Skip to comments.
Bush gets tough down Mexico way (Millions of Americans approve and applaud)
NY Daily News ^
| May 16, 2006
| Editorial
Posted on 05/16/2006 3:40:35 AM PDT by IrishMike
The President of the United States, having noticed that the illegal-immigrant issue has rent asunder both the nation at large and his own core constituency, proposes now to dispatch 6,000 National Guard troops to the Mexican border, thereat to provide temporary backup to an overwhelmed Border Patrol in stanching the flow of interlopers currently interloping unchecked. Millions of Americans approve and applaud, as they surely will also cheer the rest of the border-tightening plans Bush outlined in prime time last night: a bigger civilian Border Patrol to allow the troops to resume other duties, security fences to seal the line, high-tech sensors and surveillance, a tamper-proof ID card for legal immigrants, assistance for local law enforcement in border states. Excellent ideas, and high time for a President to put them forth.
If such get-tough measures placate conservative fire-breathers who are demanding border security first and foremost into dropping their objections to Mr. Bush's guest worker plan - well, all the better. For the President made it clear that a congressional signoff on his guest worker program is exactly what he wants to see in an immigration reform bill - along with provisions that offer legalization opportunities to millions of illegals who are firmly planted here.
Plainly, he does not intend to sign the House bill that would summarily felonize illegal immigrants or call for deporting them by the millions. He's looking for a "comprehensive" bill similar to the compromise legislation hanging fire in the Senate: Pay a fine, pay your taxes, learn English, have a job and prove you've kept your nose clean, and you can get on line for legalization.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: 2004signups; 2friendlywithfox; agenda; alien; aliens; bush; dusleepers; elections; nationalguard; takingbribes; xenogohome; xenolove; xenophilia; xenophobe; xenophobia; xenophonehome; xenopopular; xenoworship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-200 ... 251-252 next last
This is a fairly 'left' leaning daily newspaper.
1
posted on
05/16/2006 3:40:42 AM PDT
by
IrishMike
To: IrishMike
Millions of Americans approve and applaud... Oh?
2
posted on
05/16/2006 3:42:51 AM PDT
by
luvbach1
(More true now than ever: Near the belly of the beast in San Diego)
To: IrishMike
"Bush gets tough down Mexico way (Millions of Americans approve and applaud)"
AS DID THE ILLEGALS!
MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF THEM!
SI SE PUEDE!
3
posted on
05/16/2006 3:45:47 AM PDT
by
Kimberly GG
( REPUBLICAN FOR SECURED BORDER AND NO 'EARNED' AMNESTY)
To: luvbach1
You can count me in as one that mostly approves.
4
posted on
05/16/2006 3:46:09 AM PDT
by
Coldwater Creek
("Over there, over there, We won't be back 'til it's over Over there.")
To: IrishMike
He's looking for a "comprehensive" bill similar to the compromise legislation hanging fire in the Senate: Pay a fine, pay your taxes, learn English, have a job and prove you've kept your nose clean, and you can get on line for legalization.In case the POTUS hasn't noticed, while the pandering went on, emboldened illegal aliens and their supporters made it clear that they will have none of the above. Their demand is for immediate, unconditional amnesty and citizenship.
5
posted on
05/16/2006 3:47:07 AM PDT
by
luvbach1
(More true now than ever: Near the belly of the beast in San Diego)
To: mariabush
You can count me in as one that mostly approves.Of precisely what?
6
posted on
05/16/2006 3:48:40 AM PDT
by
luvbach1
(More true now than ever: Near the belly of the beast in San Diego)
To: luvbach1
Well the President gave them a nod in his speech, and went on to promise them amnesty with eventual citizenship to follow.
Looks like the illegals are going to score big with this Administration.
7
posted on
05/16/2006 3:50:22 AM PDT
by
RodgerD
To: mariabush
We've gone from "Don't bug me about the situation" to the President making a case for doing something to a national audience.
We're making progress. I think the RNC fundraisers have been getting an earful when they call.
Now they need to back it up with actions.
8
posted on
05/16/2006 3:50:56 AM PDT
by
listenhillary
(The original Contract with America - The U.S. Constitution)
To: IrishMike
I think the plan is a good one. It is calculated to minimize any sort of political damage that this immigration distraction has caused within the hispanic community. I've said it before and will no doubt say it again, this whole debacle can cost us votes from hispanic US citizens who don't want their neighbors, friends, and family members deported or blackballed. I'm more than willing to tolerate illegal aliens if doing so helps us get rid of abortion and gay marriage.
To: luvbach1
The simple solution to that is a one way bus to Mexico. We can send back the illegals and those that support amnesty. I am getting sick and tired of this entitlement attitude. I realize their not being able to speak nor read English makes it hard for them to know the true meaning of illegal! il·le·gal (ĭ-lç'gəl) adj. Prohibited by law. Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football. Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation. n. An illegal immigrant.
10
posted on
05/16/2006 3:54:22 AM PDT
by
tuvals
(America First - Support Our Troops!)
To: hispanichoosier
I'm more than willing to tolerate illegal aliens if doing so helps us get rid of abortion and gay marriage. I'm not.
11
posted on
05/16/2006 3:54:39 AM PDT
by
prion
(Yes, as a matter of fact, I AM the spelling police)
To: luvbach1
"In case the POTUS hasn't noticed, while the pandering went on, emboldened illegal aliens and their supporters made it clear that they will have none of the above. Their demand is for immediate, unconditional amnesty and citizenship."
I voted for him....but to quote the liberals most cherished line..."it's time for him to go."
12
posted on
05/16/2006 3:58:53 AM PDT
by
yer gonna put yer eye out
(ACLU = heterophobic, Ameriphobic, brainophobic (CAUTION: I made up some of these words))
To: luvbach1
Which he specifically told them they were not getting. The "immigrant" groups are sponsored by ANSWER and Code Pink and the Socialist Workers Party, whose names even appeared on some of the organizing material. These groups are part of the "anti-globalization" brownshirt wing of the left, and Bush told them clearly that they were not going to get what their puppet-masters are demanding.
13
posted on
05/16/2006 3:58:57 AM PDT
by
livius
To: RodgerD
You have that right. "Mealy-mouthed" is my description of the speech.
The Republicans would not have a chance for re-election in November if the damn DemocRATS were not so very much worse.
14
posted on
05/16/2006 4:02:03 AM PDT
by
Jimmy Valentine
(DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
To: luvbach1; All
Bush cracks down on illegal immigration
US President George W Bush has unveiled a five point plan to for reforms on immigration. They include plans for an additional 6,000 guards to be stationed along the US border with Mexico, and the introduction of a temporary guest worker scheme: "We do not yet have full control of the border. And I am determined to change that. Tonight I am calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008 we will increase the number of border control officers by an additional 6,000.When these new agents are deployed, we will have more than doubled the size of the border control during my presidency," Bush said.
The US President concedes that the reforms will meet with strong reactions. Analysts say Bush is trying to appease conservative Republicans ahead of November's mid-term elections, as well as the Hispanic community. It is estimated there are 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the US, around half of them of Mexican origin. "We must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are here already. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration." If ratified by Congress, the two year programme will cost just under 2 billion US dollars - 1.5 billion euros.
REPEAT:
They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully
15
posted on
05/16/2006 4:03:37 AM PDT
by
IrishMike
(Dry Powder is a plus)
To: prion
I'm not.
Are you pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage or are your priorities (i.e. place of work/residence of an illegal alien versus the very existence of an innocent, unborn child) just screwed up?
To: IrishMike
17
posted on
05/16/2006 4:06:45 AM PDT
by
arbooz
To: IrishMike
This is amnesty and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully
By definition, it's not. They'd have to pay back taxes and wait behind those who applied for citizenship legally. Amnesty is an automatic normalization without any sort of penalties or requirements.
To: listenhillary
We're making progress. I think the RNC fundraisers have been getting an earful when they call.
Got a call today from them, actually, asking why I had cut back on my involvement, as well as a call from Drieir's office, asking for support. Both got the same message... 'If you think the future lays in the hands of illegals, ask them for money and help. Maybe they'll do the job that this American is pretty much refusing to do.' Neither found it very funny and both hung up in a huff. I guess this means I'm not getting another invitation to go to the next RNC function.
As to the President's plan - what is it, one person per mile of our borders, solely concentrating on the one to the south? Whee. Maybe his next speech will have him strongly suggesting that illegals stop coming across the border, and we'll hear about how tough talk is finally coming from the White House.
6,000 National Guard troops. That's telling 6,000 families that their fathers, mothers, brothers or sisters are going to go sit on their hands, giving up their normal job, to fulfill a function that the standing military is supposed to do. I deeply respect the military and the chain of command, but if I was given such an order, I'd resign instantly.
The Army can and should fulfill this duty, and it doesn't reflect well on the Commander in Chief that he's seeking to outsource this duty to the national guard.
19
posted on
05/16/2006 4:08:29 AM PDT
by
kingu
(Yeah, I'll vote in 2006, just as soon as a party comes along who listens.)
To: RodgerD
Looks like the illegals are going to score big with this Administration.And yet they will still vote Dem.
To: kingu
The Army can and should fulfill this duty, and it doesn't reflect well on the Commander in Chief that he's seeking to outsource this duty to the national guard.
No, it can't. Using regular troops for this function would probably violate the posse commitatus act.
To: Jimmy Valentine; IrishMike
22
posted on
05/16/2006 4:09:46 AM PDT
by
BufordP
("I am stuck on Al Franken 'cause Al Franken's stuck on me!" -- Stupid)
To: hispanichoosier
Amnesty is an automatic normalization without any sort of penalties or requirements
No. Amnesty is instant citizenship, a free car and $50,000.
(But it is not getting to stay in the USA. No No No. That's not amnesty)
23
posted on
05/16/2006 4:10:46 AM PDT
by
RodgerD
To: IrishMike
Those who vehemently disagree with the President's plan seem to be stuck on "100% pure deportation" or nothing.
100% for using government force to seize the liberty and assets of those who hire illegal immigrants or the 100 percenters are not going to vote in November.
Politics is about balance. You try keeping 63 million people that voted for you happy, while keeping the 59 million who did not vote for you from going completely over the edge.
I'm amazed at what the conservatives have accomplished. We haven't pushed the rock up the hill, but I'm amazed we have budged it at all.
24
posted on
05/16/2006 4:11:14 AM PDT
by
listenhillary
(The original Contract with America - The U.S. Constitution)
To: Jimmy Valentine; IrishMike
Strike that! That we WILL get fooled again.
25
posted on
05/16/2006 4:11:50 AM PDT
by
BufordP
("I am stuck on Al Franken 'cause Al Franken's stuck on me!" -- Stupid)
To: hispanichoosier
It is calculated to minimize any sort of political damage that this immigration distraction has caused within the hispanic community.
I know of few legal immigrants who can tolerate the illegals, much less see them comforted. They've worked hard to come to this country, to learn the language, to become part of it to see it wasted by those who see this land become home to transient criminals who prey on their friends and neighbors.
Doing nothing, or next to nothing, is less risky to their votes than wholesale giving away what they've worked hardest to gain. And it is their children who suffer the most as they're lumped in with the illegals.
26
posted on
05/16/2006 4:12:41 AM PDT
by
kingu
(Yeah, I'll vote in 2006, just as soon as a party comes along who listens.)
To: livius
I liked the speech last night. President Bush hit the right buttons to me. I'm getting tired of all the "send them all back crowd" ! You would think by listing to them illegal aliens started with this president. He has doubled the border patrol since 9/11. lets not underistimate the president !! lets take him at his word and move forward
27
posted on
05/16/2006 4:14:23 AM PDT
by
adobbs
To: kingu
I know of few legal immigrants who can tolerate the illegals, much less see them comforted.
I know a lot. Sometimes their family members are illegal. Sometimes members of their church are illegal. They don't want to see harm come to people they've gotten to know personally.
To: kingu
Doing nothing, or next to nothing, is less risky to their votes than wholesale giving away what they've worked hardest to gain
Numerically, I just don't think you can prove this. If you can prove to me mathematically that the number of votes we'd receive from legal immigrants would dwarf the number of votes we'd lose if tough measures are taken, then maybe I'd agree with you. I just don't think you can prove it with any degree of certainty.
To: yer gonna put yer eye out
I voted for him....but to quote the liberals most cherished line..."it's time for him to go."Like Fish, Presidents begin to stink after a few years....
30
posted on
05/16/2006 4:19:35 AM PDT
by
cbkaty
(I may not always post...but I am always here......)
To: hispanichoosier
No, it can't. Using regular troops for this function would probably violate the posse commitatus act.
Best get all those Navy ships off our shores, tell the Army to stop using those drones to patrol the border, and inform the Air Force that they no longer can intercept planes.
While I fully expect that there is a judge who can pander to any idiotic idea, I do not think that it would stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny that the President could not order regular military troops to defend the United States border from foreign incursion. That is not a law enforcement function, that is a national security function, and well within their operating guidelines.
31
posted on
05/16/2006 4:20:17 AM PDT
by
kingu
(Yeah, I'll vote in 2006, just as soon as a party comes along who listens.)
To: hispanichoosier
At least something is being tried, House and Senate can't agree on ANYTHING, Dimwitts doing everything they can (along with the help of some Republacracts) to hold anything up, gripe about everything. Let us try SOMETHING and let the politicians allow 'W' Try something, anything is better than we have now.
To: listenhillary
Exactly!!!!!!
33
posted on
05/16/2006 4:20:50 AM PDT
by
Coldwater Creek
("Over there, over there, We won't be back 'til it's over Over there.")
To: kingu
"If you think the future lays in the hands of illegals, ask them for money and help"
Great line. Tell them the Mexicans can provide the donations and support Americans won't.
34
posted on
05/16/2006 4:22:00 AM PDT
by
Rebelbase
(" Bush II: What's good for Mexico is good for America." --FReeper, Vigilanteman.)
To: adobbs; All
To you blind GOP koolaid drinkers:
THe BUSH and GOP policy is what it has been for 20 yrs-
NON ENFORCEMENT OF OUR LAWS..
what ever abortion of a bill passes- what faith do you have it will be enforced?? I have none.
The Elites have a plan and it does not include the average US CITIZEN.
35
posted on
05/16/2006 4:22:03 AM PDT
by
ConsentofGoverned
(if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
Comment #36 Removed by Moderator
To: ConsentofGoverned
The Elites have a plan and it does not include the average US CITIZEN.
Umm...just who are these "Elites" that you mention? The CFR? The Trilateral Commission?
To: IrishMike
"Millions of Americans approve and applaud..."
Not this one.
To: Kimberly GG
Seems the hardliners will never be pacified. Some of you conservatives are giving the left what they want but hey after the Dem's take back power in November maybe you will be much happier.
Most of all, I bet you will be raising heck this time next year with Impeachment hearings beginning, tax cuts ended, the military budget cut by billions, and the list goes on...and let's not forget the Senate version of the Immigration bill pushed through Kennedy's way. Some people need to stop and think for once before giving the Democrats exactly what they want.
39
posted on
05/16/2006 4:23:59 AM PDT
by
Paige
("Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." --George Washington)
To: adobbs
He has doubled the border patrol since 9/11. lets not underistimate the president !! Get your facts sraight. The BP has not been doubled.
40
posted on
05/16/2006 4:24:05 AM PDT
by
raybbr
(You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote!!!)
Comment #41 Removed by Moderator
To: jk4hc4
Sounds like Hoosier may be an illegal.
I'm not. But I have been known to be an "extremist" when it comes to abortion & gays, though! ; ) Apparently, a lot of FReepers don't think those issues are as important as others.
Comment #43 Removed by Moderator
To: hispanichoosier
Numerically, I just don't think you can prove this. If you can prove to me mathematically that the number of votes we'd receive from legal immigrants would dwarf the number of votes we'd lose if tough measures are taken, then maybe I'd agree with you.
Every election, the Republicans gain Hispanic votes. This, despite political planks and talk by the Democrats urging full amnesty, of reuniting families across borders, of securing the citizenship of children born within our borders, etc. They offer the moon, yet the immigrants are still coming over to our side.
Is it that, or is it despising infanticide that goes against their majority Catholic beliefs? Or is it something else? Impossible to say, as the only polling data comes from far left groups who want to present an image that fits their desires. Like California New Media which conducted a nationwide survey of 'immigrants', with 60% of the survey conducted in 'the native language.'
Even then, they just barely presented a majority that wanted 'a path to legal citizenship,' and 34% wanted immediate deportation. Stop swallowing the media line.
44
posted on
05/16/2006 4:26:54 AM PDT
by
kingu
(Yeah, I'll vote in 2006, just as soon as a party comes along who listens.)
To: hispanichoosier
" I'm more than willing to tolerate illegal aliens if doing so helps us get rid of abortion and gay marriage"
Theres a reach if I ever saw one.
45
posted on
05/16/2006 4:27:05 AM PDT
by
Kakaze
(I'm now a single issue voter.....exterminate Al Quaida)
Comment #46 Removed by Moderator
To: jk4hc4
When they are paid in cash how much taxes would you access?
The IRS can probably use statistical and computer models to figure out imputed income to an illegal. Courts often impute income to non-custodial parents if they are underemployed. At least, that's the way I'd write the statute and regulations.
To: kingu
6,000 National Guard troops. That's telling 6,000 families that their fathers, mothers, brothers or sisters are going to go sit on their hands, giving up their normal job, to fulfill a function that the standing military is supposed to do. I deeply respect the military and the chain of command, but if I was given such an order, I'd resign instantly. We can't legally use the military for law enforcement. Heck, even using the National Guard has some dems foaming at the mouth. I agree that it is not going to help, but we have at least started to do something.
48
posted on
05/16/2006 4:28:24 AM PDT
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: All
Did anyone see Edward James Olmos (the actor) on Larry King last night?
I only caught the end and really didn't get a feel for what his position was on the matter. He was seated next to one of the Minuteman founders.
The reason i ask is because it would be nice if a high profile Mexican/American came down against illegal immigration.
To: tuvals
No on considers the hit our medical plans take from illegals...I was at the hospital with my daughter. There were tons of illegal Americans - all getting free medical care. Also what about schools? Something must be done by the Feds to address this problem instead of dumping it on states where taxpayers must pick up the tab. As for the GOP taking a hit...they took a hit with me. I will hold my nose and vote this one last time, but if they keep acting like Dems, I'm voting third party.
50
posted on
05/16/2006 4:30:10 AM PDT
by
bronxboy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-200 ... 251-252 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson