Putting the "Con" in Contrite
Kevin at The American Street was kind enough to invite me to cross post at his group blog, so I’ll be posting on Tuesdays. Check it out!
political, political cartoons, cartoons, satire, Bush, Mission Accomplished, Iraq
Ramadi lessens odds of strike against Iran
This current rotation of forces into CENTCOM had pushed fifteen US combat brigades into Iraq, while keeping a brigade in Kuwait. That brigade has functioned as an oncall theatre reserve while also lowering the impact of its deployment and thus increasing future availability by staying in a non-combat zone rather than hanging out near Baghdad and getting dinged every couple of days for the past year. I had also speculated that this brigade was being kept in Kuwait as a contigency measure in case the southern supply lines from Kuwait to Baghdad were threatened by another Sadrist style uprising.
Well the Washington Post reports this morning (h/t to Swopa @ Needlenose that this brigade is moving out of Kuwait to reinforce the Marines at Ramadi. In the same article, the Marines control five blocks of the city, and are in almost constant contact with insurgent forces. Time Magazine recently reported that Marine officers believed that they needed at least three US brigades to secure the city, but only had a single brigade present at the time of the article. This reinforcement is still below their requirements but it should put the Marines off the defensive and allow them to expand their perimeter within the city.
However the most interesting thing that I see is not that the insurgency is still very strong in Anbar province, and that the US if fundamentally pinned to its firebases for that is old news, but the lowering of the probability of an attack on Iran. The reserve brigade most likely had a contigency role of clearing the southern supply lines in case there was an attack against Iran. It has become public knowledge that several Iraqi Shi’ite militias, most notably the Mahdi Army, have vocalized support for Iran. This vocalized support increases the probability that they could sit on US supply lines unless there was a credible counter-attack force.
With the US moving a brigade out of Kuwait that could credibly threaten a southern advance in conjunction with US units moving out of Greater Baghdad and going south, the US supply lines become a whole lot more vulnerable if there is an attack against Iran which inspires a general “take a potshot at a US convoy” mentality in the South.
Right now we are entering a window of opportunity for US strikes on Iran as the US is rotating two carriers into the general region while a third is still in the region. The third carrier should be departing 5th Fleet relatively soon if nothing is going to happen. I think that the odds of something happening have gone down.
We’re All Criminals Now
What do Dubya and Hillary have in common?
This just goes to show the absurd lengths to which the music industry has gone in its attack on the concept of “fair use” and its ceaseless efforts to pilfer from music lovers.
Oil chokepoint politics in Iraq
Oil infrastructure is long, linear, and fragile as hell. A single attack against a key node in the distribution and production system can knock the system out. We have seen that repeatedly in the mixed Sunni-Kurdish areas as the Sunni insurgents have knocked out the ability to export oil from Kirkuk and oil fields deeper in Kurdistan through an effective sabotage campaign against pipelines, junctions and bridges.
These chokepoints allow for groups that either control the chokepoint or can legitimately threaten to seize usage control over the chokepoint an immense amount of veto power. The Sunni insurgency has an economic stranglehold on Kurdistan — they can keep them from exporting hard currency producing oil for a very cheap expenditure of men and munitions. This greatly reduces Kurdish option space, while also reducing the central government’s option space as it is cut off from funds it needs. The US instead picks up the tab driving down the willingness and ability to stay.
There is another chokepoint in the country that so far has not been squeezed. And that is Basra. There have been a couple of attacks, including one double boat suicide attack, against the southern oil export infrastructure, but on the whole, the southern infrastructure has been maintained in comparatively decent shape.
However that might be changing. Fadillah, a Shi’ite Islamic party that follows Moqtada Sadr’s father, but has split from the current group of Sadrists in Parliament hold a strong political position within Basra. It is the dominant group there, beating out SCIRI and DAWA for control of the government. It is also a fairly localized group, with little national representation.
In order to improve its political position, Fadilah is threatening a work slowdown so that Iraq’s southern fields and refineries only produce enough fuel to supply internal demand. This would take 1.2-1.5 million barrels of crude off the global market per day, leading to another $8-$10/barrel price increase if they follow through with this threat. If they follow through with the threat, the Baghdad government is broke within weeks. Fadilah has a short term veto position and leverage and it could cause permanent havoc if it decided to use it.
Military options to seize control of the infrastructure against Fadilah workers suck because the Sunni Arab insurgency has demonstrated how easy it is to knock out a system if the system engineers are telling the explosive placement teams where to attack for maximum effect. Never mind the specter of Iraqi Army units going house to house in Basra, as it would be a further incitement to civil war if those units were Sunni Arab or Kurdish units, and primary loyalties of the Shi’ite units are not towards the Baghdad central government.
Le Migre
I typically try and stay away from immigration politics. Much like the Israeli/Palestinian debate, I know embarassing little, and people get pretty fired up over the subject. As a result, I typically keep a pretty hands off issue.
Unfortunately, you just can’t escape the issue, and now that the Senate has passed a bill which would allow for temporary worker programs that give illegal immigrants a path towards citizenship, we are soon to be entertained by a slobber-knocker as the House and Senate get ready to duke out the differences in their bills.
It’s hard to know exactly where to start when we talk about immigration. It’s not a new problem; people have been crossing our borders in the hopes of finding work and a better way of life for decades now. This of course brings up the question: why now?
That’s probably the easiest one to answer. With both the president and the GOP led congress enjoying ridiculously low polling numbers, you can almost watch the sweat fly as they scramble to find an issue they can use to turn around their numbers, and this one on paper looks like a winner.
See, there are three primary arguments when the conservatives start jawing about illegal immigration. Upholding the law, protecting American jobs, and my personal favorite, national security.
The upholding the law angle just strikes me as disingenuous, particularly when it’s coming from members of a branch of congress whose job it is to make up the laws. It’s sort of like if you came over to my place to play some “house rules” Monopoly, and I told you you had to give me fifty dollars every time you roll the dice, and then when there’s some debate on the issue, I just say, “I’m upholding the rules… on principle.” A law doesn’t on its authority as a law alone.
Don’t catch my drift? Try beating your wife and see what happens. Back at the turn of the century (not this last one, the one before that) everything would be cool as long as you didn’t overdo it. But as time has passed, we’ve grown a little wiser (well, that’s questionable, I submit to you evidence A: our president), and decided to make wife beating a little illegal. Which was probably for the best.
All I’m trying to get at here is that standing on the morality of the law alone, without judiciously deliberating on the morality, feasibility, and correctness of that law is a little dodgy. So I don’t buy this one. Call it a gut feeling, but I’m more apt to believe this is an argument developed to allow the xenophobic crowd to take the high ground when they malign illegal immigrants. So what are the real reasons to take the hardliner stance? I’m so glad you asked.
Illegal Immigrants steal our jobs! Yup, you could be innocently on your way to work when some evil illegal immigrant could just come up on you and jack you for your job. I call it job jacking. Okay, look, I grew up in California, the last three or four years of which were spent on a farm. I know the kind of jobs these people are taking. If you are reading this right now, let me tell you something: your job is safe.
Or, as Carlos Mencia put it, “If they pick him over you, HOW BAD WAS YOUR INTERVIEW?!”
Let’s face it, even if you’re making a living flipping burgers at Mickie-D’s, your job is still pretty safe. The fact of the matter is that immigrants take the jobs that you don’t want. I’ve actually participated and watched in some of this work. You’re talking 14-18 hours days picking vegetables. It’s long hard work with no benefits and low pay. Real low pay.
Here’s an interesting sidebar. My stepfather is a Californian Conservative (which is kind of like a libertarion… confused). Growing up in the agricultural industry, he’s had a lifetime of experience dealing with immigrant labor, both legal and illegal. In an interesting conversation with him this morning, he relayed to me an epiphany he had just recently.
For years, he has been familiar with the idea that illegals were vital to America’s agriculture industry. In fact, it has been often opined that without that source of cheap labor, the whole industry would collapse. He went along with this until he remembered something; this was one of the arguments that helped keep slavery alive in the US.
Let’s take this moment right here to remember that these are people. So when Bush first introduced his guest worker program, I hated it. Not that I disagreed with the program, but instead because I hated not disagreeing with the president whole heartedly. It sucks, but I had to at least tip him a little credit for actually being… please don’t make me say it… decent.
I feel so dirty.
Okay, back to our regularly scheduled program. Jobs. Common sense will tell you that illegal immigrants are not the death stroke to the American job market. If you want to help protect American jobs, I’ve got an idea… STOP OUTSOURCING! I don’t know, just a thought.
So that leaves my favorite argument, national security. This is my favorite because it’s just funny. I mean, it’s that ridiculous. What’s not quite so funny is that people are so scared that it actually works. I mean, people are seriously worried that some radical Islamist terrorist is, as we speak, smuggling himself accross the border. The first step in his ultimate goal of recreating 9-11.
Heavy sigh.
Oh, do you hear that? Yes it’s my favorite means of transport: THE LOGIC TRAIN!!!! CHOO CHOO! Get your ticket and your luggage, we’re going on a little ride.
How many people remember when the Al Qaeda handbook came out? Okay, not necessarily a best seller, but there was some good reading in it nevertheless. My favorite part was the gripping bit about how to embed in American society.
See, the whole idea behind a terrorist operative is that they have a mission to complete, and they have certain steps that must be taken to protect the integrity of the mission. Trust me, this is going to be real important in a second.
When you look at the methodology of the terrorists who were actually a part of the 9-11 attacks themselves, you see a running theme. Make sure your visa and other paperwork is in order at all times, shave, wear western style clothing. Don’t be excessively extroverted, but socialize. Some of this stuff goes against the tenets that these people are fighting for, so why do it?
It’s called assimilation, and it’s vital in making sure that the terrorists make it to the endgame without getting caught. In other words, the terrorists that we are so worried about are going to enter America LEGALLY. That’s because if they enter illegally, there are too many factors that can prevent them from accomplish their goals.
It’s common sense. You’re not going to make it to the cockpit of a plane if you’re getting hemmed up by Le Migre at the border. Plain and simple.
What that leaves you with security wise is about the same risk you face from your fellow citizens. The bad apples. Only in this instance I actually prefer my chances. I’d rather come face to face with an emaciated man who hasn’t eaten in a few days than someone who is fit and healthy. I do know karate.
Now look, I’m not saying let’s just open our borders up to everyone, but a wall? A physical wall? And the National Guard? Are you kidding me?
So I ask again, why now? Why this issue? As I said at the beginning of this, it’s the right issue at the right time. It taps into the fears and worries and prejudices of millions of Americans. Xenophobia, racism, fear of terrorism, fear of losing your job in a shit economy, etc.
Of course, I could have saved myself a lot of time if I just wrote something to the effect of, can we focus on an issue that is actually important right now? I’m not a policy wonk, but I have a few ideas, like maybe Iraq, or diplomacy with Iran, or maybe health care. You know, those things. I’m just saying.
Scott McClellan spending more time with his family
political, political cartoons, cartoons, satire, Scott McClellan, White House
Hiding Out With Hastert
Shortly after condemning the FBI’s warranted search of William Jefferson’s office, Republican House Speaker Hastert was seen plodding down the streets of D.C. toward his office muttering, “Sanctuary! Sanctuary!”
Turns out, we now learn, Hastert’s under investigation for putting the clamps down on a Native American tribe’s casino bid shortly after receiving 26 Big Ones from a fundraiser held by Jack Abramoff (who was representing competing tribes opposed to the new proposed casino).
This also explains Hastert’s recent support for “English only” legislation — apparently he believes, under that bill, no one can legally utter quid pro quo.
Applause for Minority Leader Pelosi
I applaud Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi today for asking Congressman Jefferson (D-LA) to resign his powerful House Ways and Means Committee seat due to his alleged ethical and criminal transgressions [you know, the cold $90 grand found in his freezer]
He rejected this request, and both letters can be found at Raw Story
Ms. Pelosi is taking the lead and sending a clear signal that corruption and self-enrichment is not a Democratic value.
Show her some appreciation via e-mail or call (202) 225-4965
Remember, if you are a progressive who wants to see better Democrats elected as the majority, we need to put out a clear incentive structure for current Democrats to act the way that we want. Sometimes those incentives are negative to current Democrats such as the LaMont primary challenge to Joe Lieberman in CT. At other times, they are positive such as telling a leader that we appreciate their leadership. Sticks and carrots folks, sticks and carrots…
The War President
The first part of the Meta-Whore Faust Is story line…
“Here comes the Colonel
and his Sergeant,
on their horses
a roarin’ and a chargin’,
up the hill
and down the mountain,
What did the Indian say?!?”
Nate Solod’s “Feedy Pajamas” from Who Be Dat?’s “Be Careful”
political, political cartoons, cartoons, satire, Bush, Rove, Karl Rove, parody, Kafka, The Metamorphosis, Beckett, Samuel Beckett, Waiting For Godot, Go Go Gophers
Pittsburgh Planning Casino Report
I’m a bit late to this party, but following up on the Post Gazette report on the City Planning report on the casinos, I am underwhelmed. Pat Ford presented to council a recap and brief analysis of the three seperate privately and self-interestedly financed plans and impact statements for the slots license that Pittsburgh will be getting. I am quite sure that he did quite a good job at this, as I know that City Planning as an entity is a very good organization of local government, but the limitation to the analysis is that he presented the information as if it was good faith information.
I agree, Harrah’s, if their numbers are correct or at least reasonably close to correct is the best of the options from the point of view of the city for tax revenue and crime limitation. The physical isolation of Station Square minimizes the ability of low level criminality to expand into relatively distant residential neighborhoods. I just wait with baited breath to turn on the TV and see the slow speed chase up the Monogahela Incline as a purse snatcher tries to get away… but I digress.
The problem that I have with Mr. Ford’s analysis is that it is a limited analysis and trusts that the numbers provided by biased parties are going to be close enough for effective analysis. As I have blogged earlier, I have severe doubts about Harrah’s numbers.
I can’t blame Harrah or PITG or Isle of Capri for inflating their claims. The incentive structure of a winner take all monopoly makes it almost a breach of fidicuary responsibility for the officers of these three groups to not push the envelope as hard and as far as they can and then some.
This incentive structure is fairly clear and it has been obvious in advance for a very long time. The public policy incentive structure is to choose the policy that delivers the most cash at the lowest net social costs. The net social costs are probably going to be underestimtaed. There are the obvious ones, such as casinos generating their own crime according to a recent study out of the University of Georgia, and then the less quantifiable but real negative externalities. Throw in traffic and the extraordinarily probable response of West Virginia legalizing table games within three milliseconds of the first newspaper report that the lines in Wheeling are getting shorter, and the cost benefit analysis from a public policy perspective goes negative real quickly.
Policy makers need to be able to have good information to have a chance in hell of making a satisficing decision. That good information should not be coming from sources who are financially biased towards their own success at the cost of the region. This information should be coming from independent, third party sources which are financed by a party that is not going to capture location dependent revenue. That means the city, county, state, or the foundations should be stepping into the gap and provide for good information.
Not just more Democrats but better Democrats
Signals to be believable have to be costly and hard to fake. The Democrats who want to run against a Republican Congress that is a cesspool of corruption and self-dealing, have an opportunity to send one hell of a signal that they are actually serious about cleaning up Congress — they can and should strip
Chokepoint Politics
Chokepoints are the bottlenecks, the constrained areas through which people, ideas, money, resources must flow through. These chokepoints can be real, such as the Alpine tunnels of Switzerland, or they can be procedural such as the Rules Committee in the House of Representatives, or the convention and primary process. They can also be economic, as in the current global flows of oil and energy consumption rates track very closely to per capita economic growth and wealth levels.
Almost everyone wants to either seize and defend from a chokepoint, or breakthrough and around the chokepoint of their choosing in order to expand more effectively into new territory. Defending from a chokepoint allows the defensive forces to concentrate limited strength against a narrow front and fight from there instead of fighting an adaptive, mobile campaign that requires a higher level of ability, coordination and unity of purpose despite a disunity of activity. Even if a chokepoint can not be permanently defended, a successful defense can be used to buy more time for the status-quo to react (see Thermopolye for the best example).
Chokepoint defenses are not ancient history. The jump into Iraq was an attempt to seize the economic chokepoint of the next twenty years — cheap light sweet crude in order to direct the flows to the US and away from the emerging power of China. Iran is trying to exercise the potential of its power by getting past the nuclear weaponization chokepoints before these passes can be successfully defended by the US. The US is trying to counter this anti-chokepoint Iranian strategy by introducing the idea of a new fissile materials limitation treaty
Chokepoint defense on its own is a very stunning admission of weakness. The British Empire was organized on chokepoint defenses by World War II. Dover, Gibralter, Suez, and Singnapore, were the cornerstones of the defensive posture for the empire — one fell, one was rendered useless for three years as a means of commerce by a fairly small enemy force, and the third was used almost solely to provide support for the second. Only Dover and the new chokepoint of the G-I-UK gap performed anywhere close to their pre-war missions. The Byzantine military doctrine of allowing invaders into the Anatolian plateau and then cutting them off at the passes as they retreated after looting and burning their way through massive amounts of Byzantine wealth and territory was only a slightly weaker defensive doctrine than the British set up.
These chokepoint defensive strategies become prominent as a previously dominant power comes nearer to the end. It allows concentration to be brought to bear against limited probes, and it buys time in the hope that a miracle will occur.
We are seeing that with American politics today. The greatest political chokepoint that has been partisanly fortified has been the judiciary. President Bush’s Yoonamism intrepration of the law of the President as King through his CINC powers in a undeclared, undefined and therefore unwinnable war will be with us through active rulings for twenty to thirty years, and the precedents created will constrain the future by the present’s mistakes, errors, and trade-offs for another fifty to one hundred years.
The Republican Party is fighting chokepoint defenses with state constitutional amendments against gay marriage, and with the English language proposals in the Senate they are fighting against demographics while ignoring the history that all immigrants rather quickly assimilate if one takes a generational time scale.
Yet they are not the only ones fighting chokepoint fights within the American political tradition. The urban machines of Philadelphia and Newark that overwhelmingly elect Democrats are fighting gate-keeper fights. Philadelphia is losing this fight, for the machine was not strong enough to field candidates in all districts. Instead, two reformers, their nearest enemies, were able to win positions of some power merely by showing up. A strong machine is based upon a first principle of being able to mobilize people to show up. The Newark Democratic machine has adapted the Byzantine strategy of letting an opponent all the way with the hope of smashing them on the way out. Even if it works, this is a costly strategy.
American politics and geo-economics are past the point of the previous arrangements, but we have not yet gotten to the point of a new system that works better than fighting over the scraps of growth and redistributions that are still on the table. The past couple of years has been the fermenting of this new challenge, while the nex t half a decade should see where this challenge leads us.
Up or Down for Hayden?
As a general point, this citizen does not believe that a nominee for Director of Central Intelligence should automatically be blocked as a result of his current military status. I do feel though that if confirmed said nominee must immediately resign his post with the U.S. Air Force and don a more traditional suit. The reasoning for this is simple, we can not afford to have someone taking orders from the Pentagon (who takes orders from White House) running our foreign intelligence service.
With that being said, from what I have seen of General Michael Hayden I am impressed. It is obvious this is the kind of man who is up for the job of running the CIA not some political insider with loyalties to the current administration like Porter Goss. Apparently I am not the only one a little smitten with Hayden, William Arkin of the Washington Post had this to say about Hayden in a piece entitled Go, Mike Hayden!.
When Gen. Michael V. Hayden called the tenure of Porter Goss at the CIA “amateur hour on the top floor,” or when he criticized a Rumsfeld inspired ad hoc intelligence office set up in the aftermath of 9/11 to “find” Saddam Hussein links to al Qaeda and build the WMD case for Iraq, they were small but rare and delicious moments.Hayden then went on to say that the CIA was bogged down dealing with day-to-day wartime support in Iraq and Afghanistan – the agency has built its largest overseas station in Baghdad since 2003 – saying that much of what the agency is doing could indeed be better done by the military.
The intelligence community, Hayden said, was too focused on the immediate and not enough looking to the future. It was an ever so subtle criticism of a core Bush administration position that Iraq and Afghanistan are THE fronts in the war on terrorism. We may have made them that, Hayden seemed to be saying, but throwing the preponderance of resources into these battles merely perpetuates a culture of satisfying immediate needs while neglecting a longer term and broader view of the challenges posed by radical Islam. Unstated but indisputable is the implication of this view: Our ongoing wars “against terror” in Iraq and Afghanistan are themselves triggers for global animosity and more terror.
Interesting huh? Let me say this, at this stage of the game I was not expecting this administration to put up anything short of another “Brownie,” the fact that they put up Hayden makes me wonder what they are smoking over there.
My Lai, Iraq?
In the past, I’ve written about how the military time and again spins stories instead of being truthful with the American people about the costs of war.
Last November, more than a dozen Iraqi civilians were killed in an incident involving the U.S. military. First, we were told the civilians died as the result of an insurgent’s IED. Turns out, however, witnesses were able to confirm the dead had bullet wounds.
Story No. 2 then became the civilians were killed in the crossfire during a battle with insurgents.
Rep. John Murtha is now stating a report of an investigation into the deaths will show there was no firefight and that the civilians were killed in cold blood by over-reacting soldiers.
Is it just a matter of “bad things happen in war” or is it that these type of things occur due to war mismanagement — undertraining, overextended troops worn down by pressure, etc.?
UPDATE: MSNBC has just posted a late night report on this tragedy. “This one is ugly,” one official told NBC News.
Fester’s Take on the Bush Immigration Speech
Just a couple of relatively quick reaction thoughts to the Bush immigration speech.
- This was one of his better delivered speeches. The mannerisms, the tones, the lack of smirks was noticable in that this was a serious speech about a serious subject.
- As a liberal, I was not the target audience of the speech, but I thought he did a decent job of walking a relatively fine line
- Bush as a policy wonk with a five point plan was a new twist — Message ‘I’m in charge and competent — so trust me’ won’t work giving the background noise that he is facing, but it was a bit of a shock to see.
- The guest worker program, if well designed and regulated could be a good idea, but that design has to include some compensation/training/educational completion assistance for low skill/low wage American workers — don’t know if that will happen.
- The biometric, tamper proof ID card is fundamentally a national ID card — wonder how the GOP will use this for voter suppression efforts as it seems custom made for that (Hi there Georgia)
- The National Guard to the border is an ineffective joke — a couple of thousand infantry won’t do much, a couple of companies of choppers won’t do much etc. It plays well with the base.
- I was surprised at how little “Terra-ists under the bed” talk there was in the speech, my personal betting line would have been at 40% content instead of about 5-10% content on that subject matter
This was a decent speech. Yet I don’t think it will do anything for Bush politically. If anything this speech reminds me of his stem-cell research speech in that it was designed to split the difference among the Republican base on a quasi-made-up social wedge issue. Until 9/11 happened, that was the big piece of Bushian “leadership” and it was not going over all that well. I think that the same will be said of this speech.
Humane & Fair Immigration
There has been a noticeable lapse of any discussion here about the hot-button issue of immigration. I don’t know if that’s because it is not viewed on the left as that big of a deal or whether there is a reluctance to discuss something on which our views may be divergent. Yet, given that Bush is bringing this issue to the forefront tonight, I thought I would post a piece I recently did on my blog with some of my general thoughts regarding immigration.
Immigration from Mexico has been a politically contentious issue for, at least 30 years (it now also includes a greater immigration coming from Central and South America). Over the last couple decades, an unacknowledged compromise of political convenience set in. Politicians would occasionally pound their chests about being against illegal immigration and about restricting large-scale legal immigration while at the same time they underfunded border enforcement and have looked the other way when it came to the massive use of undocumented workers by American businesses. Indeed, in 2004 under Bush, in a dramatic decrease from past lax enforcement, only 3 employers were served with notices of intent to fine.
The obvious result is that a wave of immigrants making the dangerous crossing over the Mexico-U.S. border to obtain the better paying jobs in the U.S. has continued largely unabated.
Opponents to this wave of imigration argue that it is causing those of us already here adverse economic impacts. But there does not appear to be a good argument that this wave of Mexican and Central American immigration is causing economic damage to the American worker. In my view, the other burdens on society - emergency room visits, the increased expense to our criminal justice system to deal with immigrants who commit crimes, etc. - are outweighed by the daily benefits we receive from these immigrants - loving and cost-effective day care for our children, a hard-working labor force that creates more affordable products and sevices, people willing to take on the risks of hazardous military service, etc.
We are a nation of immigrants that is a beacon to the world because of the opportunity we have provided to peoples of all races and nationalities. In my view, the Latino immigrants who have come to this country over the last few decades have added greatly to our cultural vibrancy as well as our economy. I believe legal immigration has been unduly and unfairly restricted to this wave of Latino immigration and, because of that, I believe there needs to be a broad amnesty program for many of those immigrants who came here illegally but who have been productive members of this society. Additionally, I support reform that expends upon the guest worker programs already in place and that provide for a realistic path to citizenship for those who come here and contribute to our economy and society.
If - and only if - the avenues for legal immigration that leads to citizenship are expanded would I support more money being applied to stricter border enforcement. A plan to send 5,000 reserve troops to the border for two years is pure political pandering which places an additional undue burden on our military strength and fails to reach a long-term solution. Bush is simply looking to score some quick points while hoping this issue simply goes back to the way it was.
The fears that Mexican immigration would collapse our society have been voiced for decades and have not been borne out. It is time to recognize the great contributions that have been made by the Latino immigration and to provide a more humane immigration policy.