Monday, May 15, 2006

No Sale

The President's address was a disappointing rehash of the same proposals he's been making for several years.

I believe the guest worker program is illegal discrimination on the basis of national origin.
Further, I believe it deprives the market of a vital corrective mechanism. When employers offer too low compensation for duties, they will suffer a lack of qualified applicants. The solution is to offer better compensation or lighter duties, not to import Third World laborers.
And finally, whenever we have tried to tie workers to employers by law--whether indenture, sharecropping, or company credit--the result has been exploitation.

It is inane, bordering on deceitful, to speak of the cooperation of state, local, and Mexican governments in halting illegal immigration. Los Angeles, the California legislature, and the Mexican government, are all lining up to spend tax revenues to expedite the hiring of illegal labor. To wait for them to act as certain Arizona and Colorado entities in cracking down on illegal immigration is futile. To offer no penalties for such refusal is counterproductive.

It is pointless to stress the tough requirements of a guest worker program, when you announce that long-term violators have an equity claim against deportation. The law, as written, does not care how long an illegal alien has been in residence. Whether one day or ten years, it is still illegal to employ them. The President and much of the Senate wishes that would just go away. That's amnesty.

It is amnesty, to rewrite the law, rather than enforce it, because you think it "unwise" and "unrealistic" to perform your duty.

The bulk of illegal laborers in the United States have no desire to renounce all foriegn allegiance and pledge themselves solely as Americans; it is no penalty to them to restrict their ability to make such a pledge while permitting their enjoyment of the black market economy.

I'm going to write my Congressman and ask him to hold the line against any compromise of American soveriegnity--such as the President's plan. I not only think that's the principled reaction the House should take...it is the smart plan heading into the election.

Some people are already claiming this marks the end of the Bush Presidency. Not quite; I think he has staked out a losing position, but it has been the losing position he's had all along, really. It probably indicates a lack of influence for the rest of this Congressional term, speaking as someone who hopes the Congress gets up on its hind legs and stands him off. But, since I think that'd preserve the GOP majority, I don't see that as a loss.

The main reason I think the President will personally overcome the negative attitude towards his policy, is his attitude. He continues to be a man whom you can oppose but appreciate. This was a firm rejection of the "base" (and I think the majority of the country as well) but it was not a slap in the face.

There are too many in the Party who run out and denounce us conservatives as 'immature', 'crybabies', 'fanatics', 'Nazis', people who just don't understand that wanting the black market economy shut down cold is impossible. These 'Republicans' make it clear that we're intolerable brats who need to shut up and obey orders.

And oh yeah---get out the vote.

Everytime those clowns get in front of the camera and make the "Stomp the Base!" speech, conservatives think: If Democrats win, this guy gets fired, and after a term in the cold we can come back with decent Republicans; but if he's re-elected, he'll be spitting on us 'til he commutes to floor votes in a motorized wheelchair.

President Bush has the class to chill the schadenfreude.
We think: This guy is a decent Republican, he just needs kicked in the ass 'til his head pops out. We can't throw him to the Democrats.

That appreciation should carry the Party through 2006; but I don't like to think what will happen in 2008 when the jerks run the show.

Anyhow, that's remote speculation.

For tonight: Thank you, Mr. President.

But no thanks.

No comments: