Posted on 02/02/2006 1:50:05 PM PST by FerdieMurphy
Two years ago, Border Patrol agents began to voice what many believed were legitimate concerns about "armed incursions" into the United States from Mexico-based assailants. Now these invasions occur routinely putting federal agents' and law enforcement officers' lives in jeopardy.
They reported that heavily armed Mexican army units and federal police, called federales, had infiltrated US territory and fired upon them, in some cases because –- federal agents would later discover –- Mexican drug lords had put prices on the heads of American law-enforcement agents strung out along the border. Where was the outrage by our political leaders and the mainstream media over this blatant violation of our national sovereignty?
Many of our political leaders and most in the news media ignore these violent attacks on our national sovereignty while more and more Americans are saying, "This has got to stop!"
While tens of millions of Americans watched and listened to President George Bush's much anticipated State of the Union speech, many were disappointed at the lack of emphasis on the biggest threat to national security today: unmitigated illegal immigration and porous US borders.
President Bush continues to maintain a contradictory and perilous position regarding illegal immigration, claiming his plan does not amount to amnesty. Standard American language usage contravenes the President’s specious explanation in that his plan clearly overlooks the offense of illegal aliens who entered this country in violation of law and would not seek prosecution; a full amnesty within contextual and explicit meaning.
The current position of the Administration on illegal immigration is demonstrative of a flawed public and enforcement policy which undermines national security by encouraging future mass illegal immigration. Additionally, the intention of the President sends contradictory signals to agencies tasked with securing our borders as well as police commanders across the nation.
In a recent Washington Times article in which the President attempted to justify his position on illegal immigration, the President stated the current immigration situation is a “bureaucratic nightmare” and the Border Patrol is “overstressed” due to “people [illegal immigrants] streaming across [the border].”
Further evidence of the Administration’s contradictory position on illegal immigration are statements made by political appointees charged with protecting the public. In September of 2004, in an effort to build support for the Administration’s Amnesty proposal, Asa Hutchinson, former Homeland Security Undersecretary, publicly stated it is “not realistic” to arrest or deport illegal aliens already in the country.
More recently, budget problems within the Department of Homeland Security further called into question the priorities of the Administration as agents are forced to release illegal aliens and curtail operations due to ongoing financial constraints. These circumstances all contribute to a “bureaucratic nightmare” and “overstressed” Border Patrol.
The position of the Administration on illegal immigration has had a profound and negative effect not only on law enforcement operations, but also border patrol agent morale. The impact on agent morale was measured in a survey conducted by independent Hart Research Associates during the summer of 2004.
The survey found a majority of agents were demoralized and were not getting the full support needed to protect the country, clearly indicating a conflict between the view of professional field agents and the Administration in regard to national domestic security. The Administration’s current immigration plans will exacerbate, not alleviate, that problem.
For those tuning in to hear President Bush address the problems faced as a result of rampant illegal immigration and Mexican military incursions, the speech was a major disappointment.
I *was* responding to what you wrote. You seem to think that given a legal and an illegal option, people will always choose the legal option. There are other factors.
I think that we have to give immigrants only one option - legal immigration or none.
No, again you misread me. The "always" is your insertion.
I said that if government turns up the heat enough, it will start to push more people into the legal channels, and that will have a positive-feedback effect.
I think we agree on that. But I think the gov't has to turn up the heat on the employers, and you think it's enough to turn it up on the illegals. Is that close?
And that would give illegal immigrants a 6 month "window" to get here. And they would come in droves.
Better would be to have a program that starts with the employers. Set up a guest worker application process, and tell the employers that they have 2 weeks to either sponsor their illegal employees for guest worker status, or fire them and hire legal workers.
There won't need to be "a strong show of force" at the border.
First of all, I wasn't talking about easing up on enforcement for those six months any more than we currently are, so it wouldn't give them any more "window" than they have now. Secondly, if they tried to come here through the illegal route by that time, that would be the worst decision they could make for themselves, because they'd be getting here and getting set up just as the heat would be starting to rise, and it would be rising without letup. Their stay here would wind up being quite short. It would be far more in their interests at that point to register with the guest-worker program. Why deal with coyotes (both the human and animal varieties), rattlesnakes, the harshness of the desert weather, and ultimately, the strong likelihood of being caught and sent back and having your efforts all be for nothing, when you can instead go down to the local consulate and apply to get in legally?
And a strong show of force at the border is something we're going to need to do anyway, even if we go with your plan (and even if it will work as well as you claim). It's much too porous as it is, even without ordinary workers trying to get in.
If you give employers a 6 month window for hiring illegals, you are giving illegals a 6 month window to come here. We don't even try to keep illegals from working here. In fact, some local gov'ts even encourage it.
I don't care how much money you spend (of taxpayer money), if you have willing employers and willing employees, you can't stop it.
I already told you that I'm not giving them anything they don't already have. By your logic, they've already had a 2+ year window because of the insane stubborness of so many in Congress not to give up on their illegal-legalizing plans, even for the sake of enacting a temporary compromise that will move things forward. And they're not insisting on this because they think they're being harder on illegals by doing it.
If you think my plan would be softer on illegals, then surely one of the legions of soft-on-illegals in Congress would be proposing it. As it is, it's only being proposed by Congressmen whom the soft-on-illegals and pro-illegals can't stand. Tell you something?
Have you ever wondered whether the reason Congress isn't doing what you want might be because they are concerned about American business and the American economy?
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.