Local and national reactions to President Bush’s Monday night address announcing his immigration reform plan haven’t reflected favorably on the president so far. In the address Bush proposed sending 6,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S.-Mexico border and he endorsed temporary worker programs for illegal aliens.
Although a handful of Congress members have shown general support for Bush’s speech, most news reports across the country have reflected discontent with Bush’s address and his goals. Fox News reported that U.S. House of Representatives members saw the address as an attempt to win political favor. The Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times reports cited critics arguing that Bush needs a more comprehensive plan for border troops. The New York Times reported that some House representatives thought the National Guard was already spread too thin and that the plan was a “Band-Aid solution.”
Tim Russert, managing editor and moderator for NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said before the speech that in order to quell a crumbling conservative base and plummeting popularity polls, which showed a 30 percent approval rating before the address, Bush would shoot for a middle ground between showing compassion for illegal immigrants and strength on border patrol.
In his speech, Bush highlighted contrasting movements taking place so far this year – rallies in support of illegal immigrants and at the borders trying to stop trespassing into the U.S. He said he opposed blanket amnesty and disagreed with mass deportations.
University professor of political science Eric McGhee, who is teaching a course this term on public opinion, said he didn’t think Bush’s proposals would decide many votes in the upcoming election and that it was not a politically smart move.
“He offered a compromise to placate the warring factions within his own party,” McGhee wrote in an e-mail. “But I don’t think immigration will decide many votes. Republican fortunes are tied to Iraq, and to widespread pessimism about the economy.”
He added in a subsequent e-mail that he’s baffled that Republicans are fighting over immigration right now.
“Conventional wisdom says you suppress issues that divide your party, especially when an election is around the corner. But party leaders like (U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill) Frist and Bush are the ones pressing the issue. If someone has an explanation for this I’d love to hear it, because it doesn’t make much sense to me.”
To stop abuses of social services and ease pressure on schools and hospitals, Bush said the National Guard will operate surveillance systems, help build fences and patrol roads. The 6,000 troops are scheduled to be put in place by the end of 2008.
College Democrats co-Chairwoman Kristina Edmunson said Tuesday she was glad to see the issue addressed because people across campus and across the country are talking about it. But she said she wondered, considering the presence of National Guard troops in Iran and Afghanistan, where these troops will come from.
“It isn’t necessarily a bad thing. … I just don’t think the plan that the president proposed last night is the right one,” she said.
She said when she thinks of military personnel walking the streets she thinks of third-world countries, not the United States.
“A lot of people and communities were saying, ‘I don’t want these people here, I don’t want them in my neighborhoods, I don’t want them in the streets,’” she said.
Lynn Stephen, a University professor of anthropology, wrote in an e-mail that the president’s proposal to send troops is not a solution and that enforcement-only approaches don’t work.
“It is a move which will embolden the Minutemen and others who want to deport all 11 to 12 million undocumented people here now,” she wrote.
She said the other aspects of the speech lacked comprehensive reform, clarity and complexity, and said a path to citizenship is a “necessary bottom-line” for a successful policy toward immigration.
“I hope that those who are working to craft a truly comprehensive plan will stick to it and not succumb to the political diversion of the president’s ‘plan’ to further militarize the border with National Guard troops who are already stretched beyond capacity on multiple fronts,” she wrote.
“If we cannot work out a sensible and comprehensive immigration bill now, the movement for immigrant rights will continue to grow and the country is likely to become even more deeply polarized about the issue,” she wrote.
Andy Dolberg, a former ASUO Executive hopeful and member of the College Republicans, said in an interview that he doesn’t blame immigrants for crossing the border illegally because there are clear economic incentives to come to the U.S.
“It’s clearly a failure of the United States government that states and cities are suffering,” he said.
Dolberg, who considers himself a very conservative libertarian, said he sees the address as a political move to simultaneously appease conservatives and the millions of protesters in the streets.
He said Bush contradicted himself about the temporary worker program in the address by saying the hospitals and schools are being hurt by illegals while encouraging millions of people to take advantage of crossing the border legally.
Dolberg proposed enforcing current laws, limiting the use of welfare money and putting more resources into combating these misuses of social services.
Local House Rep. Peter DeFazio said in a statement released Tuesday that the issue is complex, but he has long been a proponent of strong enforcement and employer sanctions. He opposes massive guest worker programs.
“Given that the failed and corrupt government of Mexico encourages illegal immigration, the Bush administration should push for economic reforms in Mexico and enforcement on the Mexican side of the border,” he said in the statement.
Bush called on Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill for him to sign into law in the next month. The House has already passed one bill, but it has been attacked as being too harsh on illegal immigrants – making them automatic felons – and on those who aid illegal immigrants, such as social service clinics and religious institutions.
“We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say,” he said.