Liz Kaplan is a Legislative Assistant at the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. She is a graduate of Williams College.

Wait a minute – did President Bush just use major network television time to address the nation on immigration? And the Senate has set aside lots of time this week to talk about immigration? What’s going on?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m pleased that this issue has made it to the forefront of national debate. Our nation’s immigration problems are overwhelming in scope and easy to sweep under the rug, as we have been doing for years. Furthermore, until last night, the President had consistently sidestepped taking a position on some of the most controversial immigration issues, with the one exception of announcing his support for a temporary worker proposal during the 2004 State of the Union.

Call me an idealist, but I was encouraged over the weekend by the announcement of the President’s Monday night speech. The President has made some positive statements about the contribution of immigrants to our nation’s culture and economy in the past, and has drawn criticism from some of the staunchest enforcement-only immigration reform advocates. Unfortunately, I was disappointed in the speech.

The use of 6,000 National Guard troops for this purpose is disheartening at best - these are troops who will not be helping to rebuild after hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters, or whatever else comes around. It is true that we have hundreds of thousands of National Guard troops, but between the War in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, can we afford these troops on the border? Not to mention the fact that chaos at the border hasn't suddenly increased in leaps and bounds - where were these troops during 2000-2005?

Worse, giving local law enforcement power to enforce immigration laws has terrible potential for abuse. In the aftermath of September 11 th, harassment against immigrants – and those perceived to be immigrants – has increased, and the danger of allowing members of local police forces to demand proof of legal residency and/or citizenship from people who look like they might be illegal immigrants has led the pro-immigration community to fight against these proposals in several immigration bills already. On the other hand, there are federal agencies that are supposed to be empowered, trained and equipped specifically to handle immigration issues. Why not just hire and train more federal agents? Is the real problem an unwillingness to spend the federal resources for this?

A temporary worker program is not necessarily a bad thing, but it would ensure that workers who participate don't actually get to move here seeking a better life, they just get to come here and work for low wages. This program might look good to some (though not all) businesses who rely on immigrant labor, but it doesn't do much good for our American-born low wage-earners that opponents of low-skilled immigration visas (such as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff) would like to protect.

The most positive thing the President said was that he supports some kind of earned legalization in theory, and he did debunk the myth that such a program would be the same as an amnesty for people how have broken the law in his speech. However, this was the only part of the speech where he had no concrete proposals, not even outright support for the Hagel-Martinez bill (PDF) being debated this week in the Senate. So I guess comprehensive immigration reform advocates are still waiting to see what comes next.