HoodaThunk?

Via Power Line I find this column in the Chicago Sun-Times by John O’Sullivan. Written several hours before the speech was given, he asks the readers to ask themselves some questions:

Did the president use the phrase ”comprehensive immigration reform” several times? That’s revealing because this phrase is an example of smuggling. He hopes that by wrapping a ”temporary guest-worker program” and the ”not an amnesty” provision to legalize the 12 million illegals already here — both of which are unpopular — inside a tough-sounding popular promise to secure the border with the National Guard, he will persuade most Americans to accept the first two proposals.

Did the president spend a large part of his speech on promising to secure the border by sending the National Guard there? Heigh-ho. This is the umpteenth time that Bush has promised to toughen up border security with a new initiative. He does so whenever there is public disquiet about illegal immigration.

Yet this kind of mini-initiative is fundamentally irrelevant. As this column has repeatedly pointed out, porous borders are the result of uncontrolled immigration as much as its cause. You cannot control the borders, however many patrols you hire or fences you build, if you grant an effective pardon to anyone who gets 100 miles inland.

Ummmm. Yes, as a matter of fact, he did use the term “comprehensive” quite a bit. So much, in fact, that I came away with the impression that he would consider a veto of any “enforcement only” bill that made it to his desk.

And, uhhh, yeah – he did say he was sending the National Guard to the border. I’ve got less of a problem with that, however, so long as those Guardmen aren’t going to be basically camping in the wilderness for a year. I want them patrolling the border and building fences.

Give the article a full read. Offers food for thought.