Oh no, President Bush is a liberal left wing illegal alien apologist, aiding and abetting the enemy? Although I am no fan of President Bush’s, I wonder, how do all the Republicans get past this idea of “compassionate conservatism” as it relates to illegal immigration? In this most recent article, the Washington Post demonstratesthat President Bush clearly sees the future of the Republican party on the precipice of a downward spiral unless a new inclusive dynamic is implemented.
President Bush called for a “compassionate” Republican Party and warned against the GOP becoming “anti-immigrant” in one of his last interviews as president, defending his vision of the party, which has become unpopular among some Republicans.
“It’s very important for our party not to narrow its focus, not to become so inward-looking that we drive people away from a philosophy that is compassionate and decent,” the president said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday” that was aired yesterday. “We shouldn’t have litmus tests as to whether or not you can be a Republican. And we should be open-minded about big issues like immigration reform, because if we’re viewed as anti-somebody — in other words, if the party is viewed as anti-immigrant — then another fellow may say, ‘Well, if they’re against the immigrant, they may be against me.’ ”
I do find it interesting that he does not see his legacy or behavior as complicit in the overwhelming loss of the GOP in so many 2008 races….the wars, the Katrina fiasco, failed energy innovation, the economy, shall I go on! Alas, this is the topic for another thread, let’s just concentrate of immigration for now. With this gem recently written by the President of the Center for Immigration Study (arm of FAIR), Mark Krikorian, it is clear the underlying issue with immigration is NOT about illegality, but instead simply about immigration from central America:
For too long the Republican story line has been “Too Much Lawbreaking,” when instead the real problem is “Too Much Immigration” — only one part of which involves lawbreaking. This exclusive focus on illegal immigration — opposing amnesty and pushing for more enforcement — is both incomplete and counterproductive. Incomplete because the effects of illegal immigration aren’t that different from those of legal immigration — an illiterate Central American farmer with a green card is just as unsuited for a 21st-century economy as an illiterate Central American farmer without a green card. And it’s counterproductive because the focus on criminality can seem punitive and serve to polarize the debate, potentially aliening not just immigrant voters, who really aren’t that numerous, but the native-born, who want less immigration but don’t want to feel bad about themselves for holding such a view.