A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
August 15, 2005Richardson on ImmigrationThe Southwest bears the "brunt" of immigration: border enforcement, health care costs, etc. In that light its been interesting to watch the political maneuvering regarding immigration. In AZ we've seen several prominent Republicans come out against Prop 200 while it was proposed and pushed by other Republicans. Democrats have been equally challenged. Democrats control two key Southwest State houses: NM and AZ. By way of example, I was struck by Gov. Bill Richardson's recent declaration of a "State of Emergency" on the NM/Mexico border. "I'm taking these serious steps because of the urgency of the situation and, unfortunately, because of the total inaction and lack of resources from the federal government and Congress," Richardson said. The emergency declaration will allow the spending of US$1.75 million in state and federal funds on beefed-up law enforcement, a new cattle fence and a New Mexico Homeland Security Department field office, probably to be located in Luna County near the Chihuahua border town of Palomas.Sounds a bit like the now imfamous Minutemen. I was a bit confused because I recalled a previous statement by Gov Richardson. After President Bush's 94 State of the Union, Gov. Richardson, in a response, called the president's plan "a small step forward" that included "some positive points." But he said the plan was a "dead end" for Hispanics because it "does not help immigrant workers to obtain the golden dream: legalization and residency without impunity." Can there be a "crisis at the borders" if Mexicans are only seeking their "golden dream of legalization and residency without impunity" I'm not trying to make political hay I'm just struck how immigration really does wreak havoc with political boundaries Comments
It's pretty clear to me that this is some sort of a wedge issue, because most politicians who feel they can do so are running for the hills. Unless you're a pol from a burdened state, you prefer the status quo, which is, let's face it, mostly gray area. I'm all for a comprehensive immigration policy that allows all of the immigrants that our economy needs to be here with some form of specific, legal, authorized status. For such a policy to work, it would have to reward those who immediately pursue authorized legal immigration status, and it would have to punish those who immigrate illegally. Such a policy would be complicated and expensive, and my sense is that the volume of political will needed for comprehensive reform is simply not there. So what we'll get instead is a few more curious patterns woven into the confusing bureaucratic tapestry. Some sort of half-@ssed, underfunded, trial system giving some immigrants a semi-authorized status akin to either limbo or purgatory will just add a little bit more cloudiness to the waters. Bottom line? Immigrants, legal or illegal, will keep coming as long as America looks like a better bet than wherever they're coming from. Posted by: bk at August 16, 2005 08:49 AMUm..not to nit pick...but I don't think it was President BUSH who gave the 1994 state of the union? Maybe he gave the state of the onion....? Posted by: Patrick at August 16, 2005 01:42 PMOops. Patrick you're right. I meant 2004. I was stuck in a time warp yesterday. UPDATE: Gov. Napolitano in AZ has followed suit and also declared a State of Emrgency. She was also a vocal opponent of prop 200. Posted by: c3 at August 16, 2005 03:35 PMI think politicians of both parties are having problems with this one because both are falling over themselves to pander to latino voters, and they're worried that if they clamp down on illegal immigration, they'll look racist and lose the "brown" vote. That, it seems to me, is the entire ugly extent of it. It's even harder for the GOP, of course, because most Republicans outside of the GOP establishment know exactly what they want done with illegal immigration, and they are furious at Bush's guest worker program. For most of them, appointing Pat Buchanan or Tom Tancredo as immigration Czar would be a good step forward. I get the practical problems, Brian, I really do - but simply saying "Immigrants, legal or illegal, will keep coming as long as America looks like a better bet than wherever they're coming from" seems cut from the same cloth as "terrorists will keep coming as long as they're mad at America". I mean, sure, people will want to move here, America is a powerfull monument to the power of dreams - so what do we do about it? Do we open our doors and say, "hey, c'mon in, boys!"? Or do we set about improving the quality of life in Mexico? I mean, damn, let's just admit Mexico as the 51st state, that'd save some time! In any instance, we've got to be very careful to make sure not to teach them American values or the English language, because that would be too "paternalist". Posted by: Simon at August 17, 2005 02:27 PMVery nice Posted by: Misho at September 2, 2005 12:18 AMI really liked your comments here. I hope you're going to update your site soon. port a buayar , Fantast author Posted by: Kelly Ronald at September 4, 2005 12:55 AM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
