President Bush and the brain trust are at it again...
President Bush waded gingerly back into the debate over immigration Wednesday, as two of his top lieutenants urged Congress to grant "legal status" to an estimated 12 million people now living in the country illegally.
Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff stopped short, however, of endorsing a plan to give illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship. "I believe what people want first and foremost is to have legal status," Gutierrez said. "I don't think everyone wants to be a citizen."
I believe in Americanism because unless our people are good Americans first, America can accomplish little or nothing worth accomplishing for the good of the world as a whole.
The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.
In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American.
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
"Optimism is a good characteristic, but if carried to an excess, it becomes foolishness. We are prone to speak of the resources of this country as inexhaustible; this is not so."
"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility."
Let us use the object lesson to hand, shall we?
Hannitized sez: Let's grant amnesty but then get really-super serious about stopping them at the border. That is his position as I understand it from his many comments, and this position displays why he is not serious about this issue, or hasn't actually thought it through.
If we were to grant amnesty to those who were already here there are two things we can absolutely count on happening. The first, a demonstrated after the fully retarded amnesty of '86 is more illegal immigration. The second is a weakening of public willingness to deal with this problem as you've allowed too many of those who play a "thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic" in who will then play a mischievous part by frustrating future efforts to crack down on illegal immigration.
Another problem with the half thought through ideas of a person like Hannitized is that, to him, there is only the now, yet we have reams of data on things like guest worker programs, the efficacy of the government to handle it's current workload, effects of the '86 amnesty, yet if one brings these up Hannitized immediately falls back on some sort of bizarre appeal to patriotism asking why we "hate this country?"
But is it really "hating this country" or is it possibly working from a very healthy skepticism, a honest acknowledgment that government far too often pursues it's own ends and the people be damned.
In fact I would define that last as one of the true core principles of conservatism. I have been lambasted on this blog for "not trusting the president." By conservatives and Hannitized, which frankly tells me all I need to know about their "brand" of conservatism.
I have consistently noted on this blog that one of my major annoyances with this debate is that very sense that it is being conducted in a vacuum where we should not talk about inconvenient details like the first 'Bracero' program and it's many abuses, how the fully retarded '86 amnesty opened the flood gates for illegal immigration, the number of hardened criminals who were given citizenship at that time, how the promised enforcement never materialized, how Mexico appears to gaining political power in this country through it's transplanted citizens, the corruption that follows in illegal immigrations wake and always has.
But smart folk like Hannitized and the President will wave their magic wands and make all these questions go away. Not by answering them of course, no, by shouting RACIST -- NATIVIST -- XENOPHOBE until we grow tired and go away, or so they hope.
Because to look at their proposal in the clear light of day forces one to question their sanity, as the functioning definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result.
Hannitized? If it is a question of "fairness" that we don't deport poor crispy delicious illegal workers who, and I quote "lower themselves to stand on street corners looking for work" are we really to believe that if this current crop receive amnesty and another 10-20-30 million come you won't be making precisely the same mushy headed argument then?
Of course you will which is why, no matter what nonsense you may spout, you are a Liberal. It's the inability to think an idea all the way through that shows your profound unseriousness on this issue. Of course another way you have argued incoherently is by trotting out the old "busboys and gardeners" canard.
The busboys and gardeners canard goes like this: why are you chasing after crispy delicious busboys and gardeners when there are serious criminals you could be going after?
Of course this presupposes two things. The first: that we can tell them apart. When a person comes from a country in which bribery and crime are an integrated part of the culture this may not be as easy as the big H supposes. Secondly, this assumes that our government is up to that challenge. Instead of a rational position, let's stop all illegal immigration and use the steady force of attrition to remove as many illegals from this country as possible Hannitized would rather we start a massive program predicated on adding millions of people into a system that the government cannot handle at the moment with the current numbers.
Smell the incoherence?
Of course the big H works with the government, so he says, so perhaps he's smelling big contracts?
The reason I won't seriously debate with the big H is that he's never even intimated to me that he has any interest in debate on this or any issue. Nope, what he really wants is for us to shut up and go away. Sorry Charlie, tell you what, blogs are free why. If you really believe what you clearly spend hours on this blog bleating about why don't you transfer that time into putting forward a positive statement of your ideals and beliefs. You said you lack the time? I guarantee you swee'pea you could run a blog in the time you spend commenting here.
It's called the free marketplace of ideas, you should try it sometime.
Technorati Tags: illegal immigration, president bush, amnesty,