bush vs. fox

I haven't kept up well with Malkin's work on immigration lately but I was able to listen to her this morning on C-SPAN radio answering questions at a young conservatives' conference of some sort. Though she's generally not as impressive a speaker as she is a columnist and blogger* (I haven't read either of her books yet so I can't comment there) she's at least willing to say what needs to be said. And she certainly has a way of answering in terms we can all understand, if you catch my drift.

Anyway, one of her responses stuck with me. I don't remember what the question was, but in answering she posed the question of which president cares more about his people's well-being or something to that effect. Perhaps there was some discussion to be had there at one point but now it's a rhetorical question. Hence Malkin basically treated it as a given and didn't bother with a needless explanation. And that's where I come in!

While we may disagree with his tactics, there's no disputing that Vicente Fox is putting the interests of his own people first and foremost when it comes to illegal immigration. I mean, the money illegal immigrants send back across the border accounts for one fifth of the Mexican GDP.* That's second only to oil! Of course Vicente is going to try to protect that huge chunk of his country's economy if he's just out to better his people and determined to not let laws or honesty get in the way. And it's obvious that's what he's doing. Is he knowingly spitting on U.S. laws and border protection? Of course. Is he acting like a sleazy scoundrel on the international stage? Is he proving that he cares not what happens up here as long as that illegal cash flow keeps sending dollars in? Yes and yes. But, again, who can argue that he's not looking out for the best interests of Mexico?

Now let's take Dubya. He has made a consistent practice of rolling over and playing dead on immigration since taking office and I don't see him growing a spine on the issue anytime soon. He refuses to take the next-step measures necessary to really protect the border, such as stiffening illegal employment penalties, jacking up identification standards here in the states, or even adding military personnel to the border force. Despite the loss of jobs and lowering of wages due to the influx of an illegal and dirt-cheap labor force, and despite the ramifications being felt across society from crime to education to national security, Bush simply refuses to open his eyes or even acknowledge the problem. This is absurd. We have a Republican president and he won't do a damn thing to add some real punch to our border control?! What a shame. This could well be the single greatest crisis facing our country and Dubya is asleep at the wheel. To put it in blogosphere terms, Bush is in bad need of a thwacking with a clue-by-four.

Now, even accounting for Bush's willingness to take the war on terror to enemy soil, who has shown more concern for the protection of the social and economic well-being of his people? Fox or Bush? The answer should be obvious. So obvious in fact that if you're not convinced of Bush's greater negligence in these matters I'll take the blame myself for not presenting such overwhelming evidence well enough.

* This only holds for radio broadcasts. Now with TV...other factors come into play. Not that this detracts from her arguments, mind you.

** Or is it GNP--heck, I get those two confused all the time. But the point is still clear.

UPDATE: Speaking of the Immigration Blog, Chris Kelly tears up a lame Matthew Dowd NYT editorial defending illegal immigration as a temporary problem that will fade with time. Some quotes from the article speak for the stupidity of such a take.

...any long-term project to close off the United States-Mexico border may use up money that could be more useful elsewhere...

More useful than combating the biggest threat to our internal security and thus our country as a whole? Bullbleep. I'm not sure any amount of money or resources could truly do justice to the problem--and if there is some amount it's too high to be a factor at this point.

...legislators and government agencies should spend more time and resources addressing the problems of immigrants already here and our direct security needs, and much less time on prescriptive laws aimed at stemming illegal immigration from Mexico...

Whoa, let's read the key words again. "...more time and resources addressing...our direct security needs..." Oh, you mean such "direct security needs" as PREVENTING TERRORISTS AND CRIMINALS FROM WALKING FREELY ACROSS OUR %#$&ING BORDER?! WTF is wrong with this clown?!?! You know why we have problems with immigrants already here? Because we've failed for years to stop them from coming in, you damn fool. If a roof is leaking you don't deal with the inside until you've fixed the leak. If a boat is taking on water you plug the hole then start throwing water over. Which will waste more resources, fixing the cause or addressing the results of a continuing problem? And this guy is some sort of big name in the Republican party? That helps to explain why they seem to be following the Dems off the deep end.

The post title says it all: "Is the GOP leadership on your side?" Well, that's a good question Chris. Or was. I guess now it's obvious they aren't. I don't know whose side they are trying to be on but it sure ain't ours.