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
Carter and the murielito gangsters : )
I agree 100%. El Presidente was playing word games akin to Clinton requesting a definition of the word, "is".
I was not commenting on the performance of the GOP leadership nor the GOP base. I was commenting on FreeRepublic and how it has changed in tone. Your response is a prime example of twisting my comment.
Everyone needs to read this............I have already seen the effects of this in my community. Our cheap labor will soon become our Masters ! Do WE Want That? ? ? ?
It took all Republicans including RINOs to put the party in control. What they do with it is really out of our hands. We can scream and hollar but we have no real control and they know it. Both parties are corrupt and self-serving, pandering to their special interests, ignoring we the people. They don't give a damn how they got there and that goes for both sides--they know we have no choice. It is very frustrating. I agree with whomever it was that said "term limits." Don't let 'em get comfortable.
"Bwahahahaha" always looks so silly. I'd say it even demeans your argument, except for the fact that you have none. I mean, you really want to claim that W is no more conservative than Clinton? As the young people say, "you're on drugs, man!"
Gillespie is a joke...as PC as they get for a RINO when he wants to dig at opponents
Some in this country argue that the solution is to deport every illegal immigrant and that any proposal short of this amounts to amnesty. I disagree. It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States, and send them across the border.What do you call that? Isn't that amnesty?! As for not being able to deport all these people back... Mexico sent all of their people here! So it must be possible and his statement MUST be false since it is self-conflicting.
Plenty of decent folks use that site....and maybe a few nativists
It's been demonized here much like Malkin and Coulter and any one else who strongly opposes open borders.
Some data they keep you simply can't find anywhere else.
Smear smear smear.
If it was American Renaissance I could see it but VDare, seems pretty fair to me anyhow even though I'm not a huge Francis (RIP) fan anymore than I would be Buchannan...some of their contributors are at the edge of the anti-illegals movement....
By 2004, the annual inflow of foreign-born persons was down 24% from its all-time high in 2000, according to the Pew Hispanic Center analysis of multiple datasets collected by the Census Bureau and other government agencies.
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=53
The point is, the only power we have is at the ballot box. If our representatives KNOW that conservatives will vote Republican no matter what, who do you think they will be pandering too? Not conservatives, that's for sure.
You wrote: "Criminality exists EVERYWHERE! Broad, sweeping, tar everyone without any thought statements don't cut it and make the poster look the fool. Even Tancredo had workman who were ILLEGALS. Many say that he didn't know; well, that's NO excuse! I've never had an illegal do any work for me; not a one."
Calm down. This is not a witch hunt. I simply wanted to highlight that Americans can -- and will -- do the sort of work that illegals do; and your previous reply has confirmed it, thank you very much!
I would like to reiterate what I have said before in other posts ... that I -- for the most part -- have nothing against people that have come here to work. My grudge is with our leaders whom refuse to enforce our laws -- and that against the will of the American people. I am talking about national policy and law.
He's an interesting guy....digs into stuff many won't touch
["Bwahahahaha" always looks so silly. I'd say it even demeans your argument, except for the fact that you have none. I mean, you really want to claim that W is no more conservative than Clinton? As the young people say, "you're on drugs, man!" ]
Learn to read. What I said was claiming Bush is the most conservative since Reagan is low praise indeed. I did not say I thought he was more liberal than Clinton, that is a lie.
My thoughts as I watched it
"in the shadows, beyond the protection of our justice system"
no, BELOW the law, there is a difference.
"border security is urgent"
yeah, 4 years after 9/11?
"6000" "for a period or one year"
one year?
"temporary guest workers must leave after 6"
what if they have an ANCHOR BABY?
like somebody else said, this speech will enrage the illegals and pro borders will see through it.
Yes, the President said that.
But it is not TRUE.
If you are French, getting in line means sitting IN FRANCE while awaiting the right to enter the US. There's no right to come to the USA illegally, take a job and settle.
And if they catch you already in the US, they don't regularize you, and set up deportation hearings.
What Bush spoke of last night was a system whereby people who have illegally jumped the line and are already IN the US illegally, already working, DON'T get deported. So, they're at "the back of them line", just like the guy sitting in France waiting for his number to come up...but THEY get to live in the US, and work in the US, and do everything, really, but vote in the US.
Which is not really being "at the back of the line" at all.
Another case of doublespeak in Bush's speech was "no amnesty". He says he opposes amnesty. But what is a guest worker program without enforcement, and with a "back of the line" rule (that's not really the back of the line)? Amnesty. Amnesty with additional flows of labor, to set up the dynamic for millions to be here the NEXT amnesty.
Finally "enforce the border". The Border Conservatives wanted a FENCE, a solid barrier, a WALL, like Israel has.
That's low tech, and not very expensive, and very effective. Bush didn't give it to them. He talked of a "virtual fence". Which means "Not a fence". Limbaugh got it right when he said that nobody would accept a virtual fence around the White House. Motion detectors and cameras? Sure. We'll see people crossing the border...along with desert foxes, coyotes and tumbleweeds. They'll still be crossing it, because there won't be a barrier there.
If I were a Border Conservative, I would be livid at what the President did last night. He firmly, resolutely, and diplomatically gave them nothing they wanted.
Here is Julie Myers of ICE backing away from "the fence"
HH: Right now, I'm joined from Washington by the Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, Julie Myers. Ms. Myers, welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show.
JM: Oh, thanks for having me, Hugh.
HH: It's great to have you on. When the President said high tech fence, what was he talking about? How long will it be?
JM: Well, he is talking about, kind of thinking about a combination of surveillance and manpower and infrastructure, that the border patrol is seeking to do over a period of several years.
HH: But in terms of actual fencing fencing, how many miles are we talking about?
JM: Well, in terms of actual fencing, I think they're still looking at kind of what makes most sense in terms of surveillance and manpower and actual infrastructure.
HH: Is he committed, though? Did you have a talk with him about extending, for example, the San Diego fence, which is 1,400 miles long, and the El Paso fence, which is many miles long, double, and sometimes triple barrier fencing? Is that on the table?
JM: I think certainly all options are on the table to be most effective in terms of fencing. I am actually more the interior enforcement person, so I have not been involved in any direct discussions regarding the specifics of the fence.
HH: So we're still unclear of how far the administration is committed to actual fencing on the border? I mean, concrete, physical fencing?
JM: Well, certainly I'm not prepared to go further than what the President talked about tonight.
HH: And there were no specifics in terms of miles on that.
JM: That's correct.
HH: All right. That's disappointing, but let's move on. What about the permanent identification, the tamper proof identification. How do we get to that?
JM: Well, certainly, the President is calling upon Congress to act in this area. I think the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would be ready to step in and help with this. As the enforcement agency, I know we would find this very useful. And for employers who want to do the right thing, we'd find that very helpful for them.
HH: How long's it take to get into production if the Congress authorizes it? Is the technology easily accessible?
JM: Well, certainly, those are the kinds of things that USCIS is looking at and exploring very vigorously. I think they would be prepared to move on a fast track, and frankly, that's what I hear from employers. They want these sort of things to move on a fast track. They don't want to be hiring illegal aliens, and they feel like just right now, with the documents they're given, they just don't know.
HH: So what do we mean by fast track? Could it be up and running in two months?
JM: Once again, I'm not the head of USCIS, but I think they will work under any deadline that Congress imposes, and work as quickly as practical to get this moving.
HH: Did the President sound the enforcement bell enough tonight, Julie Myers?
JM: Absolutely. The President is very, very committed to enforcement. He talked about the specific steps that he's been taking in terms of staffing in funding, really since the beginning of his presidency, and how now, we need to step it up even further. He's going to bring in the National Guard, and he's also going to make sure that folks like ICE partner better with state and local law enforcment.
HH: But expand on what that means, because I've got to tell you, I'm underwhelmed, because I thought you'd come out with administration talking points on the fence, which was number one to me. And obviously, they haven't issued those.
JM: Well, you know, I'm sorry, always sorry to underwhelm you, but I can tell you that as an enforcement person, I'm pleased to hear the President talk about the need for strong worksite enforcement, the need to get more border patrol agents there immediately, and also the fact that we're going to have more beds, so that we can actually put more of these individuals in beds, right away, in fiscal year 2006. This is not a pipe dream. The President is asking for the supplemental, asking for this money, asking for Congress to act now.
HH: How many more beds?
JM: He's asking for 4,000 beds through the end of fiscal year 2006. We're asking for a total of 6,700 beds in fiscal year 2007. That'll bring us up to 27,600 beds.
HH: And are they all full currently, Assistant Secretary Myers?
JM: We will be...we will have used every single bed we have at the end of this year, absolutely.
HH: And so, how long is the average stay in one of those detention facilities?
JM: Well, it depends on kind of where you are, and what sort of removal you are eligible for. If we catch you right at the border, then often, we can put you into what's called expedited removal, and we've done a ton of improvements in our processing, so we have reduced the average processing time in expedited removal from 90 days to under 30 days. So that makes the beds a lot cheaper for me, because I turn them over much more quickly. If you're not caught right on the border, if you're caught in the interior, we often have to send you through what's called a 240 proceeding. There we have reduced the average time for beds, but it still can be, you know, 50, 60, 70, 80 days. Sometimes, people are in beds for much longer than that. That's obviously very, very costly. We are working with foreign governments, and working on travel document times and everything else to reduce those times.
HH: Now as I have heard it explained by border patrol and Customs, if you catch someone at the border, you can just basically get them back over the border immediately, or in a matter of moments, correct?
JM: Well, it depends on where they're from. If they're from Mexico, that is correct.
HH: That's what I mean. 85%, I think, the President said tonight. 85%.
JM: Yes. If they are from Mexico, caught right on the border, they can remove them immediately, yes.
HH: So I'm back to the fencing conversation. If fencing is the best way to stop them at the border, why don't we have a plan laid out for that?
JM: Well, you know, I don't think we think that fencing is the best way to stop them on the border. I think the President's called for...if you build a fence, they build a tunnel. We just saw that today. There was another tunnel destroyed, another, excuse me, another tunnel found over in the San Diego area. So you can't...given the kind of the layout of our land, I believe it's the President's view, it's the border patrol's view, that a fence alone is not enough. We need a layered approach that includes surveillance, personnel, technology. We are working with the military to make sure we have the best technology. And some places, a fence may be very effective, but some places, it's simply not.
HH: Assistant Secretary Myers, correct me if I'm wrong. I think you just walked the administration back from the fence.
JM: I...no, I said consistent with what the border patrol chief's been telling me all along, he's been telling me what he needs, the combination of all these things. You look at the particular location, the particular terrain, and you decide what's most effective. You don't want something people can scale in two minutes and then be in the desert, and then you just have put people on the other side of the fence.
HH: But the idea that the fact that someone can dig a tunnel undermines the idea that a fence is effective...we'll come back.
---
HH: Ms. Myers, I just want to go back over the fence, because I must tell you, I wagered everything on the President being serious about the fence, because the fence works. And whenever I've heard people talk about it, it works. It works in San Diego, it works in Israel, it works in El Paso. But I must say, I'm completely underwhelmed. It doesn't seem like you really believe in it. (pause) Ms. Myers, are you there?
JM: Certainly, the border patrol believes very strongly that what we need is, in a sense, a virtual fence in some places. We need a combination, a layered strategy that includes in some place infrastructure, other places surveillance, other places personnel.
HH: But that's understood by people who follow this debate as code words for no action at all.
JM: Well, I think that's not what you've seen tonight, is no action at all. What you saw tonight was a very strong call to action by this President, both for comprehensive immigration reform, and immediately, putting the National Guard down on the border so that we can have more boots, as they call it, boots on the ground in terms of border patrol agents actually doing their jobs.
HH: But people wanted the fence...and I'm a moderate on this. I get hammered by the deportation crowd every day. And it's always about when are they going to be serious about the physical fencing that works? And I think it's a fair interpretation of what you said, is that the administration really doesn't believe in it.
JM: I think people want results, and the President wants results. I think what he did tonight is talk about where we are so far, and how he's going to step it up and take it further with the National Guard.
HH: Ms. Myers, with all due respect, they don't want that, they want a fence. But you're telling me that the administration is not into the fence?
JM: I'm telling you I believe people want results. And when people see that we're securing the border, I don't think people will care how that's being done. And it's my understanding that the border patrol believes we need a combination of these things. In some places, fencing may be great. In other places, all you'll get is a whole bunch of tunnels.
HH: One minute left. Is there anything specific you can tell us about fencing?
JM: You know, I think we've talked about how a layered approach on the fencing is a part of the President's strategy. I will tell you that we're doing a great job in interior enforcement, and really moving out some of the areas where I think we've been...not been as active as we could have been in the past.
HH: Well, I appreciate your coming on. I must be just candid with you. I think that's disastrous, politically. I think that is a nightmare, both policy and political wise, because I thought the President had come down for the fence, but you're saying it's really a much subtler approach.
JM: Well, I appreciate your time, and we look forward to showing the great results in having the National Guard down there.
HH: All right. Thank you, Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Julie Myers. I'm just stunned.
End of interview.
Yep. Steve Sailer isn't afraid to get into "Bell Curve" type of analysis. Same for Fred here
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.