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."
What was the proposition that Californians passed that the SCOTUS later struck down?
I beleive it was Pete Wilson's initiative.
And if you think Arnold's anti-drivers-license stance didn't help him ... i've got a bridge to sell you.
I'd love to see a national referendum on this.
LOL. Right. Just because YOU call it an invasion does not make it so. I could be wrong, but I sincerely doubt the U.S. Congress is going to call for a military response to the "illegal workers invasion of America."
No it's not an accident. It's because the voting public doesn't seem to care enough.
Case in point:
Congressman Chris Cannon of Utah apparently is in real danger of losing his seat in Congress, and apparently that’s causing him to employ extreme measures. Cannon faces serious GOP primary opposition from former state legislator Matt Throckmorton. In the Republican state convention, Throckmorton forced Cannon into a primary election happening today. Throckmorton hammered Cannon’s mass immigration stance
Cannon apparently was not in real danger. He won by a comfortable margin. So much for Throckmorton hammering away...
In the most conservative state, in probably the most conservative district in that state and in the most conservative parties primary in that district in that state, the clearly anti-illegal immigration candidate lost.
What does that tell you??
You either are unable or unwilling to listen to what I have said. The choice is not between militarizing the border and doing nothing.
It might surprise you to know that people can be strongly against illegal immigration (that is, for that Cali proposition and against licenses for illegals), yet not anxious to have snipers shoot people dead just because they are sneaking into the USA.
If you really think that those two policies you listed somehow translates into wide support fron draconian tacticts at the border, it;s you who is buying a bridge, son, not me.
There are many options besides 'nothing' and 'militarization.' I have said consistently that there is no mandate for the latter, and for the violence it will bring.
Expand your range of thought a bit, and you will see what I am saying. Sticking to a false dichotomy which prompts you to 'fit' stuff like the Cali Prop & The Drivers License issue as support for a more violent presence on the border isn't legitimate, realistic, or productive.
When people from a particular country, to the tune of millions every year, knowling break our Federal Immigration Laws (among the other laws such as working illegally, driving illegally, driving without insurance, and committing various other crimes) and refuse to leave, what would your definition of that be if not an invasion.
I'm open to a redefinition if it make sense.
Okay, what do you propose? Keep in mind that asking nicely hasn't worked.
Re;
"There is no public mandate now for something violent and extreme, like a wall or land mines."
Perhaps; but it's not all that unpopular an idea, either.
"... Too many innocent people will be killed or hurt."
Ahhh... hello your Grace; if they are trying to ILLEAGALLY infiltrate and INVADE America, then they are CRIMINALS - NOT "Innocent", got it?
It is well established that a lot of these "poor downtrodden immigrants" are ARAB TERRORISTS, Mother Theressa, for Jupiter's sake; "Innocent" my rumpled old arse!
Not too many of them will have to be blown up or fried on electric fences before they get the message - I'm not sure you ever will, however.
If anyone wants to pursue the American dream, there are plenty of legitimate and legal options available to them. Sure they could use to be streamlined - what governmant program couldn't?
Our prisons are already full of these predatory invaders (call them "Immigrants" if you want to - its so very PC don't you know?) as are Hospital Emergency rooms, which are being driven out of business from having to provide services gratis to these legions of parasites or from being sued by them for the most trivial of contrived grievances.
Now our fearless leader wants to give them Social Security benifits, for goodness' sake!
They already are bleeding our economy pale with false or stolen identity scams (which are seldom prosecuted, for some strange reason) as well as working the welfare system and bankrupting munincipal governments and legitimate citizen taxpayers.
From what people out that way tell us, they refuse to pledge allegiance in schools, often refuse to learn English, and have no intentions of ever "assimilating" into American culture. They intend to take over, and don't seem at all shy about it either.
These are not "Immigrants", Pilgrim; they are INVADERS, and as much as Jeourgi BOOSH loves 'em, I would not mind a few of them blowing up on the way over the Rio Grande'.
Let the buzzards sort 'em out. Works for me, Amigo.
It's obviously not an invasion in the military sense of the word and a military response is not appropriate.
What is Utah's experience with illegal immigration? Anything like what we deal with in the border other warmer-climate states?
I could be wrong, but for various reasons, Utah desn't strike me as a representative sample.
And how many electoral votes does it get?
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
June 18, 1878
CHAP. 263 - An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes.
SEC. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section And any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment.
10 U.S.C. (United States Code) 375
Sec. 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel:
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.
18 U.S.C. 1385
Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Editor's Note: The only exemption has to do with nuclear materials (18 U.S.C. 831 (e)
Nuff Said'
Next Argument
The DMZ in Korea does not keep all of the commie infiltrators out, but it sure slows 'em down considerable.
It's about a mile of no-man's land between two fences, which is a "free-fire" zone. Artillery can and does fire live rounds at random at all hours of the day and night in there, and anything that moves between those fences without prior authorization can be shot or bombed on the spot. Land mines?
Oh yeah; lots of 'em.
They say that no amount of military presence on our border can stop the illegal invaders from Mexico; well, that may be true, I suppose.
But like wrapping barbed wire around the bannister to keep Grannie from sliding down in the Morning...
It might not stop 'er, but it'll damnsure slow her down!
So, Jim - if there are more invaders flooding over our borders than the population of Mexico, then WHERE, pray tell, are they coming from?
Care to speculate?
For starters, I don't think we need look too intently to Switzerland or Poland...
If 300 of them decided to enter your house, illegally, uninvited, use your water, electricity, eat your food, borrow your car, run up the phone bill, use your credit cards to fraudulently make purchases, maybe one of them rapes your neighbor, as another 200 enter her house uninvited, she goes to the hospital and has to wait in line behind 200 more illegals, and then, each month the government comes along and tells you to pay for all this.
If this is not an invasion, what do you call it Jim?
Jim, I've thoroughly enjoyed the exchange. The problem is gravely deeper than economics. Every facet of our society is becoming hinged upon the one issue of uncontrolled immigration. Sure, economics play a hugh role, but uncontrolled illegal immigration touches representation, taxation, healthcare, education, and criminal justice. Now which candidate couldn't run an effective campaign based upon cleaning up any or all of those issues?
I'd be willing to cast my lot with anyone who'll listen and at least try. As it is, "It's too big - so we do nothing" attitudes just aren't cutting it. I look at the "choices" and just wag my head in disgust.
Re:
"From a little bird - Next spring there will be some eight wheeled "armored" vehicles on the US/Mexican border."
Oh good.
To help distribute food, water, social security checks and driver's licenses to the poor sojuourners, no doubt.
Will they be painted white and marked "UN" by any chance?
I think your little bird may have just pooped on your cigar.
A Joe Hadnuf paranoid fantasy?
Good question.
Utah has 2.2 million people of which, according to this source, 75,000 are illegals.
The United States is a country of roughly 280,000,000 people.
If you calculate the percentages, then the entire U.S. would have to have 9.5 million illegals or more, in order for the state of Utah to be a place that is under-representative of the illegal immigration problem.
How many illegals are there in this country?
Take a nap, fraud.
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.