Eric Massa sez "If You Build it They Will Come…and Stay"

Cross posted at kos where you can live blog with Eric now!


If You Build it They Will Come…and Stay

After years of looking the other way as illegal immigration exploded, this Administration is manufacturing yet another crisis to divert attention from its multitude of failures, particularly in Iraq. While we all agree that illegal immigration is a problem - a major one at that - the President and the Republican congress are jumping the gun with knee-jerk, half-baked "crisis" solutions to a problem that has been building for years. And their "solutions" won't even begin to solve the problem, which has become institutionalized at multiple levels in our society, especially the economy itself.

I'll explain myself more in a moment, but right now, here's a summary of what I see as the important points about this "crisis."


1. The Bush Double Flip. Back in 2005, Congress authorized 2,000 extra border patrol agents for each of the next five years - agents one would assume would actually be used to patrol the border - but President Bush decided not to send all those extra agents. (link) Now, he says "send in the guard" - itself an idea riddled with problems (more below). The first solution makes more sense, but the double flip illustrates the real Bush/Republican attitude: they're more interested in the politics than anything else.

2. "Send In The Guard" is a really dumb idea. What Guard? Almost all the National Guard is already tied down in that quagmire in Iraq. The idea that they can do this enormous, long-term job during annual two-week training stints, is a bad joke.

3. It's all about Economics. There are fundamental, structural issues of economics that are the real drivers of this "crisis," and any solution that doesn't deal with this won't work. Workers enter this country illegally because there is a demand for their services: cheap labor, no benefits. And it's not just businesses and corporations that like it this way. I don't hear any calls from the anti-immigrant crowd for boycotts of goods that we get more cheaply because they're produced with illegal labor - say, fruits and vegetables.

4. Secure the Borders. I believe that our first priority is to secure our borders. In a post-9/11 world, we simply must have control over who comes and goes, and why. But we can do it smart. We can't afford to shoot ourselves in the foot in the process. Security has to come hand-in-hand with a sane approach to the complex political and economic problems of the economic demand for immigrant labor, and the understandable desire of immigrants for the opportunity for a better life.

5. Talk about Border Security -- What about the Ports??? The fact that American ports are still 95% unprotected - an enormous gaping hole in our national security - tells the whole story about this Administration's commitment to national security, and to border security. This new crisis is mostly a red-herring - a stinky fish tossed into the middle of the room to distract us from the real story and the real agenda and the real failures of this Administration and its rubber-stamp Republican Congress.

Here's my more "meditative" thinking on the issue. :

If you build it - in this case the "it" is "a broken system" - they will come. And as the problem becomes institutionalized, they will stay. The market favors cheaper labor, and as long as there is a market for illegal labor there will be illegal labor. They'll come by plane, train, automobile, boat and foot, whatever it takes, as long as someone will hire them. It's the free marketeers in Congress - the same ones who passed CAFTA - that voted for a House bill that penalizes immigrants and the people who provide them social assistance and not the employers who hire them.

This is an interesting issue for the President to lay what little political clout he has left on the table, an issue that seems already more likely to divide his party rather than unite it while it is on the edge, by many people's estimation, of a November implosion.

According to the Washington Post



But it’s a political gamble as “there is little disagreement that in the longer term, a party seen as hostile to immigrants, legal or illegal, could pay a stiff price” and one that lays bare some of the many contradictions in this debate.

Some Hispanic voters, for instance, whom the Republican party courted in 2004 during aggressive voter registration drives touting family values, are sure to see the party’s immigration reform effort as disingenuous and two-timing.

They just can’t have it both ways. Here in the 29th Congressional District of New York in the heart of the Finger Lakes wine region, my opponent, Randy Kuhl, received a “Jeer” from a local newspaper which said he “appears to be trying to have things both ways in the controversy over illegal immigration.”


Rubberstamp Randy was attending town halls meetings telling concerned constituents that he voted for the bill because he knew it would never come out of a House Senate conference with the tough punitive measures still intact. So he voted for something he didn’t believe in and said he would support something the majority of his constituents do not? Interesting tactic.
And then came the President’s public address on immigration reform and more of the same fence straddling. According to DC Hotline:



And in an homage to the get tough wing of his party the President directed that the National Guard be deployed to the border region. The first thing I asked myself after hearing this was, “What National Guard and which border?” because right now much of our National Guard is deployed to the Iraqi border to protect Baghdad and not Baltimore.

If you are going to deploy military forces, they need to be given a mission that can be accomplished with clear guidelines, and they need to be in place for more than 2 weeks. The President wants to rotate troops during their two week training periods. Only a bunch of armchair White House civilian generals would conjure up a plan that places our troops in danger while they are performing a mission for which they have not been trained. I believe in training before we face a new threat – not afterward.

And was any thought given to the fact that deploying our National Guard to the border would leave dangerous vacuums in cities and town faced with the threat of natural disaster? According to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the governors of all four border states were briefed by Karl Rove and homeland security adviser Frances Townsend on a conference call before Bush made his speech. But according to Richardson, "We're just told what will happen, not asked what we think. Nobody talks directly to border governors like myself

Both Richardson and Virgina Governor Tim Kaine were among those who expressed reservations about the plan. Governor Richardson said: "I'm very skeptical as a border governor that deals with this issue every day of the National Guard deployed at the border. ... What we need is more border patrol agents and we're not getting them from the Congress and the federal government.” Governor Kaine: "further federal missions for our Guard could run the risk of reducing their availability to serve their home states.”

After looking at the details of this plan any experienced military professional would see that that – again – the White House is using the National Guard for political purposes. Mission was Not Accomplished when the border needed to be secured four years go, and now that his own party is running away from him, the President and his rubber stamping allies in Congress are trying to use a band aid approach by throwing our National Guard at yet another problem without giving them proper training, body armor, protected vehicles and the other needed resources.

This simply shows yet again that this Administration has little understanding of what it takes to have a functional National Guard and how it should be used. We need them less strained not more. Back in December 2005 Secretary Michael Chertoff explained how this was not a good job for the guard. He was against it before he was for it. (link) And last year President Bush cut back border patrol by almost 10,000 agents, supposedly to save money, before he decided to spend even more money sending in untrained National Guard troops. (link)

This get tough stance is all about giving the appearance of doing something meaningful. But like many Administration plans, this is inspired by political motives rather than genuine concerns for security. First President Bush cuts back border patrol and now he wants send untrained guard troops to patrol the border? His glaring inconsistency gives away the real reason for the sudden interest in increased border security.

A more meaningful approach to securing the border, would be training more border patrol agents. In fact Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) offered a "rapid response" amendment that would add 1,000 border patrol agents plus 100 helicopters and 250 power boats and his amendment was passed by a voice vote. ( link) While a good idea it still has not prevented the president from misusing our National Guard to play politics.

Until we restore a balance of power by taking away the President’s Rubber-stamp Congress and replacing it with a Democratic majority, the president will continue to ineptly govern, doing everything for the sake of appearances instead of offering meaningful solutions to real problems. And we need more veterans in Congress who know how the National Guard should and should not be used, experienced military men and women who will stand up to the president and stop him from using our National Guard just to play politics.