A lot of superior writers are finally getting it right. Maybe it's
that more of the best writers in the country are coming over to our
side?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/on_being_a_bush_apologist_the.html

On Being a 'Bush Apologist': The Case of Immigration
By Stanley Renshon

Anyone who publicly supports a Bush Administration policy soon
encounters the accusation that he is a "Bush apologist." The term is
an interesting one. It is, of course, dismissive and meant to be. It
both downgrades the integrity of the supporter and relieves the
accuser of any obligation to consider the facts of a particular
debate. But there is more to it than that.

Being an "apologist" really means you are an excuser-- either of a
deficient policy, a deficient president, or a deficient
administration--most usually all three. In any case, the premise of
the accusation is that you, the apologist, are either misguided, at
best, or more likely willfully in denial of views that any reasonable
person would hold. In short, you are either a fool or a shill.

The world looks more complicated to someone on the recieving end of
that accusation. It is a world in which administration decisions
reflect mixtures of motives and neither presidents nor policies are
perfect. It is a world in which you agree with some presidential
policies and not others. And it is a world where you might well find
yourself in agreement with some, but not all, elements of the same
policy.

Consider the case of immigration. Congress is now in the middle of
long delayed and much needed debate about American immigration policy.
It is finally doing so because present policy has become intolerable.

The focus of our current debate is illegal immigration. The United
States has become the home of somewhere between 8 and 12 million
illegal immigrations with more arriving at the rate of over 500,000
every year. Successive administrations, both Republican and Democrat,
have basically ignored the problem, while public dismay at the
government's inability or unwillingness to control our borders has
grown and become clearly evident in just about every public opinion
poll that asks a question about it.

The focus on illegal immigration does not mean that the rest of
American immigration policy is either coherent or functional. The
hidden core of American immigration policy is how well we integrate
immigrants into our national community, and unlike the past when
government, business and community groups joined forces to help
immigrations become Americans, we now do little or nothing to help
facilitate this core civic responsibility. So, the first problem for a
"Bush apologist" with interests in the viability of American national
identity is that the current immigration debate almost wholly ignores
a question of vital consequence to this country.

Still, illegal immigration is a very serious problem. A country that
is targeted by terrorists who would like to destroy it that looses
control of its borders is in serious trouble. A country that welcomes
people that violate its immigrations laws with numerous incentives
(financial, heath and education benefits to name a few); while its
president declares at an immigration ceremony that we are nation of
laws, sends seriously mixed signals. So what is a "Bush apologist" to
do?

The wish to make a better life is understandable, and in this the
president's empathy is well placed. On the other hand, the president's
chief responsibility is to this county's citizens, and illegal
immigration is not a victimless crime. It leads to a sense of
pervasive unwanted and uninvited violation of national and civic
boundaries. It spawns crime, corruption, and political malfeasance.
Mayors make their cities "sanctuary" havens where immigration law is
not enforced. Legislatures debate in-state tuition levels for illegal
immigrants and pass resolutions supporting boycotts meant to pressure
Congress for more liberal legalization policies, while laws requiring
employers to verify the immigration status of those they hire are not
enforced and as written, are unenforceable.

And what does the president propose to do about this? He wants to
match a willing worker with employers having trouble "filling jobs
that Americans won't do." And he wants to create a pathway for illegal
immigrants toward "earned legalization."

The problem for a Bush apologist with the first proposal is that it
seems to be premised on a repeal of the laws of supply and demand. The
larger the pool of low skill, low education illegal immigrants willing
to work at sub-subsistence wages, the more likely it is that wages
will not rise to make the jobs attractive to Americans who want to do
them. Less supply of cheap labor coupled with continuing demand (we
need workers) should lead to a rise in the wages offered and as well
to the number of Americans who would consider these jobs.

The informed Bush apologist also knows that "earned legalization" is
designed as a comforting euphemism to cover up an inconvenient fact.
Illegal immigrants can, even now, "earn" their legalization by the
simple expedient of leaving the county and applying for a green card
like every other legal immigrant does. This, of course, is not going
to happen and many of the current proposals before Congress are
expressly designed to make sure that it doesn't.

So when the president says that he is against "automatic citizenship,"
a Bush apologist is still forced to ask: Who suggested that? When the
president says he wants illegal immigrants to go "to the back of the
line," and then ads if Congress wants to shorten the line by
increasing the number legal immigrants admitted to this country each
year (850,000 plus) it can do so, even a Bush apologist realizes this
is an invitation to an immigration green card bidding war. (Democrats:
I'll see your 200,000 new green cards, and raise you 200,000 more!)
This of course assumes that whatever law is passed is not riddled with
hidden loopholes that cripple enforcement mechanisms and ease
citizenship requirements as the proposals that the Senate considered
before its just completed recess were.

So what is a Bush apologist to do? Yes, the president is courageous
for facing this problem directly, as he has done with social security
reform and national security. Yes, if there is a true need for more
workers, let us design a program to accomplish that, but we should
first test by enforcement, just how critical that need is.

Yes, the president is generally a compassionate man although that is
not the only or the most central aspect of his psychology. Yes,
illegal immigration is a human problem, but it is also a national,
cultural and community problem. However, presidential compassion
should not be extended solely to those who break our laws to have a
better life. It should also be extended to the many citizens whose
sense of violation and frustration because of dishonest euphuisms,
failures of political will, and crass pandering for political
advantage in the immigration debate are palpable.

Where does all this leave a "Bush apologist?" Why, against the
president's stated policy preferences on these matters, of course.

------------------