DADvocate

Bush's speech means nothing to me. Whether there is any truth or coming action in his words remains to be seen. Mainly, I wonder what he means by this:

That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently – and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law … to pay their taxes … to learn English … and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship – but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have just described is not amnesty – it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.

The message here is that if you break the law long enough we will take it easy on you. I still say. Don't bother to round up and deport. First, secure our borders, all borders. Many, perhaps most, illegal immigrants from Mexico return to Mexico on a regular basis. Indeed, they are temporary workers, make them re-enter properly and as temporary workers. Illegals found in the U.S. should face the full extent of the law not some ex post facto forgiveness. Why should an illegal immigrant who has been her 5 or 10 years receive preferential treatment over one who’s been here 5 or 10 days? Makes no sense.

Some think we should be afraid of the immigrants.

Remember those immigration protests of hundreds of thousands of Latinos in the last couple of weeks? Imagine those as immigration riots.

Think we had a "law enforcement" issue before?

Ooooh, they might riot. Let's cower in fear. Same logic many used regarding the Mohammed cartoons.

Another aspect that I dislike is that, once again, the law-abiding citizen and/or legal immigrant take it on the nose. Whether it is gun control, Homeland "security", or whatever popular causes the government takes up, life doesn't change much for the criminals. Prison is prison. But those who follow the law suffer more intrusion into their privacy; pay more in whatever the cost in time, money and effort to comply with the law. Government loves to take the money of the good guy while pandering to the demands of the undeserving.

Overall I fall somewhere between Michelle Malkin and HurricanRadio. I certainly don't share HurricaneRadio's optimism, probably because I'm older. For me the proof is in the pudding. For too many years politicians have made promises and failed to deliver. In this case, the promises aren't that great.