Republican Debate Thread -- Tuesday, June 5, 2007 -- 7:00 pm EDT

[Lincoln Republican]

Speaking of Romney, my wife finds him perfectly charming and handsome.  "He really looks like a President, don't you think?"  Well, yeah, he is very handsome.  And yes, he's a smooth talker.  Charming.  But really, Clinton was charming, and Bush is handsome, and they are two of the most divisive presidents we have had.  One managed to get himself impeached, the other is running at about 30% approval, mostly for talking the congress into the monumental folly of making us ineffectual spectators and open targets in a civil war we touched off.  So, I'm sorry, but charming and/or handsome just isn't going to cut it for me this time. 

Not only is Romney charming and handsome, and looks like a President, as your wife says, but in addition to these qualities, he also has the intelligence, the talent, the ability, the courage, the vision, the fortitude, the moral character, the integrity, and the leadership skills necessary to do the job.  As President, Romney will bring Americans of all political stripes together to work for America.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Speaking of Romney, my wife really liked him.  She and I differ, in particular, on immigration.  And no doubt we spent a great deal of time discussing it.  Like many immigrants who worked hard, made straight As in college and grad school, paid all the fees, waited patiently, followed all the rules, filled out the forms, and learned English, she is full of strong opinions about those who skirt the system.  Whereas I see fences as ecological and public-relations distasters, she says, "if you don't put up a fence, pretty you'll have as many people here as are in China right now, and it's not just the unskilled jobs they'll be taking."  And her attitude is common among white-collar green-card holders who follow the rules.  I remind her that Reagan talked about tearing down walls, but now the GOP wants to build them.  How far we've come.  She says she's no fan of Reagan anyway, so that argument won't work.  Romney's speech, in particular, resonated with her, "It's just not fair to those who follow the rules to reward those who cheat the system."  I say that people should be able to come and go as they please.  Why did you get a green card anyway?  Isn't it so that you can work and come and go as you please?  Yeah, but I paid the fees, filled out the paperwork, worked hard and stayed within the rules.  But they're not taking a job away from you.  Well, they might be one day, and by the way, I studied hard to learn English, and now I have to learn Spanish too?  Well, no you don't have to learn spanish.  I speak spanish very well, as you know, so I'll translate if it becomes necessary.  No, but you don't translate, every time we're in mexico and I ask you what you were talking about you just act like you can't be bothered, or like you're somehow above the menial work of translation, so don't tell me you'll translate.  Look, I already learned English, and I want to live in this country and follow the rules.  And if I can do that then so can everyone else.  Okay, then, fine.  Fine.

.

Your wife is correct about immigration.

Essentially the argument is between those who favor justice and those who favor expediencey.

Think about it.

We can not stop all aliens from entering the country illegally, so why even try?

We can not catch all robbers, so why even try?

Life is imperfect, but we do the best we can, and not just give up.

[angus]

Winfield, he's evasive I think.  I'm not sure he'd make a bad president but I think ultimately he must give straight answers to questions when asked.  Certainly he's diplomatic, and we do seem to be short on diplomacy in the white house.  I don't mind the changing of the mind, the way many folks do.  In fact, I think reasonably intelligent people change their minds sometimes.  I can't count the number of times I have flipped on issues like school vouchers, so I don't mind that.  I just get put off by Romney's refusal to answer direct questions.  He must have a position, and not worry too much about whether or not I agree.  We are not one-issue voters, and we will vote for candidates if we find them to show good judgement and give honest, albeit sometimes disagreeable, answers.  This is why I like Obama so much right now.  I'd also like to have a favorite Republican as well.  Been a long time since I could honestly say there's a righteous Republican running against a righteous Democrat.  That would feel so good to have two decent candidates.  Usually we get zero and end up having to vote for the least offensive of the two.

Carl, yes I agree that there are advantages of having checkpoints.  In particular, for keeping weapons, terrorists, and certain life forms such as disease-causing bacteria or invasive animal or plant species, from being ferried across.  Once, when I was driving from Guatemala into Honduras, I was made to eat all the fruit in my car.  Bananas and mangos mostly.  In fact, I was roundly hassled by the officials over trying to bring contraband into Honduras.  I get that.  The Hondurans don't want nasty Guatemalan bacteria and vice-versa.  I have also been searched by dogs at airports in Miami, Houston, Boston, and Chicago, especially when coming back from Jamaica, Amstedam, and Andean mountain countries.  Presumably they were looking for coke and weed.  I understand that as well.  And in Mexico just north of the belizean border I have been searched for weapons.  I understand that as well.  I also understand the need to catch people-smugglers that ferry their human cargo in containers from the Far East, many of whom are sold as sex slaves to wealthy gringos, and the need for latinoamericanos in search of a better life to get all the shots, pay taxes, etc.  And frankly I see Romney's (and my wife's) point on fairness.

It's mostly the wall I object to.  It's unsightly.  It will wreak further ecological disaster by inhibiting the natural migratory paths of amimals as well as causing pollutants to spoil the water supply in the already water-impoverished Southwest and California by its very construction.  It is a PR disaster, and it shows how far we have devolved from a welcoming nation to a paranoid, unwelcoming one.  How far indeed.  Kennedy, in 1960, had US Poet Laureate Robert Frost speak at his inaugural address.  This is the same Robert Frost who wrote, sarcastically, that "Good fences make good neighbors" in Mending Wall.  But the hunters to which he refers in that poem that "have left not one stone on a stone, but they would have the rabbit out of hiding to please the yelping dogs" now hunt humans.  Humans who came to this great nation, like my ancestors and yours, only because they wanted better economic opportunities for the people they love.

The Mexicans, Guatemalans, Chinese, and Hondurans do sometimes slip into the deserts of the USA, but the solution isn't to wall them out.  That's like saying socialized medicine is the answer to our health care problems.  It's not getting to the heart of the problem and it will likely only create more and different problems.  The solution is work with their governments.  To have their own governments deal with the tremendous social problems that lead to massive illegal immigration in the first place.  I may be a non-interventionist, but I'm not an isolationist.  I think we can have a positive diplomatic role and I think that until the economic conditions that encourage border crossing are addressed, you'll continue to have a problem.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, I agree that much of the problem could be resolved if Mexico became more prosperous.  However, the major obstacle to prosperity in Mexico is the government (both national, in the states, and localities) is extremely corrupt.

Secondly, with respect to so-called environment problems of constructing a barrier on the border, let must suggest that: (a) you are ignoring the problems which exist now as a consequence of the trashing of the border by illegal aliens (I have posted information on this) and, (b) you are exaggerating the impact of a border barrier.

Third, with respect to "checkpoints," there are some real problems here.  The Bush administration is trying to provide for interior (well away from the Border) checkpoints to harass American citizens, make sure that illegal border crossers know where Border Patrol agents are located so they can go around them, as well as waste money which should be going for border security.

Fourth, many people simply fail to understand that preventing illegal entry into the country is a matter of national security.  Suggest you read Tom Clancy's book, Teeth of the Tiger, which I am afraid will probably in the essential concept (if not the details) prove true.

[angus]

Clancy's a good writer.  I'll keep it in mind.

Borders everywhere do attract harassment and violence, which prompts fences which eventually become walls.  But folks on both sides are becoming interested because a wall turns an imaginary, but legally important, line in the sand into an obvious visual insult.  Some of us are embarrassed by them because they say something unpleasant about the neighbors.  And about us, frankly.  We build them for two reasons:  fear and desire for control.  Hadrian's Wall worked.  For a while.  As did China's Great Wall blocking out invading Manchurians.  For a while.  The maginot line?  Wily commanders from the third reich simply went around them.  Yes, they seem to work for a while, but their costs are not justified by their marginal and temporary efficacy, if history is any guide.  Moreover, they engender feelings of ill will and bigotry on both sides that cannot even be measured in dollars.

As for national security, I'm not sure that sub-minimum wage seasonal workers are such a great threat.  And that's really who's coming from the Southern border.  The primary threat comes from those terrorists, often muslims exploited by religious leaders with an agenda for control, who may try to enter the United States via land borders and, once here, terrorize Americans, and they can come from any border.  So if you believe a fence will keep them out, then you must commit not only to the 2000-mile border with Mexico, but also to the 4000-mile border with Canada, since it is much more easily crossed.  Building six thousand miles of fence is a costly endeavor.  You seem to be among the most informed posters here, so I have trouble imagining that you do not realize this. 

Moreover, I don't think I'm exaggerating the ecological impact.  Basically, anything that doesn't fly will find its routes blocked.  Some of those species are already endangered by habitat loss.  For example, deer, javelina, coyotes and mountain lions, all of which are necessary to avoid overpopulation in the delicate food chain, are effected.  But it's not just crawling or slithering or jumping animals that are affected, but erect walkers as well.  For example, the Tohono O'odham Indian tribe, whose desert land stretches along 70 miles of the Arizona-Mexico border, don't want their land to be fenced because that would prevent Indian people from crossing.  So, additionally, the wall makes us "indian givers" in the sense our treaty with them isn't as good as the paper its printed on.

We have already seen the environmental impact of Israel's wall.  Like Arizona and California, the climate of Palestine is semi-arid, and water sources are precious.  In many villages in Palestine, ancient olive groves are withering, and wells into the groundwater basin, drilled before the 1967 war, are being lost at the rate of several per year.  The same thing can happen in the Southwest.  I agree that hikers, snowski enthusiasts, motorboaters, and trashers (Mexicans and Gringos alike) are threats to the water supply, but so too are the construction contractors and their resins, polymers, concretes, and heavy metals.  Potable water is no longer free, and the long-term economic impact of endangering its supply may outweigh any perceived economic impacts of walls preventing the movement of people across our borders.