bush immigration: Page 1
I don't know if some third party writes the lines and talking points that illegal immigration supporters use, but sometimes it certainly seems that way.
Bush, Obama admins suppressed studies showing impact of illegal immigration on public lands - 12/10/09
According to this, Rep. Rob Bishop thinks the Department of the Interior in both the Bush and Obama administration has suppressed two studies showing the damage that illicit traffic is doing to public and other lands on the border:
The first, from 2002, was a threat assessment for such places as Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and the Tohono O'odham Nation.
It concluded the threat was great indeed, both from the surge of aliens and drug smugglers who are "decimating public resources," and from the invitation the open border offered terrorists...
The second study, from 2004, looked at how the open border impacted Sonoran Desert wilderness in southwest Arizona, mainly Organ Pipe. This picture was equally grim—for the land, for endangered species and for the whole concept of border wilderness.
Both studies noted that the Border Patrol policy of blocking entry around cities and border ports pushed this illegal activity into remote areas.
Taking advantage of natural defenses isn't a bad thing, but in any case, the link goes in to attempts by both Tucson Weekly and Bishop to obtain the reports and getting the run-around. It also references this November article about conflicts between Interior and the Department of Homeland Security over the virtual fence and DHS operating on NPS land, and this video where Bishop presses Ken Salazar on the reports: peekURL.com/vgyp7x5
Bush pardons man convicted of conspiracy to harbor and transport illegal aliens, but not Ramos and Compean - 12/23/08
Two people not on the list are Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean; pardoning them would send the wrong message: that our borders have meaning.
However, showing exactly where his loyalties lie, one of those pardoned was convicted of conspiracy to harbor and transport illegal aliens:
...And I'm a little concerned about the tone of the immigration debate, labeling our party as "anti"-people. It's one thing to say they want the border enforced, and I understand that. But if a group of people think that a political party is against them, it doesn't matter what else you stand for. And the tone, in my judgment, at times got to be "anti." At one point in our history we had too many Jewish people and too many Italians. I don't know if you remember that. And it was -- I'm just confident people were saying, I can't believe this is the America that I came to live in where I'm "anti" -- people are "anti"-me.Who exactly is "they" in the second sentence? Wouldn't the normal thing be to use "you" when referring to a non-specific group of people? I assume Bush considers himself and those like the members of the AEI to be a completely different class of persons from the Great Unwashed.
And so we're going to have to work, like, with the Latino vote to say, we care about you, we hear you, and we share your values -- faith and family, small businesses, military vets or, you know, disproportionate -- more Latinos serve as a percentage of their -- of population in the military than any other group, if I'm not mistaken.
The rest of statements have been said by many others, so to save time arguments showing how they're all wrong will be added at a later date; check the tags below.
Unemployment highest in 15 years, Bush administration won't step up immigration enforcement - 12/05/08
Coming on the heels of layoff announcements by major corporations, including AT&T, Labor Department reports released today show that employers cut 533,000 jobs in November, increasing the unemployment rate to 6.7 percent... The unemployment rate, meanwhile, hit its highest level in 15 years. The data also suggest that of the 430,000 Americans who had been working or seeking work in October and left the workforce in November, many were people who simply gave up looking for a job. If they'd had kept looking, the unemployment rate would be closer to 7 percent.
"Since so many American citizens have been laid off their jobs, I wanted to ask, how long before the federal government begins an unprecedented drive to apprehend and deport those law-breaking illegal aliens who hold..."
She interrupted him to say "All right, that will do it", after which Kinsolving finished his question: "…so many U.S. jobs and receive many U.S. government benefits?" Then, Perino went on to say:
"Look, you know how I feel about immigration... We've talked about it before. The president has put in strong interior enforcement measures, but we also think that we should have a compassionate side to the United States and to think about putting in place a temporary worker program so that we can help safeguard our economy, but also help those individuals.'
White House officials said [the backlash] had led them to engage the blogosphere in a concerted way for the first time, posting defenses on liberal and conservative sites.
One would think that if White House representatives had been engaging the blogosphere, I would have heard about it. I know that Hugh Hewitt interviewed Tony Snow, and I make a habit of never visiting RedState, but that's the only two possibilities I can think of. And, one would think that if they had outreached to "liberal" sites they would have posted about that; I doubt whether DailyKos has been allowing Karl Rove to post a diary there under his own name.
Note also that the White House has been "posting defenses", which might imply that they've been posting comments. Did they identify themselves as being with the Bush administration?
Or, did they (just as an example!) get a cheap-o dial-up account or use a proxy to disguise where their comments were coming from? That's certainly something worth looking into, especially if any laws were broken by doing so.
I note also the furious nature with which the David Leonhardt smear of Lou Dobbs spread around the internet (partial list of sites discussing it here). Call me paranoid, but to me it seemed a bit like a coordinated attack. I note also that according to technorati, the first major sites linking to it, in addition to mediabistro.com and the usual smear merchants like ThinkProgress and puffballs like andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com, were academics: poliblogger.com, brendan-nyhan.com, marginalrevolution.com, and economistsview.typepad.com, with the last three being open borders, "free" trade "economists". I note also that economist.com followed up with their own smear, as did the Columbia Journalism Review. There are also at least five dupe links to the same NYT article at digg.com, a fairly large number.
Obviously, this is all just speculation, but if the White House has been spreading propaganda on the federal government's dime, then perhaps someone should look into it. Especially if it's been covert.
UPDATE: Someone like Les Kinsolving should ask Tony Snow for a full list - including URLs - of the defenses they've posted. An enterprising citizen journalist could even file an FOIA request looking for a list of websites visited by White House staff filtered by blogs and forums and any information on dial-up accounts or proxies used.
UPDATE 2: Based on comments, we've got The Corner as another possibility and there are apparently White House posts at RedState (as if you could tell the difference). But, where are the liberal sites the NYT mentioned above?
In this video segment from 2004, Margaret Spellings  described how Bush's original "guest" worker scheme would be open to *everyone*, specifically mentioning nurses, teachers, and high-tech workers. In brief, president Bush wanted to open (most of) the U.S. labor market to the world, including (previously) middle-class occupations.
Oddly enough, the Democrats completely failed to highlight Bush's disastrous, anti- and un-American plans during the 2004 elections. If they had, John Kerry would be president today.
President Bush's new budget would pay for only about half of the 700 miles of U.S.-Mexico border fence he and Congress four months ago promised to build.
Washington --- The Bush administration acknowledged Monday the wholesale failure of past efforts to enforce immigration laws in the workplace and warned that a major Senate-passed overhaul fails to provide the necessary tools to fix the problem.
A similar picture is here. [UPDATE: That and the following pics are no longer there; links removed.]
A scowling closeup with El Presidente pointing his finger is here. In that shot, his shirt looks vaguely like a guayabera.
The following shots have a Border Patrol symbol in the background: middle ground, long, and a side view.
I believe the best way to characterize it is as a lame attempt to further divide Bush from his base. The subtext of the article is that the latter are opposed to illegal immigration because - quite unlike Bush - they're opposed to Hispanics or Mexicans.
This article contains a chart of the number of worksite arrests of illegal aliens per year:
1997: 17,554 1999: 2,849 2000: 953 2001: 735 2003: 445 2004: 159
And, here's the letters sent out warning of a fine over violations for hiring illegal aliens:
1997: 865 1999: 417 2000: 178 2001: 100 2003: 162 2004: 3
Now, president Bush says we need to reform our immigration laws? Should anyone trust anything they say?
A Government Accountability Office staffer told a House panel yesterday that workplace enforcement of immigration violations had fallen sharply under the Bush administration.
For an example, here are the numbers of employers who received formal letters warning about fines for possible violations of immigration laws:
Clinton in 1999: 417 employers
Bush in 2003: 3 employers
From the 10/13 debate, President Bush (link):
...I believe there ought to be a temporary worker card that allows a willing worker and a willing employer to mate up, so long as there's not an American willing to do the job...
I wonder how many nurses, teachers, or high-tech workers would work for $8 an hour. Wait, you didn't know that Bush's "guest worker" plan would be open to those people too?
Bill O'Reilly interviewed President Bush, and the first part of the interview was broadcast on Monday. I didn't see it, but a transcript is here. I couldn't find an official transcript, but since that agrees with the quote printed in Bush: Militarizing Border Won't Stop Illegal Deluge (link). I'm going to assume it's largely accurate.
President Bush made a pitch for his proposed temporary worker program before the nation's largest Hispanic rights group on Thursday.
Bush, via satellite, addressed the League of United Latin American Citizens convention in San Antonio.
Bush proposed allowing legal and illegal immigrants to work in the United States under renewable three-year permits...
Mark Krikorian writes about a Cato Institute panel on the Bush/Fox Amnesty (nationalreview . com/comment/krikorian200401260938.asp). Of particular note are the remarks made by Margaret Spellings, "assistant to the president for domestic policy, and point person for the president's immigration proposal":
I created a thread here about the Dallas Morning News article "Mexican ID opens doors for undocumented workers in U.S." (link). The subtitle of the article is 'Critics say 'matricula' is a tool to facilitate illegal immigration', which in a way summarizes the whole article: it's mostly pro-Matricula Consular, with a few anti-MC comments thrown in for a semblance of balance.
Of particular note: