Which of the following is true?
If you answered yes to question one and also to question three, you have been fooled.
The actual answer is "yes" to number two and three. President Bush, despite doing more about the terrorist threat to America than any preceding President, has been more than woefully inadequate on border security: He has been dangerously against it.
It began last year, when Bush Administration officials began talking of "temporary" work permissions to be granted to illegal aliens. This "don't call it amnesty" plan mirrored earlier Democratic approaches to immigration issues, most of which are not so much about immigrants as border laws, because those involved are seldom legal immigrants. Several years previous, sometime after September 11, Hillary Clinton joined the AFL-CIO in being an outspoken advocate for amnesty for all illegal aliens in the U.S. While one could give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she meant day laborers rather than terrorist operatives or violent criminals, the distinction is impossible to make. Because illegal aliens are here illegally, there is no record of which one is a danger and which one is simply seeking work in America. The result is that a measure ostensibly intended to benefit day laborers who hoped the fence, could end up empowering violent criminals, or even terrorist operatives.
It is easy to understand why the Democrats support granting illegal aliens carte blanche to break border laws. The left is prisoner to both its union support and its racial collectivism, in addition to its globalist- multiculturalist views. Granting people permission to break the border laws appeases all of the above. Most of these illgals hail from Mexico or other hispanic nations, so granting them permission appeases the race-minded among the Democratic left. And once legalized, these gate-crashers are all possible members of leftist unions eager to bolster membership rolls; hence the AFL-CIO's endorsement of illegal amnesty. and, as more illegals flood the U.S., remaining relatively isolated and resisting assimilation into America, the cultural landscape of the country changes. Already, in many states, Americans are stranger is the own neighborhoods, surrounded by people who will not speak their language, workers who cannot or will not understand them when they go to a store, and -- the most frightening of all -- drivers who take to the strets, surrounding legal U.S. citizens with a flood of drivers who may not even speak enough English to underastand the road signs, let alone explain themselves when the get into accidents.
But if it is easy to see why the left wants illegal immigration to continue and be given official approval, it is sometimes harder to understand George W. Bush's stand on the issue. Why would a President who is often denounced as too far to the political "right" take a hard-core leftist position on immigration law, even being brazen enough to pass off his "get out of jail free" amnesty plan for illegals as "immigration reform" -- which, to most intelligent observers, means the opposite: enforcing our border laws and ceasing the negligent enforcement which has caused some parts of America to be flooded with illegals.
The reason is two-fold. First, it is part of an effort by Bush to placate those who consider his [and more or less al in the GOP] "racist" because they oppose the racist policy of government preferences. In this case, he is buying into the left's twisted misdefinition of "racism", engaging in conduct that is obviously racist -- exempting people from law based on that thewy are hispanic -- in order to avoid criticism for conduct which isn't racist, but it perceived as such. This is partially a response to those ont he far left denouncing Bush as comparable to Hitler; recall Moveon.org's aweful campaign ads? Here, Bush is attempting to placate his leftist critics, rather than expose their positions as truly racist. He is also attempting to buy the hispanic vote, much as his me-too prescription drugs for seniors welfare program was an attempt to buy the elder vote using a traditionally Democratic method. Both plans are ominous in what they say about Bush's understanding of his obligations as President. The citizens of America did not elect a Democrat. They elected a man to defend this country. That Bush is now turning into a Democrat-lite on many issues not only defaults on his Presidential obligation to protect this country and formulate policy in its best interests, but also defaults on his electoral obligation to his constituents, who voted for him and not Kerry, but are now getting a me-too amnesty plan as horrendous as anything Hillary Clinton had proposed. In an interesting and disgusting side note, Hillary Clinton has now changed her tune and come out in favor of genuine immigration reform, taking advantage of Bush's weakness on this area. While this is clearly just political posturing, it may be that Bush's political switcheroo backfires. While GOP voters are unlikely to support Hillary Clinton even if she claims to have a more conservative stance on immigration than Bush, it still does not say anything good about Bush's current position on the issue!
President Bush deserves support for fighting the war on terror abroad and taking the battle to the neemy. But it does no good to do that if he leaves the gates open here at home. That one may support a President for his proper choices, does not mean one should remain silent on his bad ones, especially when they threaten national security and the rule of law itself. All Americans who desire to remain such should oppose this lackluster "immigration" reform.
Back....
