity of opposition to White House-backed immigration legislation. “I freely admit that we underestimated the (public) skepticism,” Snow said over breakfast with a group of reporters on his final day on the job.

Snow said that the White House was not prepared for the anger of foes of illegal immigration, who believed that government at all levels had failed to secure the nation’s borders. While the public backlash is aimed “not merely (at) the Bush administration,” he conceded that the White House “made some miscalculations, as well.”

Have they learned their lesson?

Maybe:

“To win political support for comprehensive legislation, Snow said the government needed to re-establish “the credibility of the rule of law” by protecting the border and requiring illegal immigrants to pay substantial penalties — “not just a wrist slap, but something significant” — before taking their place “at the back of the line” to citizenship. While awaiting legal status, they should not be permitted to collect welfare and should be required to maintain continuous employment and crime-free lives.

Too bad the Bush Administration didn’t say this to begin with.

— DRJ

20 Responses to “The Bush Administration was Not Prepared …”

  1. I doubt they have learned anything from that fiasco. They are pushing pretty hard on allowing the mexican trucks total freedom to our roads. Remember the bumper sticker the GOP used in 2000 “Viva Bush”. We should have guessed!

    Tregg Wright (47bba4)

  2. Have they learned their lesson?

    Obviously not. Think Mexican trucking invasion.

    Oh, but they’re going to INSPECT those trucks!!!

    Sure they will.

    Those trucks won’t carry drugs…will they? They won’t carry more illegal aliens…will they? They won’t carry explosives, chemical and biological weapons, bought and paid for by Jihadist sleeper cells here…will they?

    Stuart Pendous (e5f333)

  3. If the Bush administration was serious, among other actions they would come out in support of H.R. 1940: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 which amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01940:

    Horatio (f61519)

  4. American trucks carry all those things now. Illegals, drugs and other contraband.

    Lots of stuff crosses the border in containers anyway and is just swapped from one fleet to another after scanning.
    Our seaports are probably more vulnerable to this type of smuggling.
    Everyone who can read the LA Times already knows that the safest way to move drugs is to mule it to a pick up point inside the US and use a US truck and driver to distribute from there.
    Same goes for illegals. Walk them across to a pick up point, move them to a safe house, hold and distribute.
    I’d also guess that large shipments of cocaine or heroin that go safely through land points of entry get through because a series of US agents were paid off. Even if it is a tip off on when the green light is going to be on.
    It isn’t cost effective to play russian roulette… one must rig the wheel.

    Anyone who drives in So Cal knows that 1/2 the drivers are Mexican now anyway. Waste haulers, nurseries hauling those huge trees around, independent truckers with hispanic names on the door… take a look.

    SteveG (4e16fc)

  5. “Too bad the Bush Administration didn’t say this to begin with.

    – DRJ”

    I disagree with you on this one. With all the fearmongering about “La Raza”, snipers on the border, etc. the explanation you suggested wouldn’t have been nearly enough. The anti-immigration bill folks got what they wanted which was basicially the status quo of letting illegals cross the border unfettered, no accountability for businesses who hire them, and a neat political issue to scare up the voters with come election time.

    But I’m sure that the Democrats, if they gain more senate seats and the WH will enforce a much tougher bill than what was defeated. /sarc

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  6. Whether Bush really misunderestimated the response or whether he just didn’t care, it shows how seriously out of touch a legacy politician can be. Like his father, he lacks “the vision thing,” IMO. This is my main reason for not backing Romney–he’s just another professional pol jumping into the family business. He is not one of us.

    Patricia (4117a9)

  7. I’m sure they’ve learned a lesson: be even sneakier next time.

    As for Snow’s comment, he misleadingly pretends it’s just about border security, a common dodge of those who aren’t serious. There are plenty of things the Bush admin could do or could not have done; for instance, they went out of their way to make it possible for banks to profit from illegal activity.

    Perhaps Snow could address how the Bush admin fought to allow banks to accept MexicanID cards; those cards are a very strong indicator that the bearer is an illegal alien and they’re of no use to legal immigrants.

    TLB (0c89cb)

  8. The Bush Admin is not serious about illegal immigration. The Democrats are not serious about illegal immigration. And the country suffers as a result.

    Horatio (f61519)

  9. That is the problem with this administration. They bandy about and never think that the public is going to react the way we do. They are disconnected from reality.

    This disconnection from reality is part of the reason that the GOP lost its majority in 2006.

    JSchmoAZ (75ee03)

  10. Some of the fault should lie with the Republicans who held the majority for over a decade in the House and the senate for six years under Bush. The executive branch doesn’t legislate – to say it is Bush’s and the Democrats fault is skewing the truth to put it mildly.

    voiceofreason (f4d295)

  11. Voiceofreason:

    The legislative branch doesn’t enforce the laws. That’s the executive branch’s job.

    DubiousD (816a46)

  12. Romney, and the family business…
    Actually, Romney pere, was the CEO of American Motors (Nash, Hudson, Rambler) before he went into politics (I think he started with Nash as an engineer/designer?). Romney, fils, is a chip of the old block, in that before going into politics, he had a very successful career in business.
    Sometimes you wonder why they would want to put up with all of the bs that politics’ involves?
    Could it be that after you’ve acquired all of the money that you will ever need, you actually feel the need to “give something back” to society?
    Must be that “Noblese Oblige” crap.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  13. Reusable blog post title.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  14. Much as I like, trust and respect Tony Snow, he’s only Bush’s spokesman and it’s his last day.

    I do believe they have learned something, however. What they have learned that they should have dressed the shamnesty pig in a red enforcement dress, not a blue enforcement one. Bush and his shamnesty cronies just had Tony ask how we like the pig’s new dress.

    The dress looks better but the pig is dead:

    — “going to the back of the line”; that was intended to be a joke, right?
    — no welfare, continuous employment, and crime free life until achieving legal status is not he same thing as “back of the line”; it only means until they send in the form.
    — millions of people have waited and/or are still waiting patiently in line to come here legally while Congress and the President continue to thumb their nose at them and pander to the ones broke the laws; the penalties will never be substantial with 536 schemers involved in deciding how exactly to write loopholes for those penalties.

    BTW, the actual rule of law is for illegals to be deported. What the Administration, via Tony Snow, means is: protect the border and ignore the other laws in a comprehensive manner.

    Dusty (dd1df5)

  15. DubiousD
    And the bill that the president supported set up tougher enforcement measures. But the bloodlust to demand that somehow we round up 12 million people who committed a misdemeanor couldn’t be sated and a reasonable bill was defeated.

    You dodge the fact that the Republicans had six years to pass tougher laws and failed to do so. In the next five years or so that it will take to get another bill to the floor another 2 or 3 million people will be in the country, most of whom we know nothing about.

    Gee thanks.

    voiceofreason (f4d295)

  16. Opposition to the amnesty plans was not a “bloodlust” to demand deportation. What a useless canard. As a Texan who lives near the front line, I can tell you that the opposition was (and is) about stopping the flood of ever more illegals and drying up the supply of jobs that lure them here. No need to deport people when you enforce the laws against hiring illegals already on the books. Real enforcement produces real results as you can see in those states, like Arizona, which are getting serious. Illegals are even now moving out to find the welcoming waters of sanctuary states. It’s a common sense use of the very human tendency to find the easy path – make that path hard and people will get off.

    iinmypajamas (8110a0)

  17. President Proposes – Congress Disposes.

    Presidents do need to enforce the laws, and Congress needs to understand that the laws in place do not get the job done. Immigration is a Federal power handed by the Constitution to Congress to establish law. The President is to enforce those laws. When Congress does not put money to enforcing the laws, the President has little recourse save to go to the American People and point out that Congress is not serious about supporting the law of the land.

    To date, no President has said that about Congress.
    To date, no President has asked for any finding to find out what the full cost of supporting the laws are.
    To date, no Congress has questioned that their laws are being unenforced in this area.
    To date, no Congress has sought higher funding to get their laws enforced in this area.

    What is seen is not upon one institution, but a conspiracy of inability to get the job done. I am quite convinced that no one Upon the Hill or at 1600 PA Ave. actually has read the document they are to uphold.

    The President gets blame (all of them since 1986) for not enforcing our law, nor for enforcing our treaties in this area, nor for upholding the law of nations to hold other Nations accountable.

    All Congresses get the blame (all of them since 1986) as that Congress promised to the American People that our borders would be secured to end this. That is a promise broken to the American People. Congress has put no stiff penalties on those that entice or employ illegal labor, which is not just a threat to the national labor market,local labor market and general security of the Nation, but is wanton disregard for the laws of this Nation by companies and individual to form associations with foreign nationals outside the scope and mandate of treaties.

    I did not elect any company or foreign individuals to set the immigration policy of the Nation: that is given to Congress. This is a usurpation of our rights as a People and a Nation to have the rule of law that we abide by. That is a power the People grant only to Congress. These activities are more than *just* unlawful, but corrode the heart of the social compact we have as a Nation.

    Even during that lovely period of ‘open immigration’ before 1920, that so many wax poetical about, each and every individual had to go through screening, both for contagious diseases and for affiliations to organizations that were unsanctioned in the US. Which is harder: to take in millions of immigrants and sweep out the 3-4% that are unsavory, or to police our own borders and remove millions here without warrant or sanction? Apparently the previous generations of the People of the US were more capable in the 19th century than we are today. What a sorry lot of Americans we have as represented by our Government that cannot even begin to do the jobs our parents did.

    ajacksonian (87eccd)

  18. iinmypajamas,

    You dodged the question about what the republicans did when they had the chance. You conveniently ignored the fact that the opposition only extended the problems you complain about for the forseeable future.

    It was bloodlust. “Just put snipers at the border”, “assimilation mischaracterizations”, “all drunk driving deaths are committed by illegals was certainly implied while ignoring the weak punishment we have for those lawbreakers — 16000 deaths a year”, The leader of the minutemen is no less than a racist, already charged with a variety of offenses and talks about seeing Chinese troops conducting maneuvers south of the border.

    No just good reasonable discourse based on true facts only was the only sound in the blogosphere and media when the debate went on.

    I only agree with you about drying up the jobs – but republican interests in protecting donors was part of the calculus that ensured the bill was killed.

    I really have no sympathy for those living in border areas who screamed “Shamnesty shamnesty the bill will let La Raza overtake us”. Remember the adage “be careful what you ask for”.
    There was an opportunity in the bill that was killed — political posturing was more important than preventing another million illegals a year to cross over.

    voiceofreason (de05d2)

  19. voiceofreason, congrats for the ironic name. As to your silliness: every amnesty in the past has led to a surge of illegal immigration, and every promise of increased enforcement to go with the amnesty has been broken. Until you deal with that fact, your throw-away lines about how the opponents of the shamnesty bill only extended problems can be considered nothing but ignorance or naivete. Or mendacity.

    As to your paragraph claiming that there was bloodlust, I see nothing credible there. Cite your facts or spare us. No one on this list is going to believe ridiculous claims like that without citations.

    Doc Rampage (ebfd7a)

  20. I can’t speak for all foes of illegal immigration, but I can say that my anger is not about immigration; it’s about a government that institutes immigration policy by refusing to enforce laws and lies to its citizens about it for decades. Frankly, I benefit greatly from the current state of affairs because I benefit from the cheap labor, but don’t have to compete (much) with cheap labor for my own job.

    But this is supposed to be a democracy. If out leaders think that we need millions of immigrants in this country for cheap labor then let them make their case honestly to the American people and say that we need to offer millions of green cards per year. Let them justify why only low-income people should have to compete with millions of foreigners and not high-income people. Let the low-income people who will have to lower their own wages to compete with these immigrants have a say in the process. But our leaders don’t want to take their chances with democracy, so they do an end run around the democratic process and just refuse to enforce the (democratically-enacted) laws.

    I’m angry about this for the same reason that I’m angry about the Supreme Court inventing clauses in the Constitution. There is a democratic process for amending the Constitution, and it takes more than five people who really, really, think they’re right to do it. Anyone willing to subvert democracy in this way, Democrat or Republican, is not qualified as a national leader. I would support an impeachment of Bush over this issue, and Guilliani’s support of this antidemocratic policy is one of the reasons that I will absolutely not vote for him.

    Doc Rampage (ebfd7a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0804 secs.