Posted on 05/16/2006 5:36:42 AM PDT by kellynla
For my next trick, ladies and gentlemen, I will perform a death-defying stunt -- no, not climbing a 300-foot ladder, diving through seven rings of fire and landing perfectly safely in a glass of water. That's easy once you know how to do it.
Instead, I shall advise you on how to interpret President Bush's speech on immigration that you heard last night but that was delivered several hours after this column was written. Very simply: Ask yourselves the following questions:
Did the president use the phrase ''comprehensive immigration reform'' several times? That's revealing because this phrase is an example of smuggling. He hopes that by wrapping a ''temporary guest-worker program'' and the ''not an amnesty'' provision to legalize the 12 million illegals already here -- both of which are unpopular -- inside a tough-sounding popular promise to secure the border with the National Guard, he will persuade most Americans to accept the first two proposals.
Did the president spend a large part of his speech on promising to secure the border by sending the National Guard there? Heigh-ho. This is the umpteenth time that Bush has promised to toughen up border security with a new initiative. He does so whenever there is public disquiet about illegal immigration.
Yet this kind of mini-initiative is fundamentally irrelevant. As this column has repeatedly pointed out, porous borders are the result of uncontrolled immigration as much as its cause. You cannot control the borders, however many patrols you hire or fences you build, if you grant an effective pardon to anyone who gets 100 miles inland.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Here's a hint to all
Tone it down now
Thank you,
No conservative is. First of all, these are NG troops, not federal troops. And second, the guard is used all the time within states.
Prig: Arrogant, smug, or narrow minded. Calling you that was about the same as what you did when you attacked my knowledge on this subject. So, I guess you don't know the rules (and maybe you need a dictionary).
Please reference post 102.
The answer is enforcement. I'm tired of hearing we can't send 11,000,000 illegals back. Well, not if you think of it on such a large scale. But divide that number into states, then divide again by cities, then by local municipalities and guess what, each local law-enforcement agency has only a handful of illegals to deal with. It can be done and should be done.
I said I was far right and I am. But I am not opposed to LEGAL immigration nor am I anti-Mexican. I want to see our laws enforced and respected.
I hope Congress wises up or the slogan this election may well be "It's The Border, Stupid!"
You're just not listening.
Again, I agree that on the war and terrorism issues, he's been fine.
You have *still* not addressed my complaints, his lack of 'smaller govt and border security' action.
If you're not serious about a discussion, please let me know. I don't wish to waste your time bringing up issues you're just going to ignore.
Point Blank:
Just let them be Zook....They will be getting even worse as the election cycle plays out and they can't find any true Conservatives to vote for.
Rest easy.......This has happened before and will happen again....
The stupid is strong in you, n00b.
Does this mean the federal dollars that other states are forced to give the border states for illegal aliens medical care?
"I started out making a reasonable argument, albeit one that you and others might not like to hear."
I don't know or care what your position on this issue is, but there does not exist a more personal attack than questioning the relationship a fellow freeper has with his mother.
Personal attacks are not allowed here... You should know that. You've been here a long time.
If you think that George W. Bush is a "Rockefellar Republican," then there is no hope for you outside the John Birch Society.
'Conservatives' feel that if the size of govt isn't controlled, it will be the end of us.
Bush has not controlled the size of govt, quite the opposite.
Ok?
"I'm thinking it's time to nationalize this next election, using this issue."
With all due respect, I have to disagree. I can't believe they even put this issue on the table now. As a Conservative, I'm pissed the president won't do more. I'll still be voting, but this anger might turn off other Conservatives who've had it already. On the other hand, if he does more, he's going to piss off the Hispanic vote. And that's a political loser if that group stays home or votes dem.
I'm hoping it's just a distraction to preempt the liberal media's constant scandal-making. After that, I hope it goes away quick, or, in my opinion, it's a political albatross. This is all a purely political calculation on my part, and I'd love somebody to tell me why I'm wrong about this.
Someone's got to tell you how much you don't know. Who do you want it to be?
The discussion has gone on and on and on. I support the President's position on this and believe it to be a well thought out conservative approach to dealing with a very complex problem. I do not mind at all if people see things differently. But what I do mind is people bashing the President, claiming to be the "true conservatives," when in fact, they're simply tossing out simple minded solutions that could have devastating long term consequences.
Clearly, some reasonable critics see such negative consequences in Bush's policies--a vast increase in illegal immigration. But the other side of the coin is that building a wall, massive arrests and deportatations would do terrible damage to our relations with Mexico and, as I stated before, quite possibly put a Marxist state right on our border. So, if I have to bet, I'm betting on the President, and I resent having my conservative credentials questioned because of it.
Why do you insist on continuing the personal attacks?
Hey Ava, would you want a few feds down yonder if the invasion was a bona fide military one with the invaders being Chinese, Russian, or Iranian? Wonder if it would be a states issue then?
I voted for him...I am loyal to America, not a figurehead. and Bite This!
Ditto that. Illegal immigration should be the defining issue of the 2006 House elections.
In my case, it's easy to vote GOP: Rohrbacher is my US Rep.
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.