There is probably the underlying reason WHY George W. Bush will not act to tighten our borders, in the last sentence. He is still trying to forge an alliance with Teddy Kennedy, who for whatever reason, believes in an endless amnesty for illegal aliens in this country. But considering the number of times that Teddy has repulsed President Bush's offer of co-operation on any number of matters, perhaps this may be the time to take the gloves off with Clan Kennedy. Certainly on November 3rd.
I watched Reps Roy Blunt and Tom Tancredo discuss this yesterday on Lou Dobbs. The House Republican leadership, according to Blunt, seem determined to see this through. It'll be interesting to see if Bush exercises his veto pen for the first time in his Presidential life to stop truly meaningful Homeland Security legislation.
So flame away...
Somewhere I read that a Texas judge owned one of these companies. Can't find it now..anyone have a link?
Malkin marginalizes herself with her one-note-Charlie harping on immigration.
I adore Michelle and she always makes good points but I don't think she fully understands the basic problem with Mexican border control. If she does, she won't mention it or offer any alternatives. Here's the problem, and please feel free to offer solutions as the border states need some help on this one. The policy, as it stands now, is to interdict, jump through a few bureaucratic, paper-shuffling hoops, put 'em on a bus, and return them to a collection point a few blocks south of the border. Since 9/11, they probably separate terrorism suspects for special processing and maybe special deportation. This is a whole nuther kettle of fish and I'm waiting for the ACLU to jump all over the "equal treatment", racial profiling issues.
Although few politicians, with the exception of Tancredo, and no talking heads, seem to grasp the fundamental folly of this revolving door policy, I imagine most here see it very clearly. The illegals often beat the bus back across the border! O'Reilly has been beating this drum for a couple of years and one of his guests, a current border patrolman, when O'Reilly asked naively if he ever rearrested the same illegal, said that he had personally rearrested the same FAMILY 4 times in one shift!
Compounding the problem is that illegals provide cheap labor for agriculture, domestic servants for the rich, etc. Who wants to pay $5 for a head of cabbage? OK. You can't fine them as they have nothing. Incarceration would be a step up for them and expensive as many more facilities would have to be built and staffed. Can't torture or kill them. ACLU would have a meltdown and almost no one would support it since we would be wading the river if we were in their shoes. There was even a big flap about an electrified fence and an ongoing flap about desert water stations to keep illegals from dying of thirst. That leaves.....what?
I'm happy to report that, finally, there's a low key trial program underway which appears, from early assessments, to be making inroads. Some illegals are getting a free plane ride to Mexico City instead of a free bus ride 3 blocks south of the border. Under the assumption that they can't hop a plane, or other transport, right back to the border, the issue of repeat crossings in the same day, week, or month is improved. Some, not all, may even decide that another 2,000 mile hike ain't worth it. Some, interviewed while inflight, said it would not deter them at all. Maybe not, but it will inconvenience them. It will slow them down. It does introduce a disincentive. They WILL worry about being caught again.
The former revolving door was an expensive joke on both sides of the border. Upwards of $1billion/yr for nothing. Govt. jobs program. Some will zero in on the relatively high cost of the plane. They evidently would prefer to hire a man with a shovel to come every day and move a mound of dirt from one place to another rather than hire a dumptruck and loader to remove it. Anybody know how much flight time empty military cargo aircraft spend boring holes in the sky for "training"? The Navy/Coast Guard could "train" while hauling a load of illegals down south.
The bottom line, for me, is that we need to force Mexico to address their internal problems rather than just let them walk across the border and become OUR problem.
BUMP
Oct. 5, 2004, Lou Dobbs Tonight (partial transcript)
-snip-
DOBBS: The White House is demanding that the House Republican leadership strip the intelligence reform bill of tough new restrictions on illegal aliens and border security.
Republican Congressman Roy Blunt is the majority whip. He is the second most powerful Republican in the House of Representatives and says the immigration reforms will remain in the legislation, despite what the White House is demanding.
We thank you both for being with us. Before we begin, let me show you, point out to you, as you well know, and to our viewers who may not be as familiar the provisions that we're discussing here tonight in the intelligence reform legislation.
The first element, of course, is what is the crackdown on driver's licenses on illegal aliens. The White House wants that stripped out, wants to be able to make it easier to deport illegal aliens, those who cross our borders illegally, and to limit the use of foreign consular I.D. cards. That is, such cards as the matricula consular of Mexico, other consular I.D. cards for identification within this country.
Again, thank you both for being here.
Let me begin with you, Congressman Blunt. You are prepared to resist the White House on their demands to weaken the border security provisions of the immigration -- of the intelligence reform legislation?
REP. ROY BLUNT (R), MAJORITY WHIP: Well, we think the border security provisions are important provisions. They're the one thing that the 9/11 commission called for that didn't make it in the Senate bill in any way. I think they make total sense. They're absolutely defensible. For every one of those provisions, there is some egregious case in recent years where someone who really has done great damage to our society could have been stopped if these provisions would have been in place and would have been enforced.
We are working with White House to see if they've got some suggested changes that we might add to this legislation to make them more comfortable in a couple areas. But we intend to go forward with these provisions that, again, the 9/11 commission created the basis for in their report.
BLUNT: I might also point out, we were with -- we had some of the 9/11 families here this morning, and they were all to a person supportive of these provisions.
In fact, they said that -- the 9/11 families that they couldn't find any individual in the families who oppose these provisions, but they were being told just what my good friend Jane just said, that somehow they're poison pills designed to kill this legislation.
These are in this legislation designed to stop terrorists and terrorism. We -- we think they're totally reasonable, the idea that we would have greater border security. We're not requiring visas from Canada and Mexico, but we are requiring specific documents that have to be approved. And, other than that, you have to have a passport to get in and out of the country.
That's totally appropriate, I think.
BLUNT: Oh, I think this is not anti-immigrant. In fact, legal immigrants more than any other group want to be sure the law's enforced. They have gone through the process of the law to get here. They want to be protected from people who have come into the country without going through that same legal process. That's all really these are designed to do, and, Lou, you know how important that is.
-snip-
full transcript at: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/05/ldt.01.html
This is why, had there been a viable third party candidate, I would not be voting for Bush. His want for open borders along the US and Mexico is undermining our economy and security.
Ping........We don't want to go down the same road as Europe with a long term decline of population.
It is a conservative mantra that healthy demographics are a precursor to economic expansion and the survival of our economy.
BUMP
What is scariest of all is that he has not seen fit to explain his position to the american people, when 85% have some concern over the issue.
Good explanation or bad, I don't care. I would just like one.