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

[rolling_stone]

Getting to the back of the line is deceptive, illegals never were in line they jumped the line and bullied their way in. they had no right to be here now they get to stay ahead off billions of others who also had no right to be here but didn't enter illegally. It is smoke and mirrors...I guess you bought it.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

THe Presidents speech was principled. He has had these views for years.

I'm sure the Hispanic vote never entered his mind during this time.

[nopardons]

History is NOT many people's forte, here. Keep posting it, as I do and maybe, just maybe, some will finally learn a bit of it.

[cardinal4]

Fortunate for me, but that was intended as condescension.

Sorry, Im done. We disagree and nothing will change it. Have a nice day..

[SouthTexas]

We don't have enough conservatives in Congress to get anything remotely functional passed.

We can pick up our ball and go home now or we can continue to put true conservatives into office and work on persuading the rinos to see the light. I am not ready for Clinton II.

[TADSLOS]

TURN on Fox News now. Greta interviewing Border Patrol.

[peyton randolph]

Here in So. Cal we call that Squat and drop citizenship

---

Yep. Damn shame...and no legislation in the works to change it.

[clawrence3]

My remark that I would like to deport Larry King had nothing whatever to do with Israel or Jewishness or anything related.

Thanks for the clarification - that's all I was asking.

[old republic]

"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.

---

You have a good eye for political detail. However, that is where the poker part of politics comes in. Who is holding the higher hand and who will call a bluff? The President could veto an attempt to cut the military funding and address the nation saying that the bill is irrepsonsible and jeopardizes the lives of our troops, that is the President could accuse the Dems of playing politics with the safety of our troops. (This is traditionally a very effective strategy in forcing Congress to accede to funding the military in the past). I doubt the Dems would like having a media frenzy which has the net effect of making the Dems look bad. The President has the bullhorn in the media in a way Congress doesn't which allows him to frame the argument. Its like the government shut down during the Clinton Administration. Congress rattle its sabre at Clinton, so Clinton preempted Congress by framing the argument in the media, before the Republicans could retaliate, the Republicans got the blame for the shutdown even though Clinton was the one who vetoed it. In theory, the same could apply here. The Dems would look really bad, if they cut funding on the military while troops were abroad. I would expect the Dems to flinch because of the likely public backlash against them over such a thing.

[You Dirty Rats]

I'll consider temporary alliances with this GOP of yours, or this Jim Robinson of whom you speak

My my, we are feeling awfully pompous tonight, arent we?

Maybe you would be willing to grant Jim Robinson an audience?

[TAdams8591]

"It seems that the Republican leadership is willing to watch the party burn to the ground rather than respect the base on this issue."

It will be their undoing. It's a shame they didn't take the base seriously.

[marsh_of_mists]

Well, I thought it was a decent speech. He's pushing more then just 6000 national guard temporarily. He also talked about increasing border patrol, technology, I believe he also mentioned constructing barriers (not just "virtual" barriers but actual ones). I could be wrong about that one though.

I wish he and the Senate would drop the whole guest worker thing, especially the multi-tiered amnesty thing. So there's a statute-of-limitations for illegal immigration now? That sounds awfully oleaginous to me.

Still, I consider closing the borders now to be the most important thing. I think we could assimilate the 12 million here now and, assuming the borders are truly closed, deporting them would mainly be a matter of principle. And I do believe that the president sincerely wants to tighten our borders--maybe not as much as he should, but I don't think he's just cynically throwing a bunch of smoke and mirrors at us. I could be mistaken, of course; I can't read his mind. But we will see if his actions actually back up his words regarding securing the border.

I do think there are some conservatives who won't be happy with him anymore no matter what he does. His dithering and missteps on this and other issues have put him past the tipping point with them and I wonder if there is anything he could have said tonight that would have pleased them. It's unfortunate because it will only ensconce in power people who will be worse then he on EVERY issue, including this one.

[TexasPatriot8]

I don't get how you guys think this speech helped the democrats in November. Now the onus is on the democrats to oppose what Bush proposed, and that will put the democrat directly in opposition to what 3 of 5 American citizens want. Bush said tonight most of the things that real conservatives like Tancredo who want a secure border have been calling for. I just don't get how you can take that speech he gave and say it will help democrats, when Bush is proposing doing the things that MOST American citizens, MOST VOTERS want. This speech did not hurt him. If the content of this speech stays public and everyone hears it, Bush's approval numbers will go up, the Pubs will get on board, Conservatives will be fired up by the border finally being tackled, and the democrats opposing it as being racist will rally more people to see it done. I flat don't get how this speech helps the democrats. It's not logical.

[bluefish]

I'm not trying to get anyone banned - it's just a long thread and he might want to know what's going on.

LOL. Maybe we should ALL ping Jim on every one of our posts - just to keep him apprised of "what is going on," mind you. My sarcasm could be unfair. Perhaps you were appointed the one-man oversight committee for this thread and you are duly following orders. Then again, maybe you are "trying out" for the position of Moderator and merely trying to show off your mad observation skilz. LOL.

[Czar]

"When this fizzes out and the problem becomes far worse in a couple of years this will be his record that can't be escaped. In that respect it was good."

I'm not interested in his creating a record that establishes beyond a doubt that he actually did so little about the problem that it may be the centerpiece of a disappointing legacy. I would much rather see him take such a strong stance on the illegal alien issue that it stops the invasion in its tracks, and gives him a positive legacy on this issue.

But he didn't do that tonight, did he?

Far from it.

[Hodar]

Hell, we'll be in the great depression again, but at least those damn illegals won't be working either. Brilliant.

Those who intentionally violate the law, need to be punished. As far as a 'Great Depression' goes .... where do you get your facts? Let me guess, the DEM talking points.

Let's try some facts on for size. Illegals compromise LESS than 3.7 % (three point seven percent) of the American labor force. That is hardly enough to trigger any depression, on any scale. These jobs are typically at the lower end of the wage scale.

link

You should be equiped with data before you flame someone who knows what they are talking about. More information may be found here.