Posted on 05/15/2006 4:13:02 PM PDT by devane617
Edited on 05/15/2006 4:38:26 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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
"I wonder if there is anything he could have said tonight that would have pleased them."
They've been screaming it for weeks:
(1) A physical fence the entire length of the border, and
(2) No guest worker or other amnesty at the present time.
That's been the core of it.
I'm not even a BorderBot, but I got it.
The President and his men got it too, but they do not want to alienate the business base, do they are adamant in their refusal to do it.
Unfortunately, that almost certainly means the exit of the BorderBots this election cycle, which in turn means a Democratic Congress.
I do not agree that Bush was operating in a fog.
It was really very clear what Border Conservatives wanted. He did not give them either point.
Exactly..... some people listened to two words, and started running their mouths.........
This place ist just impossible to read anymore.....
People would complain that he is too perfect. LOL
> sayin "DEPORT THEM" or what ever, you are just NOT recognizing reality.
Ok, so let's not put any criminals in jail - killers etc, they are already here, commiting crimes, just "recognizing reality"!
We can't put millions of criminals to jail! Or build walls around them.
Nixon got a lot of them, though, by that time, a majority of blacks were firmly on the Dem plantation.
"I flat don't get how this speech helps the democrats."
Millions of BorderBots exited stage right tonight.
If they don't change their mind, that dooms the GOP to loss in November.
I totally agree with that. I don't know why so many think it has to be both. I want to see a secure border before I see any plan to deal with illegals here now. If the border is secure first then there would be more room for coompromise on what to do with those here.
You make some good points. However, I must disagree on the point that more security isn't needed on the northern border.
I'm a lawyer and for one and a half years, did contract work for Lexis/Nexis Canada, and I asked for work on immigration cases, among other topics.
Canada has lost control, basically, of many thousands of its immigrants. In the 39-thousands, I believe, of people they're looking for.
I am really tired and wiped out, but I will find this info. I'm telling you, the northern border is not secure.
H*ll, I have actually talked to people (my husband is from northern Canada) who have walked from northern Quebec into Maine, to go hunting.
I am speaking for myself and to all who believe we must enforce the borders first and allow no amnesty for illegals.
If you don't agree, that is your choice.
It's always fun to see a newbie call someone a troll.
You're right, now tell me how many TX "moderates" were denied renomination on March 7. I don't think there were any, were there? There were not that many strong conservatives who even won nomination in state legislative primaries. The former TX Democrats have taken over the GOP!
I am ever so humbly sorry but I meant to sent his to the object of evident affection, rather than to you. Am-bare-assed truly for this mistake.
I don't think they care. They don't think politically, they think about their one issue and punishing whomever they think is responsible at the moment, primarily the incumbents.
It's not conservative. It's wacked.
I hope you're not being sarcastic. That was one of my suggestions along with some other folks: to ban that phrase "job Americans won't do" from Bush's vocabulary. (That phrase implies that we're too soft or too lazy to do some jobs.) "Jobs we're not doing" is a MUCH better choice of words. I didn't listen to the speech, so I hope you're quoting him correctly. I assume that you are.
Your cutsie posts don't change the fact that Bush said clearly he would not sign any bill that proposed amnesty. You can't ignore that fact. Go read the speach. You are not making sense.
True; sadly. :-(
That's right, and quite a few too from looking at several other threads.
I like his third point about the card with digital type fingerprints for employers to verify. That could be a big step to stop their influx.
j
Tancredo cofounded the Minutemen? I thought Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox founded the Minutemen. But if Tancredo had a role, all I have to say is 'great'.
I think Bush's speech was definately a step in the right direction. But in my opinion, politicians should consider the shotgun option: use every resource simultaneously until an impact is made--then optimize. Sure, the shotgun approach wastes money but noone can say it is ineffective. We, as a nation, have used the approach many times on matters of national significance, perhaps with the most famous use being during the Manhattan Project. If we were to use the shotgun approach here we would build a fence, support the Minutemen, vastly increase the Border Patrol, give local and federal law enforcement the same authority as the Minutemen, place the National Guard on the Border in large numbers with the same authority as the Border Patrol, vastly increase the enforcement of immigration violations away from the border and against employers, etc., with each item intended to be redundant--not just suporting.
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.