Bush finally found a place where he is loved, other than Midland, Texas...Albania. Ah, the world changes fast. The last thing I remember about Albania is that they were a close ally of China, but then its been hard to keep up with things since the end of the cold war.
Powell went on Meet the Press as the apologist for the Administration on the decision to invade Iraq. Curious. I believe that while most of what he said was honest and forthright, Tim Russett (who was once known as a tough interviewer) didn't really throw him many hard questions. Powell's line on the invasion decision was the usual, "we were all wrong," in regard to the WMD argument. No news there. What would have been a better issue to explore with Powell was what does he think about "preemptive war?" Indirectly, he implied he did not agree with it, unless faced with imminent attack, but Russett failed to pursue the issue.
Powell made it clear he was ready to return to government service (presumably after the 2008 elections). I would hope that he does, although his standing with me dropped significantly with his role in the Iraq mess. In view of what I think he believes policy-wise, I felt he should have resigned following the IAEA's request for more UN inspection time, which Bush rejected, leading to the invasion...leading to the mess.
As essentially a "soldier," Powell did say he believed we made significant mistakes in not sending in enough forces, etc. But, for me at least, the whole issue was more complex and threatening to our own democracy than Powell either understands or wished to avoid discussing.
And, then there is the Immigration Bill failure. Dumb...dumb...dumb. We seem to be trying to live in the 21st Century with 19th Century political leadership. Democrats would be wise to elect a new Senate Majority Leader. Failing in a cloture vote, Reid cut off debate himself by withdrawing the bill from the Senate calendar.
This guy whines as if he's just soooo overworked and tortured by it all. To me, Reid served too long in the minority and doesn't seem to grasp that if he can't get an Immigration Bill through the Senate, HE'LL be blamed, not the Republicans. IMO, he should have kept them in session until they'd voted...even if it meant foregoing the "long weekend."
Additionally, the whole approach to the Bill seems to have smelled of "backroom deals" between various "leading" Senators and their respective special interest groups. It was, as Buchanan noted, "a K Street product."
Beyond that, what doomed it was the Bush requirement for a "comprehensive solution." A comprehensive solution was taken to mean a "complex solution."
It's all pretty simple for me. There are basically three parts: border security, the fate of 12 million existing illegal immigrants, and economic issues (both labor and business). So, why not break the Bill up into those parts? First, secure the border. Second, find an equitable solution for the 12 million. Third, arrive at a balanced solution to the conflicting labor and business interests.
On the first, if we cannot devote the resources necessary to control our borders, what makes us think government can accomplish ANYTHING significant? My solution is some type of timetable for reducing illegal border crossings, i.e. taking the current estimates of annual illegal crossings, set goals to reduce such to as close to zero as we can get, over say a five year period.
And, tell the President that we (Congress) consider such a timetable to be essential to national security. Failure to adhere to the timetable will be considered an impeachable offense...i.e. if you can't get the job done, we'll fire you.
IMO, the Bill handled the second issue, what to do with the 12 million, poorly. What clouds the issue is the word amnesty. True, millions "broke" the law to get here, but it was a law only loosely enforced, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. So, I hold the politicians who allowed the situation to occur equally culpable and frankly am more inclined to give the 12 million some sort of amnesty than the politicians.
The problem to me is that these 12 million people need to be addressed almost individually and they range from solid, hardworking families to hard core felons. So, while because they are not citizens and entered illegally, we have a right to sit in judgement over what to do with them, that judgement should be equitable and compassionate, particularly in light of our "wink and a nod" past enforcement practices. Some are certainly worthy of immediate citizenship...amnesty if you will...others a "probationary period," and still others, deportation. Congress needs to set broad guidelines and allow Immigration Courts to determine outcomes on an individual basis. In other words, there is no "comprehensive solution" for 12 million individuals. Learning English, getting to the back of the line, paying taxes, paying a $5,000 fine all may be appropriate in some, even most cases, but not all.
One of the chief arguments against "amnesty" is that it failed to work when we granted such in the eighties. Probably...but this isn't the fault of the illegal immigrants; it is the fault of a lack of border enforcement.
Finally, there are the issues of business and labor. Herein, one has to separate the law of supply and demand from simple greed...on both sides. I would assume that there is a segment of Immigration policy that is NOT economic. There are family concerns, political concerns, education concerns, etc. Putting those aside for the moment, the economic issues fall under the concept of "guest workers," be they doctors, nurses, IT specialists or construction or agricultural workers.
I think the underlying principle for ALL guest workers, consistent with our values and history, is the assumption that all desire American citizenship and should be provided with a path toward citizenship.
Ah, but more on that later.
No comments:
Post a Comment