Monday, May 15, 2006

That 'immigration emergency'

There were a lot of things wrong with tonight's TV address on immigration from President Bush, not the least of which is the lingering question:

Why, if post-9/11 border security is such a suddenly serious concern, aren't we sending the Guard to the Canadian border? -- It is, after all our longest and most porous border, and its many open spots do not entail dangerous and potentially lethal desert crossings. Perhaps more to the point, the one terrorist who did try to sneak into the USA with explosives as part of a plot to attack a major metropolitan area was caught on the Canadian border.

Ah well. We're not accustomed to logic from this president anyway, especially when it's a twofer: a good photo op and rescuing your poll standings with the base are all in the offing. Especially if you can do it with military troops in the picture. Too bad about those cuts in the Border Patrol staffing last year.

But the one really disconcerting note was kind of slipped into the address as an afterthought or footnote:
For many years, the government did not have enough space in our detention facilities to hold them while the legal process unfolded. So most were released back into our society and asked to return for a court date. When the date arrived, the vast majority did not show up. This practice, called "catch and release," is unacceptable -- and we will end it.

We are taking several important steps to meet this goal. We have expanded the number of beds in our detention facilities, and we will continue to add more."

It's more than likely that the Halliburton contract to build new detention facilities for a potential "immigration emergency" is going to come in terribly handy here.

Concern over these centers is no longer simply a matter of wearing the tinfoil hats.

Here are the kind of scenes America seems about to re-enact:

Sure puts Vox Day's eliminationist fantasy about ridding the nation of illegal immigrants -- by comparing their potential handling to Hitler's liquidation camps -- in perspective, doesn't it?

Not to mention Michelle Malkin's fraudulent but popular defense of internment camps. And all along we wondered if she had Muslims in mind. I guess we should have noticed that her previous book was about the Latino "invasion".

[Hat tip to teh l4m3.]

No comments: