Posted on 08/29/2004 2:55:26 PM PDT by Afronaut
If there are any deluded souls out there who still believe George W. Bush is a conservative, I invite them to examine the 2004 Republican Party platform on the issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Bush is for it. That makes him a liberal. Worse, he proclaims that the amnesty is not an amnesty. So he is not only a liberal, but a liar as well.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Actually, you wouldn't even have to fine them, just threaten them with losing federal and state funding.
Yes, you did. This reminds me of the time in ninth grade civics class when I was the only student who gave a speech for the Republican candidate. The other twenty-nine students gave speeches for the Democrats. As time went on I have watched as certain areas of the country went from Democrat areas to Republican areas. These people are known as Johnny-come-lately Republicans. They are very easy to identify by their attack methods. They are the ones attacking the messenger, not the message.
Dude...
I can't deal with your lack of knowledge on this issue.
Now, I may be wrong on my FR research and ancient California Recall history (Long before my time here), but weren't you the guy who called up Michael Medved and right off that bat called him a "RINO"?
You're standing to attribute stupidity to others might be shaky.
"Show me a poll."
Sorry, I don't follow polls.
Anyhow it might not be possible to completely seal the border but promising amnesty to those who disregard our laws isn't even trying to slow this down.
One thing Bush could do that would make him popular on this is go after the employers who bring in the illegals, make them pay back the taxpayers in the form of very big fines for all the health care and education that the illegals have cost us. And even let the illegals sue those employer for any benefits and wages they failed to pay to avoid following the labor laws everyone else had to follow.
Crawling over or under the fence the first time is only a misdemeanor. Cutting someone's fence on the way north might only be a misdemeanor. Breaking into their house or stealing their car is a felony. Assaulting or car-jacking them is a felony. Use of fraudulent ID is a felony. Claiming welfare benefits to which you are not entitled? Working without prescribed documentation? If a prosecutor played dogpile on an illegal who had been here six months and asked for consecutive sentences, they'd be locked up until doomsday. Shall I go on?
Yeowza! That's an eye opener!
Coming from a RINO who'd need 27 promotions to be an idiot, your standing is shaky.
HUTCHINSON: Well, I think that you put it in perspective. First of all, to move toward security of our ports, we can protect our own ports -- and we're doing that. But you also have to recognize the international shipping industry and the international ports. And our security would not be sufficient if we do not bring those along.
And in two-and-a-half years to set international standards to bring the investment of the international shipping companies -- I talked to one today that have 2,300 employees in the shipping company that are involved in security and have gone through security training. This is an extraordinary step forward.
So, you combine what we're doing overseas for the inspection of the containers coming toward the United States with the port security standards that are in place, the private investment, I think it's a pretty good combination of success.
DOBBS: I've heard more than one or two people, very knowledgeable on national security -- and I won't use their names, because they were speaking not for publication -- saying that we need to do far more, that in point of fact we are still putting our commercial interests ahead of our security interests, whether we are talking about the borders or the ports. And that we need to be far more constrained. How do you react to that?
HUTCHINSON: Well, I think it's wrong. I think, first of all, we don't put anything below the high standard of security that is so critical to our nation. At the same time, we not to shut down our borders and our ports, we're to make sure we protect our commerce as well. But I think that whenever you look at 300 years of history of developing our ports without security in mind, in 2 and a half years you make tremendous progress, but certainly you're going to have some vulnerabilities that are going to remain for some time.
We have done, though, with these new assessments as a good (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
DOBBS: And a tough job. I think everyone acknowledges that. And in your job, you have to spend some sleepless nights knowing that it only takes 1 mistake across all of our borders and across our ports for you to be a failure at your job. How do you handle that kind of pressure?
HUTCHINSON: Well, you worry about not fixing those things that we can fix and we, you know, finding the vulnerabilities, the threats that we know that the terrorists are trying to exploit and fixing them. So, my job is to worry.
And I think that the 180,000 men and women are working very hard at it. And I think we're having progress every day.
DOBBS: Let me ask you a couple of questions about the border. T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Control Council, you know, saying basically that border patrol agents being ordered, effectively, not to apprehend illegal aliens crossing our border, to stand their ground and to simply not be permitted to apprehend them. Why would such a policy be permitted?
HUTCHINSON: Well, that statement is totally wrong. Whenever you look at our Arizona Border Control Initiative, we've deployed hundreds of new border patrol agents. We're apprehending 16,000 illegal aliens per week trying to come across this area of the border. And so to say that we're not encouraging the enforcement and protection of our borders is totally wrong.
We've added technology, including unmanned aerial vehicles that we're testing this week, as well as new personnel.
DOBBS: How many people do you think are crossing the border illegally every year? Southern border, the northern border?
HUTCHINSON: We're apprehending more than a million per year. As to what percent of those we are getting, I think it's a very high percent. But I think that's undetermined. I don't know that you could really speculate on that.
DOBBS: A lot of people do, as you know. Fifty members of Congress, including the House Majority Leader Tom Delay sent you a letter rather recently on June 24 talking about the mobile patrol groups. Why isn't that pilot project being more broadly implemented?
HUTCHINSON: Well, the mobile patrol groups of the Border Patrol do interior checkpoints. They also work in the transportation hubs responding to intelligence, very appropriate. We support them tremendously.
But we have, in Homeland Security, a number of different groups that is involved in interior enforcement, worksite enforcement in which we're almost doubling the funding for that program. We have detention and removal teams, we have fugitive ops teams. So it's a matter of coordinating among those.
The Border Patrol, when you look at their responsibility, we try to focus on the nexus to the border, that's why we're focusing on the Arizona Border Control Initiative.
DOBBS: Asa Hutchinson, we thank you very much for being with us here.
HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Lou.
"One in five?
More guessing?"
The number not apprehended per year can only be a guess, but so what? We know the number of illegals is growing each year, and the estimates we generally hear are some multiple of your cited 900,000, although I don't think I've heard anybody estimate 4.5-million. Maybe 2-3x?
So what?
The number is politicized by anyone because it's impossible to guess.
So let's say ten million...or maybe one billion, or even one gazillion!!!!
"So what?
The number is politicized by anyone because it's impossible to guess.
So let's say ten million...or maybe one billion, or even one gazillion!!!!"
And you're point is what? Is it your opinion or guess that the number escaping apprehension is less than the number being apprehended?
Different interview and I'm still not sure whether it was Hutchinson or Bonner. I think it was from the same general time period, though. I may have just let it slip by as it said the same thing the local BP agents say. One in five. If I remember right, there was no mention of port security at all.
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.