Posted on 05/14/2006 12:50:24 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Sunday dismissed concerns about a proposal to use National Guard troops to help secure the U.S.-Mexico border, saying it is the only short-term solution to stem the flow of illegal immigrants.
"The only thing that we can do to secure our borders right now is to give our states help, and that is best done through the National Guard," the Tennessee Republican told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."
President Bush is scheduled to speak to the nation Monday night from the Oval Office about immigration and border security. (Full story)
Frist could not say whether the president will mention the proposal to bolster border security with National Guard troops.
Bush has discussed the proposal to bolster border security with National Guard troops, along with "a lot of [other] ideas," with members of Congress, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley told CNN.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
In addition to National Guard troops, the Senate leader said he also supports "a wall, a structure, where people can't go under, over, around or through." But he said that any concrete wall should not run the length of the entire border, and that other measures should also be employed.
Frist proposes we leave a "door" open for them to walk through then? Swell. That will solve the problem.
Oh, and would someone in Nebraska please remove the traitor posing as am American citizen from his Senate seat? he is never going to be President, no matter what he has convinced himself of.
>>
Send the SeeBees to the border then. Better yet, all the Mexicans we catch should be paid minimum wage, taxed and forced to work on the wall for six months. After the six months, we give them their pay and fly them to Chiapas.
>>
And when there is a lawsuit that results with the obvious violation of "cruel and unusual punishment" (who would call this typical punishment?), who will pay the billion dollar judgement. Right, me.
Bush has had his head in the sand, mainly because he's not running again and hasn't watched polls on the issue; his mind on immigration was made up long ago. It's only been recently that other GOP leaders have felt sufficient heat to bring the issue to bear. Now, they've probably gotten to him and insisted he do something. So, he's going on National TV.
Well, that's fine. But it had better be good and it had better be permanent; not an election year ploy. Otherwise, your ending remark will come true very soon.
The National Guard is not a good permanent solution but it may help in the short term. What's needed is a wall, and we need a get-tough policy on employers. Those two things alone should provide a marked improvement in the situation.
I disagree with you about the National Guard. As I understand it it is a temporary augmenting of the existing guards AND there will be replacement of those agents burdened by desk work, freeing them to get back in the field, too. As a temporary fix, this is all well and good.
I am more pleased that Congress is getting the sticks out and are moving towards building more walls.
Having said all that, we have fences now. Will this just turn into a situation where instead of running over/under a fence, they will simply head west and come into California by boats chartered by Vincente Fox? ;) OK laugh, but look at Florida and Cuba.
I can't stop being amused by the way this has suddenly become issue #1 around. Whenever that's mentioned, there is usually a chorus of "It's ALWAYS been MY number 1 issue!" But an intellectually honest person can't say that's been the case for most people arguing about it for more than a month or two.
It's an issue that needs addressing; I don't see the need to pretend it's not just the latest hot topic, though. When, for example, CIndy Sheehan was down in Crawford, I don't recall the Anti-Illegal brigade showing up down there to protest THIS subject. This all seems to have been stirred up by the Dubai ports situation, but I'm not going to venture into that territory. The connection seems pretty obvious to me, but rather than debate that clear connection people will just get overly dramatic and not actually discuss the matter, so forget it. But if you follow the sequence of events, well, it's there. I mean, this issue didn't come out of the Miers nomination.
You're paying billions now for health care, education and welfare for illegals. We may as well pay and not have to worry so much about uninsured drivers, among many other issues.
Build the wall. Or are we really worried about a steady supply of cheap reefer so more kids can be busted by The Man?
Yeah. If China was successful with that, and we're not copying to protect our borders, that tells me that none of the scumbags want the border to be protected. Right now, we just have a flim-flam excuse going on, only there to appease...
Bill O'Reilly has been saying this for three years plus!
Don't kid yourselves - this is all for show.
The Guard will NOT be used for any enforcement. They will be asked to "support" the other federal agencies, like provide logistics and transportation, communications, and some surveillance. Real troops patrolling the border won't happen. But it will give Chertoff and Julie Myers a bunch of photo ops and all the Senators and the White House will be making a big deal on all the TV talk shows.
The alien border crossers will have a higher probability of running into an ACLU lawyer or a Catholic bishop than a real soldier with a loaded weapon.
And no one will give a damn about the poor Guardsman who will be losing out on promotions or even his job just to provide video bites for those who have proven for years that they really don't give a damn about stopping the flood of another permanent welfare class.
You are absolutely right. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Bush, himself, led the events along as such...
O'Reilly doesn't even know what the Guard is or what the law allows it to do.
It is just another servant class for guys like him to do dirty work with. If he is so anxious to use the Guard, let the draft dodger join up himself and give up his hundred million dollar paycheck.
Are we going to be satisfied when nobody cares to sign up for National Guard duty because it's used as the Executive Police Force?
Good points. I should have added that I, too, consider the shift to a sea-centric flow of immigrants ;) a good thing, for the reason you state.
Is that so? Does that include your massive scamnesty too Joe? The House has been insisting for weeks it's not on the table with them so I guess we'll have to wait and see about that.
That's why what we need, is wall/fence, more border patrol, and hire contractors to do the support jobs, to enforce strict border security, NOT National Guards on the border.
Another thing we need is, a requirement, that for government assistance, you need proof of citizenship, or legal residence.
If the above two things are done, I don't see any reason for not allowing the guest worker program to go through, that way we stemmed the flow of illegals, and are able to keep track of workers coming here legally, if there is work for them to do. There is no way, we will drag out of their homes and deport 12 million people. But if we stem the flow, the ones who work, can do so legally, and they will pay taxes, social security, etc.
I agree
And note those who keep saying that the border security issue with Mexico is a "national security" problem don't seem to worry about securing the Canadian border, even though that is how the 9-11 hijackers got in and it is currently recognized as a haven for terrorists.
Report: Canada a 'haven for terrorists'
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632112/posts
The State Department is sending an icy blast to our northern neighbors, blaming Canada's liberal immigration and asylum policies for allowing terrorists to set up anti-U.S. operations north of the border.
The State Department says in its annual report on global terrorism that Canada is becoming a haven for terrorists. ''Terrorists have capitalized on liberal Canadian immigration and asylum policies to enjoy safe haven, raise funds, arrange logistical support, and plan terrorist attacks,'' the report says.
South of the border, however, looks all sweetness and light. Mexico ''works closely with the United States on all aspects of counterterrorism, security and prevention,'' the diplomats said. The views from Foggy Bottom contrast with the rhetoric on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are mapping plans for a wall along the Mexican border, but not along the Canadian side.
=====
The Bush Administration is focusing on the National Security issue, which is the immediate critical issue -- to keep terrorists from entering from either the US or Mexico.
The illegal immigration problem from Mexico is a problem, but NOT an immediate crisis, and it is also being addressed, that's why President Bush is pushing a comprehensive immigration bill. Instead of being glad, that it is being addressed, some are angry aboutit, even though they claim that is what they want.
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.