Bush Gives Country Away

WND.com | 01-15-03 | Farah, Joseph

[William Terrell]

He spends the entire article ranting against the President's plan without making any suggestion at all about an alternative.

Well, that's because the alternatives are just blatantly obvious to anybody smart enough to breathe. There have been several good, workable plans suggested right here on FR.

[RebelBanker]

Well, that's because the alternatives are just blatantly obvious to anybody smart enough to breathe. There have been several good, workable plans suggested right here on FR.

There have been any number of alternatives put forward by a lot of very smart people. Some of them are really interesting, many are mutually exclusive and a lot have some very serious flaws, but I certainly think they deserve to be discussed. Later in this very thread, I praised a series of steps proposed by Sabertooth on a previous thread. My point in the post you responded to was that ranting about a proposal without suggesting an alternative is generally counterproductive.

[Modernman]

Your logic, employing another example, is this: We'll never get the number of criminals down to zero, so after we arrest some of them, we'll leave it at that.

No, my logic is simply based on reality: We COULD come up with a criminal justice system that got crime down to zero, effectively. However, the monetary costs and the hits to our liberty would be so high, it really wouldn't be worth doing.

Similarly, we COULD come up with a system that effectively got the number of illegals down to zero. But, again, the costs involved would be too high to be worth it.

In the real world, our realistic goal over the next decade or so is a gradual reduction of the illegal population back down to manageable levels. Five million is just a number I threw out there. Maybe can do even better. But to say our goal is to get the number of illegals down to zero, well, that's not living in the real world.

What you described is France. I don't want to live in France, but you apparently do.

This is just overheated rhetoric. I bet you still call French fries "Freedom Fries."

[jim35]

"...defend our borders and enforce our laws and point out the great damage caused by illegal immigration. After 9/11, this would not be a tough sell..."

No, not a tough sell, but impossible to do. Gonna move the entire army, navy, air force, etc to the border? Put them all on the 'great wall of America,' reinstate the draft (or pull all the troops out of the rest of the world, for the manpower), and leave them there forever. Or maybe just do grand sweeps for illegals, using all of our military and LEO resources. Of course, we'd have to do it every year, or maybe every month. Or we could put those who use their labor out of business with huge fines. Yep, maybe it's possible. Or maybe President Bush has a better plan, where there is accountability for those 10-20 million illegals already here. Unlike you, I don't have any pat answer. There's no winning here, no matter what we do, and acting like there are simplistic solutions is just childish.

[F16Fighter]

"It will be, when we get one who thinks that way."

Can we dig up Teddy Roosevelt and wake him up?

[F16Fighter]

"We'll never get the number of illegals down to zero and after a while you hit the point of diminishing returns when it comes to effort. If we get the number of illegals down to less than five million within a decade, that would be a major victory."

I agree with you -- if the illegal horde of illegals could be reduced to "less than five million within a decade," it WOULD be a major victory. In two decades, maybe that number could be reduced further by half of that. But we won't be able to reduce it AT ALL without a MAJOR plan and committment.

As to this so-called "point of diminishing returns," one never endeavors that they will lose the battle before the charge -- It is this cynical, defeatist attitude which prevents America from turning back this poisonous tide of PC Liberalism and New World Ordered multiculturism, and taking back OUR country...

So pick up your sword, get back on your horse and CHARGE!

[William Terrell]

I can see your point, but, actually, what came to mind is that the alternative could be summed up in four words: enforce the current law. No need to say it; the way I see it, that's the default.

[Thorin]

So even after illegal immigrants plowed airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it's "impossible" for a President committed to defending our borders to rally the populace behind him? I don't think so.

Nor would we need to put our entire armed forces on the borders, though, frankly, I'd rather see them defending America than engaged in nation building in Iraq. By enforcing employer sanctions, you diminish the economic incentives for illegal immigration--many illegals would then simply go home. And, if need be, we could build a fence. I've yet to see a rational argument as to why such a fence would not work.

And how is there "accountability" for illegal immigrants under Bush's plan? Now, it's "impossible" to enforce our laws, but, after Bush waves his magic wand, the illeglas will suddenly be held "accountable?"

[Marine Inspector]

There's no winning here, no matter what we do

That's a great defeatist attitude and one that will lead this country to ruin.

[RebelBanker]

I agree that enforcing the current law should be the "default" setting, but that is not working at the moment. There is another thread from a Fox News article about that failure, which I gather is caused by a combination of three factors: inadequate (or at least improperly allocated) enforcement resources, loopholes in the laws, and judges that interfere with enforcement. Any or all of these should be fixable, but I am afraid that may be like putting a band-aid on an aortic blow-out.

[William Terrell]

It would strike me that enforcement resources, loopholes and judges are not fixed by the Bush plan either.

If you have an enforcement resource problem, allocate more by law and let the local police hold illegal aliens for regularly scheduled pickups.

If you have loopholes in the law, plug them by legislation, like loopholes are plugged in other areas.

If you have judge problems, regulate the judges like Congress has the power to do via Articles 2 and 3, and state legislatures via their own constitutions and customs.

[Ohioan]

..Why just Rove?

Because I think that if it were not for his evil influence, Conservatives would have been able to get to the President and move him to the Right.

But my post #173 presents an argument that goes to most of the world inside the "Beltway."

William Flax

[Zipporah]

Hmm.. not sure if this premise is correct .."Conservatives would have been able to get to the President and move him to the Right." .. As I've stated before, the neocons have co-oped the Republican party. The problem started prior to Bush 2 .. much before. Bush 1's policies were extreme.. (neocon influenced) more than influence though IMO, Bush 1 himself was a neocon .. I like other Republican (more importantly conservatives) confused the exercise of American power with patriotism. Bush 2 seems to be continuing his father's work. He is highly influenced by him.. there are more 'disruptors' than just Rove... Wolfowitz & Rumsfeld to name two in the cabinet as well as others who are advisors to the president.

Traditional conservatives are not represented .. for this presidency is as far left as any Democrat presidency has been IMO. ( I might add that I have voted for Bush 1 & 2 and gladly voted for both.. They have done an excellent job confusing the constiuency.. right is left..and .. left is right and in doing so, we gladly gave our vote to someone who apparently, judging by policy, is taking conservatives much for granted and obviously isn't concerned about the conservative position.)

[Zipporah]

As a partial preterist I do agree with you on 99% of your post.

[Patrick Henry Returns]

WSJ supports it because businesses need workers for non-skilled positions. Americans are not having enough babies, and too many pregnancies have ended up in abortion.

You will soon see that we have a massive shortage of workers in the U.S. Despite what many on this site think about shipping jobs offshore and having Mexicans work in America, we are in trouble without bringing folks in.

[Dante3]

It almost feels as if Fox in charge of this country. How could Fox has such a hold on Bush?

[Pelham]

What "a lot of people are opposed to" is the government aiding and abetting wholesale lawbreaking. Southern California, unlike Maryland, has had enough of illegal immigration. We want the flood halted, we want the illegals sent home. You can indulge your fantasies about concentration camps all you want, the hard left has already broken that ground and they can always use some fellow travellers spouting their drivel.

[Ohioan]

We don't necessarily disagree. I do, however, believe the President can be influenced. I also believe that Rove suffers from a dangerous form of tunnel vision, which makes him truly a liability to the President, as well as a force for evil in America.

However, to return to your main premise, my only real difference from your assessment is in the use of the term "neo-con." They are not that, however some of them may like that label, because it helps them appear to relate to the Conservative trend that Reagan engendered. In actuality, they are the same "Modern Republicans" that I fought in my youth: Internationalistic; identified with Eastern establishment types and Universities; carrying water for the Corporate conglomerates and often indifferent to the needs of independent business, agriculture, labor, professions, etc.; and above all else, desperate to appear respectable, "politically correct," within the usage of the moment; and absolutely and totally unable to defend themselves in a debate with anybody who really understands the issues.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Ohioan]

Mexicans work in America, we are in trouble without bringing folks in.

The simple answers to that are (1) either get back on the track to real welfare reform, as started in the Contract With America, or (2) increase the incentives to use labor saving devices. We have the technological abilities to move in that direction.

The idea of changing the nature of our societies by bringing in peoples not particularly congenial to traditional American norms, is addressing a transient problem that affects some Americans, by permanently damaging the future of all of us.

Immigration is like fire. It is a dangerous servant, but a fearful master. While we can control it, it still affords possibilities for unwanted changes. When it controls us, as in the case of the present open border, we are in real trouble. (See Immigration & The American Future.)

William Flax

[Zipporah]

I do agree with you on your assertion regarding "modern Republicans" but do disagree your statement "with desperate to appear respectable, "politically correct," I do believe that this would apply to some "modern" Republicans but I do believe that for many, their motives are more sinister.