President's Immigration speech - Live thread

me | 05/15/2006 | me

[devane617]

I searched but did not see a thread already open for tonights speech. I think this is the most important speech the President will probably make for the remainder of his term.

---

Mod Note:
This could turn into a whack-a-troll thread. All immigration trolls that would like to participate should post here. It'll be interesting to see if we mods can whack the trolls faster than they can sign up new accounts.
Jim

[clawrence3]

I quoted his post.

[RandallFlagg]

I'm at work (where I always seem to miss these speeches). What'd I miss?

[Czar]

"The results of the plan outlined in the speech will be a complete and total disaster."

No disagreement there.

"But, the speech itself was well crafted and it is bound to fool a large number of people into buying into President Bush's plan."

Some people will no doubt be fooled by the PR packaging.

But there are an awful lot of us that know more about this one issue than any other issue. These people, likely voters most of them, are not going to be fooled by a slick approach.

If that's what the White House is counting on, then they too will be disappointed.

In other words, lets see how it goes with all of the phone calls, faxes and emails directed to our Washington crapweasels over the next few weeks. If the majority of the public is in fact duped, then this activity will be far lighter than it has been over the past month.

I believe that activity will not wane, and in fact may turn out to be even heavier than it has been.

We'll see.

[Texasforever]

Actually, it was your buddy clawrence3 who pulled that out of context from lawdude's post.

BS. He stated until the "final Solution(which is 100% effective)... That there is NO OTHER DAMNED CONTEXT.

[TheLion]

Sessions said today that the amnesty deal will bring about 200 million more here....insane. We will have to ration gasoline.

[Seattle Conservative]

Thanks for posting this! I remember reading it and was going to go hunting for it. For those who were whining about 'why hasn't he done something before now'
1) as I understand it, he had it out in front as and issue and was going to address it, and then 9/11 happened (recession from that as well as the one that started under Clinton, WOT, including war in Iraq and Afghanistan, setting up new governments, dealing w 24/7/365 bashing and leaks, etc., tax cuts and a few other items).

Looks like the Pubbies were trying to pass border security last year but Hill and Schmuckie voted against it - -of course, now they've put their fingers in the wind and are saying they want it:

Flashback: Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer Nix Border Security Bill
NewsMax ^ | July 16, 2005

Posted on 04/23/2006 3:57:44 PM PDT by santorumlite

Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer Nix Border Security Bill

New York's two senators, Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer - who have been complaining since the London bombing attacks that the federal government hasn't done enough to protect the U.S. from terrorists - voted against legislation to enhance border security on Thursday.

Clinton and Schumer turned thumbs down on two amendments to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which, according to the Washington Times, would have funded plans for 2,000 new Border Patrol agents and more than 5,000 new detention beds to house illegal aliens.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1620181/posts

---

SCHUMER, CLINTON WANT TO ARM NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ON THE BORDER
SCHUMER Press Release ^ | Senator Charles E. Schumer

Posted on 05/12/2006 8:32:41 PM PDT by kellynla

US Senators Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton today joined the Senate's National Guard Caucus – comprised of almost 60 of their Senate colleagues – in asking President Bush to arm the National Guard troops recently deployed to the nation's borders.

As part of its efforts to beef up security along the borders, the Administration deployed National Guard troops on an interim basis to assist Border Patrol, INS and Customs agents but did not arm them. In a letter to the President, the Senators asked the Bush Administration to reverse its decision to bar National Guard personnel from carrying sidearms for strictly protective purposes.

"Until we can get a permanent staff in place that meets the border's long-term security and commercial needs, we'll need to rely on the National Guard to help process the cargo and tourists going in and out of the country," Schumer said. "The men and women who comprise the National Guard force at the border are making some real sacrifices to protect all of us. The very least that we can do is make sure that they can protect themselves."

"Having the National Guard at our borders without guns is a recipe for potential disaster. They are literally at the front lines of our homeland defense and leaving them unprotected would be a real dereliction of duty. They are our National Guard -- we shouldn't let them become targets of opportunity for those who would do them harm," Clinton said.

The following is a copy of the Senators' letter:

"We are writing about the recent interagency agreement on the activation of 1700 members of the National Guard to serve on the nation's border, which bars these highly-trained men and women from carrying firearms for protection. We think this decision places them in grave danger unnecessarily.

(Excerpt) Read more at senate.gov ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1631507/posts

[Revel]

If Reagan were still around then I think that he would call what he did there a grave mistake. He had high hopes. He was just wrong on that matter. Not to many things he was wrong on.

[rodeocowboy]

You disparage Republicans, Tony Snow, The President of the United States, and FreeRepublic all in one short paragraph.

Damn, the liberal pukes will be proud of you!

Son, I was here defending and campaigning for Bush long before you came around, a few months ago. In fact, I got an invitation from Bush to his first inauguration because of the work I did for him and Cheney, including, but not limited to organizing rallies here on Free Republic. I have donated to this wonderful meeting place in time and in money. As a matter of fact, I was was the first chapter president of the Michigan Freepers back in 2000. So don't tell me where my loyalty lies. It's Bush's, and RINOS in the Senate's loyalty that is in question! We have been betrayed, not the other way around.

[joebuck]

"Is that folksy expression some sort of rationalization or excuse for why voters would be unhappy with a House that just past a pretty good HR4437?"

No, it's just an observation that a low turnout hurts the pubs who don't deserve it as well as the ones who do. Not that hard to connect those dots.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Were you being sarcastic?

Yes.

I personally thought it was a good speech, apart from the guest-worker provisions. However, I'm not going to kid myself about the timing or the substance.

Furthermore, I never said your were a lemming or a bot. That implication is only there for the terminally neurotic.

[samadams2000]

You hearing this wimp Frist on TV?

He's caved.

[Vicomte13]

"You know, even if the Dems did take Congress, the President still has a veto."

True, and an impeachment without removal won't eliminate him from office.

On the other hand, the Democratic-controlled Congress will cut the Iraq budget and force a withdrawal. The President will not be able to veto that.

[Wuli]

The federal government is the first and last point of authority to

(1)secure the borders and

(2)enforce immigration laws

and in both regards

(a)during the past six years the border has become a sieve and

(b)every measure of enforcement activity is precipitously down, even compared to the Clinton years

so yes, Bush is rightly responsible for what you call "hysteria".

He has for six years done nothing, now wants to make an eleventh hour political move to look like he's doing something while the so-called comprehensive measure in the Senate that Bush is pushing for will, by reliable measures, increase the combination of legal and illegal immigration by the year 2020 to 100 million.

Add to those numbers the kind of amendments Bush refuses to oppose like the oone from Durgan which will replace all current immigration judges with new positions open only to the lawyers who now work representing immigrants - in other words, the fox guarding the hen house.

It is in just such "comprehensive" legislation that the murderous details of the legislation is intentionally hid from the public, and Bush knows it and does not give a damn.

His march for this legislation is no different that Clinton's push for his "legacy" with a Israeli "peace" agreement that the Palestinians were never going to approve.

Its is politics pure and simple and there is no an ounce of "reform" in the bill - just 100 more loopholes and phony "enforcement" measures that will have no more "enforcement" put into than the present ones.

Bush, McPain, McKennedy, Frist et al are running a giant con game, nothing more.

[ExSES]

Yeah. This guy has gone from Commander-in-chief to Handwringer-in-Chief

Who was it that was regarded as the "Pander Bear" in a past election? Whoever it was..., they have to relinquish the title now!

[Mr. Mojo]

heavily fine illegal-hiring employers

"And use that money to fund efforts to keep out/deport more illegals."

Way too reasonable/effective. .....so it'll never happen ;)

[OldFriend]

Hey, bring back Perot. It worked so well the first time.

The conservatives sure showed GHWBush.

What's your problem, not enough people died on 9/11.....you want to try for more?

[HonestConservative]

Chief Executor of course equals Chief Executive.

Sorry.