Posted on 09/27/2004 11:40:43 PM PDT by Robert Lomax
The U.S. has no plans to deploy troops along the Mexican border to stanch the deluge of illegal aliens currently pouring into the country at the rate of 3 million per year, President Bush said in an interview broadcast on Monday.
"As the governor of Texas, I was very aware of this issue," Bush told Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly.
Story Continues Below
"There is a long border, that makes it hard to control. We have beefed up places along the border to try to stop" the flow, he said. When told that his policy didn't seem to be working, Bush insisted, "It’s working a little better.
"They're doing a pretty good job down in Arizona, which is the main border crossing. ... I think there's a thousand more border patrol agents along the border. We’re modernizing border techniques, we’re using better surveillance methods to stop this crossing at the border."
The president contended, however, that illegal immigration was driven primarily by the economic realities of the region.
"If you can make 50 cents in the interior of Mexico and five bucks in the interior of the United States, you're coming for the five bucks," he explained.
"I happen to believe the best way to enhance the border is to have temporary-worker cards available for people," he said. "I think the long-term solution for this issue on our border is for Mexico to grow a middle class. That's why I believe in NAFTA."
When warned that "a lot of people are not going to like that answer," Bush told O'Reilly, "Well it’s a, a truthful answer."
Nice and sunny and optimistic but will never happen. Mexico will never get any better. It's probably peaked since the maquiladoras are moving to China/Asia for cheaper labor. And many maquiladoras will never get built in the first place. They are built in China.
Also, many schools are having a very difficult time. Here, in rural America, we may not have as many illegal workers as does California...but we we also have a much smaller tax base. The issue has definitely been a very hot topic on local talk radio, lately. I take it as a good sign that people are willing to talk about it...and state their true opinions. Too many people have been silent for too long.
I heard the replay of O'Reilly on FOX News a little while ago and the last thing Bush said on the issue is (paraphrasing) we need to beef up the border and we need to give the border patrol the resources they need to do the job.
Putting the military on our borders seems hypocritical when we're trying to discourage that sort of activity elsewhere in the world. Letting the BP do their job and revamping the system would do wonders as opposed to our borders looking like Checkpoint Charlie.
We need to persuade Mexico that keeping their poor home is a better deal than shipping them north. Whether this at the point of a gun or otherwise is our decision, but we'd better do something and soon. NAFTA was a good faith start on our part,(and some of us disagreed with it long and loudly), but the whole world got into the act...jobs went overseas, outsourcing, yada, yada, yada. Time to invent ourselves all over again. Cell phones and digital tv aren't enough.
Build a wall.
I agree. We'll have to suffer a terrorist attack out west, or with traceable origins...south of the Rio Grande before there's enough hue and cry to slam the door shut. Even then, enough illegals may yell, NO! that we debate ourselves into a stalemate...until another attack. Then some illegals will decide Mexico isn't so bad, and they'll go back.
Jim, that's what Bush has been saying since he took office. Since he took office the flow has increased from roughly 1 million per year to 3.5 million per year. O'Reilly used that figure with Bush, and Bush agreed to it.
Jim, that's 35 million people in ten years. That is unacceptable to me.
When an INS crew of a dozen or so spent several days in the inland several months ago, it arrest 450 people for deportation. Asa Hutchinson send a directive to the local INS office, demanding they cease and desist.
I have listened to Asa defend this action several times. It was perhaps one of the most insulting interviews I have ever witnessed, supposedly from my side of the isle. He was dismisive, lied, spun and just made a complete fool of himself. The radio hosts called him on around three to five absolute falsehoods, that I was aware of before they did so.
David Drier has defended Hutchinson's actions. Both say that inland border apprehensions continue, but insiders say that they have been directed to patrol empty ravines, places known not to be used by illegals. The spins just keeps on coming.
Dana Roerbacher rejected the idea that the federal government should foot the bill for California's illegal immigrant outlays.
Jim, I have been an ardent supporter of Hutchinson and Roerbacher in the past, and had a generally favorable opinion of Drier before this. It would be hard to imagine what could make me more disgusted with these three. Bush's comments tonight on the subject were an embarassment.
This simply cannot continue the way it is going.
If you look back on this forum you will see promises of strengthening the border patrol as far back as this forum's files go. As I mentioned to Jim, the flow has trippled during that time. Wouldn't you say six or seven years of these promises and the resulting increase in flow pretty well lays waist to the promise of shoring up the border patrol as a solution to his.
I don't believe that many people are coming across. At that rate, there wouldn't be anyone left in Mexico.
If the government can't follow through on a pledge to beef up the BP then what makes you think the military would be a good idea? Why are millions of people trying to leave Mexico and what is Vicente Fox doing to cause that?
I agree with you there is no mandate now for a particularly violent or draconian tactic to seal the Mexican Border (regardless of my own personal feelings on the matter, or the wide consensus of Freepers).
Americans in the last few decades fancy themselves as wanting to be well liked around the world. Isn't that the subtext of the whole Grab-an-Arab Prison Humiliation scandal? The thought that some folks might not like us because one of us put used pink panties on a prisoner's head (a practice, I insist, many NYers pay good money for in the townhouses that dot Chelsea) seems to much to bear for too many people.
Something horrid and dramatic will have to happen before a paradigm change. 911 wasn't it. Further, no matter what, I suspect a good 20% or wo will NEVER go for it.
I'm not happy to report the facts, but report them I must.
Oh, let's not be negative. Let's try.
And while we're at it, turn any employer that knowingly hires an illegal over to the Navy for a keel-hauling.
I should think that being keel-hauled under a missile frigate or larger would minimize the number of repeat offenders. (Wicked grin!)
Im not sure that the figure of 3.5 million people a year equals 35 million people in 10 years. Many (most?) illegals cross the border repeatedly--they visit the folks back home in Mexico (most likely) and return to the U.S. I'd cut 35 million down to around 20 million.
Which is still outrageous, and completely unacceptable.
Thanks a lot, Bush.
Why would W *legitimize* the O'Really scumbag RINO, by even giving him an interview, illegal immigration question aside? O'Really is a left-leaning, moderate, quasi-GOPer, liberal-demokkkRAT-lover, incoherent buttboy. Sorry turn of events, IMO, W.
...The U.S. has no plans to deploy troops along the Mexican border to stanch the deluge of illegal aliens currently pouring into the country at the rate of 3 million per year, President Bush said in an interview broadcast on Monday...
And I have no plans to vote for this meathead.
Because of his stance on this subject my support of the President is not enthusiastic. I vote for him solely because of the lack of a decent alternative. The National Media ignore this topic. We need a candidate who will feature this subject in his or her platform, but don't hold your breath. There is no relief in sight. The likely candidates in 2008, Jeb Bush and Hillary both have their heads in the sand and their butts in the air on the issue of illegal immigration. My vote is available to any realistic alternative to these two. I am glad that O'Reilly at least brushed this topic.
From a little bird - Next spring there will be some eight wheeled "armored" vehicles on the US/Mexican border.
I've given up. I just want to slow 'em down enough that I don't have to learn Spanish before I die.
The 3 million per year number came from O'Reilly.
Here's a report from Frontpagemag.com:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2427
And it has several interesting links, both to government statistics:
http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/ybpage.htm
And links to the Center for Immigration Studies:
http://www.cis.org/topics/illegalimmigration.html
This report says the total of illegal immigrants in the US is growing at the rate of one-half million per year. That's a lot, but no where near O'Reilly's 3 million number
And here's another report that also pegs illegal immigration at about 500,00o per year:
http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCenters.cfm?ID=2382&c=13
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.