There were some aspects of President Bush’s speech on immigration Monday night that might have pleased conservatives, but they were badly overshadowed by elements that were simply maddening.
It was nice to see that Bush spent a whole paragraph on the financial impact imposed on the country by the current wave of illegal immigrants. He hasn’t done that often, if at all, and Monday he specifically mentioned crime, crowded schools, hospital services and strains on local budgets.
In the next breath, however, he said illegal immigrants are “part of American life but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law.”
What in the world does that mean? To suggest that American law doesn’t protect an illegal immigrant is absurd. Police respond when an illegal immigrant calls. Ambulances may be summoned. Emergency care is mandated by law. Public education is free and so is emergency medical care. The fact that some may be exploited by employers intent on evading the law hardly means the illegal immigrant population is beyond the reach of “American law.”
Every person in this country, as the president surely knows, is entitled to the equal protection of the law and to due process. Deportation may be the result, but it is the result mandated by law.
The president, however, was only just warming up in his assault on aspects of the English language. He said, for example, “We are also a nation of immigrants and we must uphold that tradition.” This is utterly unhelpful. The current problem with border security and a wave of illegal immigration would be the same regardless of whether the United States was a “nation of immigrants.” No one dares stand up and shout that we are, or should be, a “nation of illegal immigrants.”
One of the worst aspects of the speech involved the president’s attempt to redefine the word “amnesty” in a way that allows him to be both for and against it. He said, for example, that illegal immigrants who are already here must not be given “an automatic path to citizenship.”
“This is amnesty,” he said, “and I am against it.”
He then described a multistep process in which illegal immigrants would be able to earn citizenship and declared that this approach is not “amnesty,” and he therefore supports it.
Quick, someone get a dictionary! Amnesty is the act of forgiving a past offense. It is the act of removing the penalty for that past offense. It matters not if the forgiveness is in one step or two, or whether it is done in one day or over a period of months. The important thing is that the penalty – deportation or the possibility of deportation – has been removed.
Finally, Bush built much of his speech around the notion that nothing less than “comprehensive immigration reform” will be enough. The use of this phrase is intended to put opponents of open borders and amnesty on the defensive, and to imply that Congress is now in a position to fix the problem by doing two quite contradictory things: get tough on immigration while simultaneously welcoming a self-selected group of about 12 million illegal immigrants.
This might be funny if it weren’t so offensive. The so-called “comprehensive” approach isn’t really comprehensive at all. It doesn’t address the issue of birthright citizenship (babies born here are automatically citizens), nor does it define – let alone mandate – ways for local and state governments to aid the feds in immigration enforcement. It doesn’t answer the question of how those who have been here less than two years are to be “made to go home.” If it is true that 12 million can’t be deported, isn’t it equally clear that 2 million can’t?
The president, let’s face it, long ago made his position on this issue quite clear. His speech Monday didn’t do much beyond reinforce earlier impressions.
His main contribution was thus not the one he intended. By inviting both sides in this debate to join in some middle position, he has instead made it easier to pick a side. So if it is to be a battle between the Senate and the more enforcement-minded House, let’s hear it for the House.
Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post’s editorial-page staff. His column appears on Wednesdays.
