Posted on 08/24/2005 8:03:37 PM PDT by DTogo
While discussing ILLEGA immigration and replaying a clip of Sean at the border, Sean then asked guest Sen. Hutchison (R-TX), regardless of beefing up border security, if granting in-state tuition for ILLEGAL immigrants wasn't rewarding bad behaviour to people who have broken the law. Does the Senator think it's wrong?
She completely dodged the question by responding "I can understand how difficult it would be to explain this to parents who want their kids to go to school in Texas" and how these children (of ILLEGAL aliens) also want to receive an education, blah, blah, blah
But she said she's planning to introduce legislation to increase border patrol agents and equipment, blah, blah, blah
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I'm STILL glad she stayed in the Senate instead of running for governor - she's much less dangerous as one of one hundred than as one of one!
She's the only politician I can imagine who would make Rick Perry look like a towering intellect!
(And I'm still trying to figure out why I get the double- and triple-posts;
no, it's not double- and triple-clicks...)
Thatnks for the info - you are not satisfied by Chertoff's strong stance recently?
I highly doubt that the problem can be resolved by more men and tracking/sensing equipment without the primary barrier of a wall.
Hutchison gave the typical circular argument. Educate them so they can get better jobs, blah, blah, blah. She forgot the part that it IS illegal for them to work here in the first place. Hannity and the other talk show hosts need to get tougher and ask the correct questions imo. They let the politicians slide.
What evidence do you have that anyone seeking to conduct another 9/11 is coming across the border illegally? So far, the only evidence of such terrorists coming into the country has been LEGAL immigration (albeit violating visas, etc., after they got here). Why don't we solve THOSE problems too?
I never say we shouldn't! I'm in favor of solving ALL the border/immigration problems: plug the leaky border with Mexico, allow entry/visas in an orderly/tracable manner at designated locations, punish employers of illegals in the U.S., round up and fine/deport visa violators, etc..
But without sealing off the inflow, it truly would be a futile effort.
I've spent years defending the Republican Party against charges that it only cares about the interests of Big Business, not about the "little guy." Then someone like Hutchinson basically ignores voter concerns about state action nakedly and shamelessly privileging lawbreaking illegal immigrants over American citizens, obviously for the benefit of the business lobby and campaign contributors. They're sure not trying to make my case, are they?
Fine - I'm all for solving ALL problems as well - now, can you answer my first question: What evidence do you have that anyone seeking to conduct another 9/11 is coming across the border illegally?
Let's say neither he nor I have any, just for argument's sake, other than the fact that migrants are crossing the border every day illegally and without identification. You're saying then that unless we can ID migrants coming across the border with such intent, we have no evidence for our concerns?
Haven't you just made the case for tightening border security by that argument? Think very carefully---maybe you'll "get it."
I really think it is planned and that they know what the eventual plan is to be - open borders from Canada to the tip of S.America, It is the only possible answer. Let's face it, first NAFTA and then CAFTA along with talk about an all 'Americas' economic block 'ala' the European Union. Follow up with the President's chummy relations with Fox and other S. American leaders. It is impossible for me to believe that Bush and other political leaders cannot comprehend the problems, it has to be intentional. If this is true, the US will become another S. American cesspool, nobody, but nobody can possibly fail to imagine the results of unrestricted access.
I wouldn't say you don't have a valid concern, simply no hard evidence - unlike the HARD EVIDENCE we have of terrorists coming in legally - unfortunately, someone has to decide the priorities for allocation of limited resources. Let's say, for argument's sake, we had also caught some terrorists coming across the border illegally - then that priority would be increased - now, do you "get it" too?
But then we wouldn't be able to do that if we couldn't ID who was coming across, now could we, Einstein? And we're not doing that now with all those who are coming across surreptitiously and *illegally*, don't you "get" that? So I guess your demand for "HARD EVIDENCE" is either disingenuous or dishonest---that's what *I* "get"....
But then we wouldn't be able to do that if we couldn't ID who was coming across, now could we, Einstein? And we're not doing that now with all those who are coming across surreptitiously and *illegally*, don't you "get" that? So I guess your demand for "HARD EVIDENCE" is either disingenuous or dishonest---that's what *I* "get"....
I didn't demand" anything - I am simply proposing a reasonable method for allocating limited resources - not being "either disingenuous or dishonest". It's not my fault there's no hard evidence - facts aren't biased though. BTW: I thought personal attacks are not allowed here?
None. And Israelis have no "evidence" which persons boarding the bus or walking the street are homocide bombers until it's too late. Our soldiers in Iraq have no "evidence" which car is a VBIED until it's too late. The folks in Beslan had no "evidence" the people entering their school were Chechen Islamo-fascists until it was too late. The passengers on 4 aircraft on 9-11 had no "evidence" that certain passengers were suicidal/homocidal Islamo-fascists until it was too late.
Should we control who comes into our country, in a time of war against an elusive, determined, suicidal/homocidal enemy, or wait until it's too late??
That's not true - all of those specific situations can point to hard evidence of prior similar acts. A more comparable analogy would be the first time the PLO used females as homicide bombers - then you would have a point.
Look, are you really saying we not only have to anticipate every nightmare scenario (however remote) but we have to put into place draconian measures and shut down a portion of society based on every one? Pretty soon, no one will be allowed outside - there is HARD EVIDENCE of American born Islamic terrorists too, you know?
A portion of society that is here ILLEGALLY. Do you leave your back door open for anyone to come in and help themselve to the fridge? Do you pay for their healthcare if they get hurt? Do you call the police to remove them, only to have them come in through your open back door again in a few days?
Pretty soon, no one will be allowed outside
Who's suggesting that? Not me.
- there is HARD EVIDENCE of American born Islamic terrorists too, you know?
People of Middle Eastern origin have recently been stopped entering the U.S. ILLEGALLY from Mexico, you know?
Disingenuous---you're not getting my point. No ID of entrants---no evidence of entrants planning attacks. Yours is a circular argument.
But giving you the benefit of the doubt (which I doubt I'll do in the future), why don't you just Google the phrase "other than Mexicans"? The term refers to people who sometimes turn out to be from terror sponsoring countries, like North Korea, and Syria. Their numbers are up after 9/11, and when caught at the border (if they're caught...) they're very often--most of the time, in fact---simply released in anticipation of a deportation hearing---a deportation hearing most never show up at. Law enforcement officials have intelligence of al-Qa'eda attempting smuggling of operatives over the southern border---Michelle Malkin gives sources here.
Or do we have to wait until al-Qa'eda succeeds in placing operatives over the border before we do anything? What do we do if that does happen---rely on our top-notch and conscientious system of interior immigration law enforcement? [/sarcasm]
Maybe I was mistaken---maybe you are just "ingenuous".... But I don't think this debate about national security is for ingenues.
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.