Posted on 05/17/2006 7:42:17 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
The bottom-line question about President Bush's speech Monday night is whether or not it demonstrated he is finally serious about securing the U.S.-Mexico border.
The answer is a resounding and exasperated no!
The illegal immigration crisis now threatens to mark George Bush's legacy the way the Iran hostage crisis marked Jimmy Carter's. The question is how long America will be held hostage.
Back in 1980, voters could retaliate against Carter for his feeble response to the hostage crisis by throwing him out of office. Voters cannot throw Bush out for his feeble response to illegal immigration, but they can throw his party out of its congressional majority.
Unless Bush immediately undergoes a St. Paul-type conversion on illegal immigration, come Election Day the evidence will be indisputable that he was not serious about securing the border: Illegal aliens will still be flooding over it.
Public reaction to that continuing flood could sweep away the Republican House majority, and perhaps the Senate majority, too -- making the final two years of Bush's presidency an ugly time of investigations and recriminations by congressional Democrats intent on paving the way for a Democratic presidential victory in 2008.
Bush's immigration speech included multiple elements certain to further upset Americans already angry with a federal political establishment that won't fulfill its rudimentary responsibility of securing the border.
Last week in this space, I argued that Bush could begin a political comeback and help Republicans retain Congress if, among other things, he deployed troops to secure the border. In his speech, Bush gave ample justification for doing so. "Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, it strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities," he said. Securing our borders is "an urgent requirement of our national security." We need to close our borders to "criminals, drug dealers and terrorists."
Then he offered a transparently inadequate solution to this "urgent' problem: Deploying "up to 6,000" National Guardsmen. In three daily shifts along a 2,000-mile border, that's one per mile.
In a piece on HumanEventsOnline.com this week, Rep. Charles Norwood, the Republican of Georgia, recommended an initial deployment of 36,000. He based that on a study of the Minuteman Project published last year by the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, which concluded that six men per mile along the length of the border (36,000 over three daily shifts) could indeed stop illegal crossings.
Bush did not explain how he decided that one-sixth of that number could do the job, but he did insist that National Guardsmen "will not be involved in direct law-enforcement activities."
"The United States is not going to militarize the southern border," he said, as if using our military to secure our border would be beneath our national dignity.
On the other hand, Bush said he would use federal funds to train state and local authorities "to help federal officers apprehend and detain illegal immigrants." Rather than "militarize" the border, he is going to take part of the core federal responsibility of defending the national frontier and dump it on local cops.
Then there were the serial rationalizations Bush offered on behalf of illegal aliens, their employers and even those who demonstrate in favor of illegal immigration.
When he was trying to excuse employers for hiring illegal aliens, Bush accused illegal aliens of using "forged documents to get jobs." But then he described the type of illegal alien he would like to grant permanent legal residency as "someone who has worked here for many years" and who has "an otherwise clean record."
If employers generally can't be held responsible for hiring illegal aliens because illegal aliens are using "forged documents to get jobs," how can all those illegal aliens who have "worked here for many years" have "otherwise clean records?"
Where did all those illegal aliens using forged documents go, Mr. President?
"On the streets of major cities, crowds have rallied in support of those in our country illegally. At our southern border, others have organized to stop illegal immigrants from coming in," Bush said. "Across the country, Americans are trying to reconcile these contrasting images." These words suggest that our chief law enforcement officer believes there is moral equivalence between helping those who enforce our immigration laws and cheering those who break them.
There isn't. Enforcing our immigration laws is good. Breaking them is bad.
Republicans in Congress should remember this basic point, stop President Bush's immigration plan and insist that he secure the border. Whether they remain the majority may depend on it.
I think he's on to something here.
A huge oversimplification of the politics involved here
This establishes an interesting precedent. It appears that we are no longer a nation bound by the rule of law. The logical conclusion is that we are now free to ignore any statute/code with which we disagree.
And may airheads actually think the RATS are going to solve anything? They have done all they can think of to create this mess.
I think the airheads just want the problem solved.
What kind of message does it send when the president and congress turn a blind eye to 12 million people breaking immigration laws, millions of employers hire illegals to cheat on their taxes and not pay into SS/Medicare?
So, should the new Republican slogan be "Yes, we're gutless, and we don't accomplish anything, but the Democrats are even more gutless, and they really, really won't accomplish anything!"?
Is it too much to ask that our elected officials do the job we elected them to do?
We'll slow illegals to a trickle if we put enough troops on the border, build a wall. The smart ones will get to Canada, as that border will continue as is, no troops. Violence in the streets, something will spark a riot, overturned torched cars, etc.. There are plenty of hotheaded, frustrated illegals with too much testosterone.
Mexico has never bothered much about educating the peasant class, and as a result, too many don't understand the concept of working a long time for a desired result...like a high school diploma. Huge numbers of Hispanics drop out and doom themselves to a life of poverty. They want whatever they want instantly, here and now. (So they're marching in DC demanding instant citizenship. Tomorrow they'll demand reparations.) Anyway, I've been looking in my crystal ball and see nothing positive with the present state of affairs. Everyone says it's tense, and the longer it drags out the worse it gets. Bush needs to pull a rabbit out of his hat.
The reason is exactly what the author points out, which is that as far back as Jimmy Carter there has been no move to stop or even apprehend what now amounts to more than eleven million illegals who are living in the U.S. without a permit. A reality that is much more dangerous to our nation's security than guns will ever be.
Those who want to blame Bush are forgetting that he is the commander and chief and doesn't pass enabling legislation or appropriation bills. He has no authority to move the National Guard into states that harbor illegal aliens and use guns or force of any kind. He has no authority to say that employers who employ illegal aliens will go to jail, and incidentally he has no authority to lower the price of gas, or free the blacks in Durfar.
He gave this message to his party and to the no-idea detractors who were not listening: ""Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, it strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities," he said. Securing our borders is "an urgent requirement of our national security." We need to close our borders to "criminals, drug dealers and terrorists." Is that using the bully pulpit, or is he just talking to hear himself speak?
If border security means putting human resources there then how about 45,000 new border patrol agents? Only 1/3 of whom are on duty at any one time. If the U.S. has money for disaster relief around the world, including some of our enemies, than I think Congress can find enough money to create 45,000 new jobs that Americans are willing to do.
As for the eleven million, many of whom were illegal before Bush took office, many have jobs and live in homes. You want to hear Dick Durban speak after the National Guard descends on their homes and drags them out into the street and into police wagons like the Nazis did in Germany? I don't think so. For all of you who say "send them back before they are eligible for citizenship", tell me how you would do that? Hannity, you have any better ideas than the democrats have on - you pick the subject.
Don't make me laugh! Maybe you want to put our economy into a depression by putting every CEO, President, and private businessman in jail who has an illegal alien on his books? Those people pay taxes too, and the IRS happily gives them tax ID numbers to send in their money. You tell me, does the President have control over the IRS, or does Congress?
Get real, bashing Bush doesn't take much intelligence that's why so many democrats and others do it so often. And if it continues the the dam-O-crats will be laughing all the way to the house majority leader Nancy Pelosi.
...only if one considers the nomination of nothing but non-conservatives since Reagan "victory after victory" for those who believe that consrvative values are the only thing that will preserve our nation.
Mealy mouth conservatives are the bane of the base.
That pretty much sums up the attitude of the quasi-liberal GOP power brokers. And given that, the party must be glad we're leaving.
"What kind of message does it send when the president and congress turn a blind eye to 12 million people breaking immigration laws, millions of employers hire illegals to cheat on their taxes and not pay into SS/Medicare?"
___________________________________________________________
If those 12 million are granted Amnesty through "earned citizenship"...they can petition to bring in 16 (and perhaps 32 as some senators want) family members.
Remember, every person GWB grants amnesty too....is more like 17 (or perhaps 33) when you figure in the family of the "pardoned ones".
If the dems take Congress this year (quite likely) and they start pushing impeachment, the 'bots on this forum will be pushing us to defend the President.
How do you say pi$$ off in Spanish?
The Emperor is wearing no clothes and they insist that we see him in full military regalia with all the hero medals firmly attached to the uniform that is not there. And they call us names if we dare to disagree with any word that comes out of his mouth.There are none so blind ...
I will tel you how it is done. Many of these never pay any income tax. They file as "married -6" and probaably use phony SSAN. You cannot fire for a phony SSAN. You are told to advise the employee to contact the Social Security office. All this takes time, allowing the illegal to move to another job and restart the cycle. Put Social Security on notice that they WILL handle these matters on a timely basis, and WILL cooperate with IRS and other FedGov enforcement. Tax evasion is a crime and makes one deportable. If you deport 1 million, 5 million more go home.
Don't forget the Haitian and European illegals while you are at it. Lord knows how many Irish the Kennedys are protecting in Boston, who may be associated with Irish gangs there
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.