Skip to main content

Bush Says "Reform Immigration." Riiiiiiiiiiiiight!

In today's weekend radio address, President Bush stated that we needed to reform United States immigration. Somehow I don't think he's very serious about his noble-sounding words.

Part of President Bush's address today was this;

In Washington, we are in the midst of an important discussion about immigration. Our current immigration system is in need of reform. We need a system where our laws are respected. We need a system that meets the legitimate needs of our economy. And we need a system that treats people with dignity and helps newcomers assimilate into our society.


The system can only treat people with dignity if we have laws that are enforced. This requires that we not only make it possible for non-lawbreaking immigrants to easily immigrate and assimilate into society (while being encouraged to keep their ethnic traditions, by the way), but that we make it much more difficult than it currently is for gang members, drug dealers, and other miscreants from planting their cancers in our society.

I cannot believe that President Bush is serious about immigration reform for several reasons:

1. Strategic Partnership for Prosperity opens a gigantic hole in our border and will make our security problem even worse.

2. Border patrol agents are being hamstrung in their duties. Two agents languish in prison for simply doing their job. They remain unpardoned by President Bush.

3. The southern border fence that was approved by Congress will not be built.

Gangs like MS-13 are having a field day crossing our borders and trafficking in drugs. Some towns in Texas, California, etc. have become sanctuaries for such criminals.

The only way that both Americans and American immigrants can be treated with dignity is if we have good immigration laws. We don't have that right now. President Bush, if he were serious about healthy immigration, would admit the specific problems that we have and suggest ways to fix them. Instead, his actions, tacit and specific, are making the problem worse.

Comments

  1. He is trying to divert attention from his "failed" war.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Immigration reform is one of the policy positions on which I agree with the President.

    I think he's for real on this. He's got a real shot with- ironically- a Democratic congress. He's got virtually no major domestic policy accomplishments for his Iraq dominated administration. I think a lot of this is legacy building.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

Red Clothing and Resurrection: Jesus Christ's Second Coming

The scriptures teach that when Christ comes again to the earth, that he will be wearing red apparel. Why red ? They also teach that at Christ's coming, many of the dead will become resurrected. Will this only include members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Not by a long shot, no matter what some Mormon might tell you.

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...