President's Middle Path Disappoints Both Sides

[cal04]

President's Middle Path Disappoints Both Sides of Sharply Divisive Immigration Issue
As Jose F. watched President Bush's address from an apartment on this city's Northwest side, he shook his head fiercely at moments: at the prospect of tamper-proof identification cards for legal workers, at the many mentions of increased border security, and at what he saw, in the end, as uncertainty of the future Mr. Bush intended for illegal immigrants like himself.

I worry about the militarization and whether this will mean more deaths on the border," said Jose F., 27, who sneaked in from Mexico nearly eight years ago and who asked that his last name not be used because he feared losing his job at a social services agency, deportation or both. "And identification cards will only make it harder to survive, and people will have to go further underground and work for cash." In Houston, meanwhile, Louise Whiteford watched the president with equal skepticism.

Ms. Whiteford, president of Texans for Immigration Reform, a group opposed to illegal immigration and founded in 1999, swiftly took issue with several of Mr. Bush's promises and accomplishments, including an increase in the Border Patrol to 12,000 agents from 9,000 since his administration took over. "This is very inadequate," Ms. Whiteford, 76, said. "That's about the number of police in Fort Worth and Dallas." When the president said he planned to add 6,000 more by 2008, she shook her head, noting, "That's too long." If Jose F. and Ms. Whiteford were any indication, Mr. Bush managed to disappoint people on both sides of the immigration debate on Monday night.

Each side said it had hoped to hear more encouraging words over an issue that has become a showdown in Congress and on the streets of cities like Los Angeles and Chicago. Each side saw hints of an extended fight ahead. Some supporters of tighter border restrictions said they did not approve of the way they said Mr. Bush had signaled that he wanted some of the nation's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to become legal. On the other hand, some immigrants and their advocates said they did not agree with his clearly stated opposition to anything resembling "amnesty."

more
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/us/16react.html?hp&ex=1147838400&en=426293d44951e52a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[napi21]

1. If you listened to all the analysis on the cable shows after the speech,

you know they all agree with that assesment. If his intention was to get his base back, he failed. It doesn't even seem that the folks in the middle thought anything positive of his remarks.

The one I did agree with was, of all people, Tweety! He said he thought it was intended to be a diversion to get the news of NSA, Plame leak, Cheney's notes on the newspaper, etc, OUT OF THE HEADLINES! I was a bit surprised to hear Tweety say that, but I think it's true! Funny thing is, it didn't accomplish THAT either!

[Theduckno2]

2. The "Decider" decided to equivocate.

He tried this before with his stance on stem cell research.

He relied on cheap emotional rhetoric to glorify the immigrant and then spoke of "meaningful penalties" before granting citizenship.

I feel he tried to stake out a vast middle ground for his political gain and only committed to oppose both deportations of all illegal immigrants and universal amnesty.

His plan to rely on more high-tech surveillance and bio-metric cards is worrisome to me.

[stevietheman]

3. Shrub sure does love to dance on third rails, doesn't he? :) n/t

n/t