Posted on 05/23/2006 8:49:59 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
I think it's fair to say the current law is broken both in terms of security and how we treat immigrants (legal and illegal) (no matter how you come down on the issue). The problem is coming up with a smarter, better system that does ensure security while fixing the overall problem that our immigration system is not fair to legal immigrants and does not easily find/deal with illegal ones. In that respect, we need a new law. We are in the process of debating what that law needs to look like. We also need to consider all the ramifications of what we do.
Paraphrasing, "Some law (any law) is better than the status quo".
Wrong, Mark.
&&&&
My paraphrase of his comments: Doing nothing is also making a decision to keep the status quo. No matter what change comes in any situation there will be resistance. So it is "normal" for Senators do shy away from the issue.
Premise of today's show: There is No Upside for Republicans to President Bush raising this issue. Therefore, he did it because he wanted to change the status quo.
WE ARE UNDER INVASION!
While invasion is underway, we seem unable to recognize it.
Perhaps only through historical perspective will we look back and see the signs - AFER IT'S TOO LATE.
Wait one minute? We want to have a border like East Germany? I believe in border security but that's not the kind of border I think America should have.
This has become more and more clear as I have looked into this issue. The President is both correct and courageous to take on this issue. I think a good bill on immigration would be one that doesn't have all of the "let's pretend" and the "wishing will make it so" provisions.
East Germany shot you if you tried to escape from the East. The opposite is the case here.
Just turned this on and totally DISAGREE with whoever was talking from OHIO!! Ohio residents may APPROVE of the bill before congress.....but try living on a BORDER state like California. !!! NO THIS BILL IS BAD!!!!
Right now, Mexico has a stake in our security and prosperity. If we have 0 ties, and a iron curtain, not only would they not have a stated interest in our safety and prosperity, if they are answering to masters in China and Venezuela, their interest may actually be exactly the opposite....
People call illegal immigration an 'invasion' now.. they really have no idea what it would be like if their purpose is to destroy us.
He only compared the concept. That it kept people in instead of out. Poor analogy with the right intentions. No, we wouldn't shoot to kill but as a stand alone barrier with border patrol security standing behind with a set of handcuffs is better than nothing.
This caller is wrong.
Think Maginot Line about artificial barriers to a real enemy assault. I believe it was Patton who declared the incredible arrogance of mankind in believing that manmade fortification could stop a determined enemy. I know everyone cites Israel--that's a special case of a technology superior country walling off a comparitively small amount of border (compared to ours) and even then only being partially successful in stopping terrorism. Our border is a different animal. I'm not against fences per se; I'm against the idea that a fence will FIX the problem. It won't.
Not going to say tin foil hat analogy...not going to say it. A barrier won't do that. You'd think Mexico already has enough relatives living here that they wouldn't resort to "destroying us".
As I say in another post, I'm not against fences in places it makes sense...like near areas in big cities near the border or where there are no border crossings and all you have to do is cross a wide open expanse. Still, the idea of having guards with guns pointing South just doesn't strike me as American. I know the impetus, but we need to do something different. We can't hide behind Fortress America.
La Raza, among other Hispanic pride and repatriation groups wish to take back the Southwest. They will accomplish their aim - without firing a single shot. The seeds for their success have already been planted. It's already too late.
Unless I'm mistaken, Hedgecock subbed for Rush about 2 weeks ago.
I HAVE thought about it, and it's not just a possibility but given what is going on in Central America, it's a probability that someone will try it. We need to be incredibly creative with diplomacy, use of the military and all our resources. This one could be real tricky...
LOL. I hear he is a very good driver.
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.