Bush: Militarizing Border Won't Stop Illegal Deluge

Newsmax.com ^ | Monday, Sept. 27, 2004 11:07 p.m. EDT

[HitmanLV]

"Social concerns" aren't considered as important enough to give a license to kill people looking for a job. Americans won't ever bite that bone, sorry.

"Security concerns" may be considered important enough, though. It's not viewed as a security problem now, and until it is, don't expect any serious change at the border.

And in any event, don't expect US soldiers gunning down people. I can't imagine many right thinking troops would go for that, and most would quit in time.

[Travis McGee]

I'm talking about a multigenerational flow of history, both in Kosovo and in our Southwest. What happened to the Serbs in Kosovo is going to happen in the Southwest if we don't get control of our borders.

[Poohbah]

And in any event, don't expect US soldiers gunning down people. I can't imagine many right thinking troops would go for that, and most would quit in time.

What worries me is the kinds of people who WOULD enlist for that mission.

And what use someone like Hillary Clinton or Janet Reno would put them to.

[Publius6961]

The president has my vote this time (what choice is there, really? a surfin' 50+ adolescent?), but come 2008, a real candidate better step forward. This is one issue about which I will accept no whining about how hard it is to deal with. Not even from Bush.

A word to the wise (party).

[Travis McGee]

Not Switzerland, a tiny tax haven which grew rich by hiding the gold of dictators including the Nazis.

Come on, you can give some examples, can't you? Is Switzerland the only example you can think of?

[ApesForEvolution]

That is the problem. Alright then, let's build the superhighways from the border down to South America and call it the United Islamic Socialist States of the Americas and be done with it.../s

[Chemist_Geek]

And in any event, don't expect US soldiers gunning down people. I can't imagine many right thinking troops would go for that, and most would quit in time.

Shooting at unarmed persons crossing the border is beyond the pale.

I don't think anyone has much of a problem with Border Patrol agents or any military force deployed there, defending themselves with lethal force against the armed smugglers. I sure don't.

[Barlowmaker]

Work on getting the Socialists out of local government and the Judiciary.

That's 95% of the problem.

We have a 2000 mile border with Mexico. When the incentives to come here outweigh the risks, Mexicans will come.

I'm about disincentivizing, not amping up their risks by making the Southwest a police state.

[Trinity_Tx]

"As an employer who hires nothing but Americans and pay all my required state/fed'l payroll taxes it makes me furious when I see a multitude of employers in various industries openly breaking federal law by hiring illegals and EVADING numerous taxes while aiding and abetting illegal immigration in the process. Additionally, they get to pay minimal wages to illegals knowing full well the taxpayers will get socked to supplement the employees living expenses. "

I find it sad that there are so many concrete reasons like yours posted here to explain why we see this as a serious problem, and yet I see few replies that attempt to justify or deny the problems we've posted. Most are just attacks on our motives or certain proposed solutions.

In fact, many replies are like Jesse Jackson's calling anyone who doesn't support his wish for more handouts, etc. "racist".

Maybe there are some who are guilty of racism, but most of us are giving objective reasons that deserve more respect.

Remember, racists are not the only ones blinded by bias...
Some on the other side are in denial or dissembling due to a misguided fear of criticizing Bush (who I stand behind on most everything myself) at all. Convincing others to vote for your man is easier though, if you show that credibility and integrity are priorities.

On the other hand, hiring illegals is also "welfare" for their employers. So I assume some here might be biased in that they are per$onally benefiting from charging much of their payroll overhead to the taxpayers.

Anyway... The solution is debatable, but the fact that we need one should not be brushed aside with personal attacks, IMHO.

[TomasUSMC]

You are a liar.

---

Just cause W is wrong on the border, don't call him a liar.

[Publius6961]

Totalitarianism here we come.

I find this statement incredible. I agree 100% that this can never apply if the employer is diligent and only prevented from knowing that he is hiring an illegal by other federal, state or local law.

Otherwise there is no excuse. Don't like the penalty? Don't do the crime. Every law on the books has the potential for abuse and/or misapplication.

[Willie Green]

And, just how are these documents supposed to be verified? Or are the businesses just supposed to take the applicants' word for their authenticity?

IMHO, routine visual examination is still good enough to foil all but the most sophisticated forgeries. Employers normally pursue more thorough background checks for positions with greater responsiblities anyway. (at least they should)

[truthkeeper]

Good commentary. Bravo.

[Chemist_Geek]

"Swizerland isn't a real country." That's simply absurd.

[Travis McGee]

How does it "jettison the Constitution" to make businesses obey the law?

What example does it serve when some laws are totally ignored by the govt, while other laws are ruthlessly enforced with a zero-tolerance attitude?

What do our illegal alien immigrants learn about the rule of law in the USA, when they break the law on day one and every day, and politicans wink at them and pander to them?

What does this dual-track approach to law enforcement do to legal Americans, who watch entire classes of society get away with daily law breaking on a massive scale, when they would be sued out of business by the EPA or EEOC for the tiniest irregularity?

Do you have ANY pity for the struggling contractor who uses legal labor and pays all the taxes etc, who is put out of business by bastards who employ illegals for half the pay, who don't pay for insurance etc, who let the taxpayer pay for their healthcare at your ER?

Don't you have ANY concern about the law-abiding American businessman, put out of business by these illegal-employing bastards, while the govt just winks at them?

The same govt who would parachute in a SWAT team if that legal-employing businessman filled in a puddle without spending years on impact statements etc.

I just want to know which laws "really count" and which laws we can all ignore.

This is the fast track to Banana Republicdom.

[Travis McGee]

Okay, set the tiny tax-haven of Cuckooclockland aside. Name some other long term successful bilingual bicultural nations.

[Publius6961]

"Social concerns" aren't considered as important enough to give a license to kill people looking for a job. Americans won't ever bite that bone, sorry.

Don't mean to rain on your parade, but I buy it.

You see, the way you phrased that is exactly like the headline that says "Man arrested for petting dog", when the reality is that the "man" was a rapist, breaking and entering, and neutralizing the dog. That dog won't hunt with me.

[Petronski]

"Swizerland isn't a real country." That's simply absurd.

Technically correct, though: It's "Switzerland" with a 't.'

[Poohbah]

Okay, set the tiny tax-haven of Cuckooclockland aside. Name some other long term successful bilingual bicultural nations.

United States, 1776-1880s. There were very large tracts of this country that didn't speak English until the advent of compulsory public education, which in turn was a product of the Industrial Revolution.