A crisis of confidence
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50243
Alan Keyes
May 17, 2006
During his speech Monday night, President G.W. Bush acknowledged in a
breathtaking understatement that, "We do not have full control of the
border." If this were the beginning of his first term, and he had expressed
a determination to correct the failed policies of a predecessor, that
statement might imply no dereliction of duty in his administration. As
things stand, it represents an acknowledgement that under his administration
the federal government has failed to fulfill one of its clearest and most
vital responsibilities. Many Americans are wondering why.
The question raises serious doubts as to the credibility, not only of the
present administration, but of the national political elite of both parties.
The president and others suggest that we must urgently address the crisis of
the millions of immigrants who are in this country illegally. But this
crisis is the direct result of years of willful neglect by political leaders
who have sought their own political advantage and profit for their financial
backers, at the expense of America's vital interest.
This they have done during a period of war against the insidious threat of
terror, when the danger to our national security could hardly have been more
explicit. We have the right to be more than a little doubtful about the
credibility of politicians who tell us that we must urgently dash forward to
resolve a problem greatly aggravated by their own willful incompetence.
Right now, their lack of credibility is the issue. Rushing National Guard
troops to the border is just the kind of temporary palliative that would
suit the purposes of politicians seeking to manipulate public perception.
They think that a gullible public will buy this as a substitute for the
serious institutional and legal changes that are necessary to secure the
border. With security concerns momentarily placated, they move forward with
their real goal, a guest-worker cum amnesty program that assures a supply of
cheap labor for some corporate interests, while providing new opportunities
for illegal entrants to mask their unlawful status. When public attention
shifts elsewhere, the National Guard's role (designed to be ineffective to
begin with) is phased out, and the border is left more wide open than
before.
We would be less inclined to believe in this scenario if President Bush
hadn't dismissed pursuit of effective border security measures under the
rubric of "militarizing" the border. G.W. Bush is a wartime president. His
administration hasn't been even a little hesitant to use the imperatives of
national security to justify steps that overshadow the legal rights and
activities of American citizens. Yet when it comes to the activities of the
network that sustains illegal immigration, he daintily seeks to avoid
"militarization." In wartime, the military is usually mobilized to defend
the country. It's more than odd that a wartime president - and a Republican
at that - would use a phrase that attaches a faint odor of opprobrium to the
business of defending our borders.
The truth is that the changed realities of the situation along our southern
border demand a new institutional response. We need a National Border Guard,
organized like the Coast Guard, as an element of our armed forces. They
should be trained in both lethal and non-lethal methods, and appropriately
equipped as a rapid-deployment force against the variety of threats, both
possible (like terrorist infiltration) and common (like drug trafficking and
illegal entry) along the border. The Border Guard should be supplemented by
a Citizen Auxiliary, organized, trained and equipped to act as spotters
(like the citizens of Great Britain who kept lookout along that nation's
coastline during World War II). They would work along a fenced perimeter, in
coordination with electronic surveillance, to supply information to Border
Guard outposts that would handle the deployment of appropriately prepared
rapid-response teams.
By dismissing such comprehensive measures as "militarization," the president
implies we can deal with a dramatically altered situation by incrementally
expanding old approaches that he acknowledges to be a failure. This
suggestion has no credibility, and it only serves to aggravate the suspicion
that the real agenda is not to secure the border, but to secure certain
political and financial advantages for some people at the expense of the
people as a whole. If we are concerned with the common good, we cannot and
will not be satisfied until comprehensive measures are in place to establish
lasting and effective control of the border.
Finally, it was unfair and disingenuous of the president to suggest that
people like me - who favor this essential priority - envisage indiscriminate
and mass deportation as the proper way to address the situation of the
illegal immigrants who have already been in the United States for some
years. We are not averse to opening a proper path to citizenship for any who
truly wish to be Americans (a wish signified, among other things, by eagerly
learning the common language that allows our diverse population to
communicate). But if we take steps in this direction without first securing
the border and establishing a regime of vigorous enforcement for our
immigration laws, any move to open this path will rightly be regarded around
the world as a signal that we lack the political will to maintain and defend
our border and our national identity. To insist, as the president has, on a
"balanced and simultaneous approach," gives the appearance of moderation,
but really continues the policies of extreme and willful neglect that have
produced this crisis.
Given their track record, we have no reason to trust the administration or
the political elites of either party when it comes to border security. Their
first priority should be to restore our trust. If they refuse to respect
that priority, it can only be because they no longer regard the American
people as their proper constituents. But if, on an issue so vital to our
national identity they do not represent us, whom do they represent? If they
do not serve us, whom do they serve?
The border security crisis serves to reveal a deeper one, which has at its
heart this question: If the elites produced by both the existing political
parties are no longer willing to defend the nation's borders, how can we
trust them to defend its life?
If for the sake of special interests and political ambition, they abandon
the invisible line that defines our national territory, what of the
intangible principles that define our liberty and the sovereignty of our
people? President Bush and the Senate elite may think they are dealing with
a crisis about immigration, but in fact it is a crisis of confidence, and
its all about them.
--
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/anti_multiculture/index.html
Unite Against Multiculturalism!
"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up the Traitors!"
|
227882. A Crisis of Confidence
|
|