IMMIGRATION AND TERRORISM

PALEO v. STATE OF THE UNION (Part 2)

This is the second of a two-part series dealing with the recent State of the Union address. The first dealt with his remarks on immigration and the economy. This deals with remarks pertaining to Iraq, the so-called War on Terror, and the Middle East.

BUSH: "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else."

PALEO: I am curious then as to how you explain saying that our aim is "build" preserve free and independent nations, with democratic governments answerable to their citizens. This isn't the government they had before. A secular democracy, one which is "encouraged" by you and others, is a form of government entirely alien to their people. There is no precedent here. It is, in its most basic form, an imposition of an alien system upon an alien people.

BUSH: "Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures."

PALEO: Why did this sentiment not fly with Palestine, Syria, or Iran? What happens when Hamas, The Muslim Brotherhood, or Hizballah get the majority vote? What happens if Saudia Arabia were to become democratic? Would we settle for Sharia in Iraq or Afghanistan? What if Al Qaeda received a popular vote in Pakistan or Indonesia? We have expectations, and we will not permit the people to speak were they to vote in favor of such ideologies.

BUSH: "Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq."

PALEO: Our generational commitment? Who committed us? Certainly not the brave men who put their lives on the line to create an independent Republic. This is Wilsonian to the core, having no precedent in the historical American tradition.

BUSH: "That country is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there."

PALEO: No, Iraq is a distraction. Iraq was not necessary. And terrorists are there because we are there. If we were in Saudi Arabia, they would be there. If we were in Syria, Pakistan, or Iran, they would be there. They believe that we are evil, granted; but when an "evil" is in their front yard, they take it personal. They feel, as would we, that these military actions are an affront on their religion and their culture. The only difference is that they, unlike us, take their religion and culture very serious.

BUSH: "Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we do not have to face them here at home."

PALEO: This flies in the face with what you said earlier in your admission that terrorists are entering this country through our borders. You readily admit that they are not only "over there," but also "over here." The only problem is that our troops are over there and not over here. If terrorists wish to hurt us, they must be here. They can only get here through borders, immigration, visitations, and work visas. But what have we done to stop them from using these means to enter our country? Nothing.

BUSH: "Freedom in Iraq will make Americans safe for generations to come."

PALEO: We were safe from Iraqis when they weren't free. Iraqis could be foaming at the mouth and burning our flags all they want, so long as they do so over there. Our security from such radicalism, something that was relatively uncommon in pre-war Iraq, will only come from securing our borders, protecting our coasts, checking imports, and crunching down on who we let in this country.

BUSH: "We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself."

PALEO: The goalposts have changed so many times, the American people are getting dizzy! Take down Saddam. Check. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Didn't work out the way we were promised. Setting up a government. Check. Helping rebuild infrastructure. Check. Arming and training a police force. Check. Elections. Check. Now these? Seriously, we are acting more like the Peace Corp than the US Military. These standards are not only high, they are utopian.

PALEO v. STATE OF THE UNION (Part 1)

This is the first of a two-part series. The first deals with immigration and the economy. The second will deal with military interventionism and the so-called War on Terror.

BUSH: Claims that we have a "healthy, growing economy, with more Americans going back to work."

PALEO: Economic indicators point towards anything but healthy. The growth we do have is in service jobs with the food industry and janitorial services leading the way. Americans, contrary to the president's claims, are losing jobs left and right. In fact, the job growth we did have doesn't even match the rate by which Americans are entering the job market.

BUSH: "Now we must add to these achievements. By making our economy more flexible, more innovative, and more competitive..."

PALEO: The problem here is with free trade agreements and government regulations and taxation. We are not competitive because the deck is stacked against us. How can American producers choosing to stay stateside compete with third world countries? The cost of production resulting from regulations, taxation, and the quotas placed on our good by foreign countries makes it virtually impossible for us to compete on a level (or semi-level) playing field.

BUSH: "To make our economy stronger and more dynamic, we must prepare our rising generation to fill the jobs of the 21st century."

PALEO: We have people going through college at an alarming rate. Many of these are in the sciences and technology. Unfortunately, these happen to be at the top of the pecking order for offshoring and outsourcing. As I have said on my program as well as on this blog, the jobs being projected as highest in demand over the next 10 years are hardly the kind that requires an education. In fact, only three of the top 10 jobs mentioned by Forrest Research require college education. This means that seven of the 10 can be taken by low-skilled workers, many of them here illegally.

BUSH: "America's immigration system is outdated - unsuited to the needs of our economy and to the values of our country."

PALEO: It is not so much that the system is outdated as it is that it is not being enforced by you and those in Congress. Furthermore, your not having made good on your obligation to enforce the laws of the land has resulted in an economic crisis, whether it is the level of unemployment for American workers or the deflation of wages resulting from illegal immigrants working in our system.

BUSH: "We should not be content with laws that punish hardworking people who want only to provide for their families, and deny businesses willing workers, and invite chaos at our border."

PALEO: We would not be punishing anyone for hard work. We would be punishing people for knowingly and willingly violating the laws of the United States of America. We would not be denying businesses of willing workers, we would be denying them the right o hire people who have broken our laws in order to come and work here for wages that pit them against American citizens. We are not inviting chaos on our borders, we are wishing for people to respect our laws and asking that they follow the appropriate channels to live, work, worship, and play here legally.

BUSH: "It's time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs American workers will not take."

PALEO: The problem with this is that the numbers don't add up. Most of the people involved in these services just so happen to be Americans. If Americans will not take these jobs, why are so many of them doing so? And it isn't that they won't take these jobs, it is that they will not (and cannot) work for the same low wages that illegals can.

BUSH: We need an immigration policy that "closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists."

PALEO: You say this how many years after 9-11? How do you plan to do this? The border wall you promised? Why not our national guard? And what of those terrorists that the Border Patrol and Homeland Security believe have already slipped through the wide open border? Furthermore, and not to get ahead of myself, but didn't you say that we are fighting terrorists "over there" so that they won't be "over here"? If so, why would you even insinuate that terrorists are taking advantage of our porous borders?