Did These Ploys Sneak into Bush's Speech?(Bait & Switch)

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | May 16, 2006 | JOHN O'SULLIVAN

[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.

[Flightdeck]

"Don't go saying you speak for Texas."

I'm a Texan, also, avocado, and any state that has a national border will naturally federal enforcement of that border. The fact that it has failed so miserably is only further justification to beef up the border. If you advocate a "state's right" in the sense that you want national guardsmen there, then fine. But you simply cannot believe that the federal government has no say regarding the penetration of its border.

[kellynla]

1)"undocumented workers?"

Okay, first they're not "undocumented works" and they're not "illegal immigrants"; they are illegal aliens...there is a HUGE difference.


2)they are not felonious "criminals" by crossing the border but they are "criminals"

3) if someone enters your home uninvited, do you say "well since you are here you go ahead and stay ad infinitum" or do you show them the door?

4) "We can't deport twelve million people."

Well according to GWB, we have already deported SIX MILLION.
So either W is not telling the truth or all we need to do is double the effort!

5)" If the government enforced the law and the job pool dries up, the impetus to come here will slow considerably."

Hopefully, but just so we don't suffer the same consequences from 1986;
we should seal the border and since MS13 is looking for recruits,

DEPORT 'EM ALL!

6) I concur.

7)"We need to assimilate the people who are here."
Only those who are here LEGALLY!
The rest need to be shown the door.

8) I concur again.

9) And I concur again.

[Buffettfan]

Federal troops on the border can be scaled back at anytime, especially after an election. This fence will NOT discriminate.

[Peach]

Contrary to claims the administration's investigation and arrests of employers hiring illegals is down from the Clinton administration, this table tells a different story. Credit RedBloodedAmerican for finding this:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632888/posts?page=187#187

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


Note that I don't think anyone is claiming that nothing should be done, but the hysterics claiming that nothing is being done couldn't be more wrong.

Fact sheet:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1633068/posts

[hosepipe]

[ but what is the solution to the 11 million illegals in the country. How are we going to deport all those people? ]

Make it hard to live in the U.S. being illegal and they will deport themselves.. You need a job and a place to stay/hide.. Easy to do.. Also; make it, cost you, to hide the illegals.. Quite simple really.. Pretty soon the illegals will find a way to get back into Mexico all by themselves, like they got here...

Could be a lot of non latin americans will go to Mexico too.. not all illegals are from South and Central America.. Make it COST the employers, the property managers, and real estate agents they make it possible to LIVE here.. and the illegals will slink back across the border.. Make it cost also the reletives (here now and legal) that hide them.. BINGO problem solved....

This plan will NOT be executed.. because Bush WANTS multi million new democrats to enliven the democrat party.. The democrats have been aborting their next generation for decades.. WHY is that?.. WHy indeed..

[kellynla]

"Wonder how the fiscal conservatives would feel about spending the money to build and maintain the wall, and hiring more INS agents to guard it?"


Well it is costing the American taxpayers 16 BILLION A YEAR NET to allow the illegals to stay in the border states of CA, TX, NM & AZ alone. So you do the math, we could build a wall on BOTH BORDERS, man them and still be ahead of the game in less than one year.

[kellynla]

"Federal troops on the border can be scaled back at anytime, especially after an election. This fence will NOT discriminate."

Exactly, but I prefer my wall. It's more PERMANENT. LOL

[jammer]

avacado, look, I agree with the thrust of what you say. And I take second place to no poster on FR in my disgust with GWB. He has been and is a disaster to the country, to the ideals of the Founders, and to any hope of conservatism being resurrected for many years.

I don't want a wall (we may want OUT some day) and I don't want federal troops (there is too much militarization of police forces and other agencies already). Having said that, it IS a federal problem--it IS in the Constitution. And the way to fix it is to have about 50,000 border patrol agents. But it is not a state's rights issue.

[Tokra]

Yeah! Attacking a backward country that wasn't really developing WMD

Sheesh! Straight from the lips of Michael Moore. No WMDs? Tell that to the Kurds who were gassed with "imaginary" WMDs!

[DuncanWaring]

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

From where I sit, it's looking like you've got an invasion going on over there; perhaps a relatively subtle one as invasions go, but an invasion nonetheless.

[MEGoody]

So you do the math, we could build a wall on BOTH BORDERS, man them and still be ahead of the game in less than one year.

Then in a few years, there will be calls for budget cuts, and. . .

[zook]

"Which you are ignoring. "

I'm not ignoring anything. I see and interpret things differently from you, and I still view myself (and the President) as strong conservatives. From where I sit, to claim that W has been more liberal than conservative, is not only simplistic and one-dimensional, but it's also completely bizarre. The speech President Bush gave last night was, in my opinion, far more in line with American conservative ideals than any barbed wire fence or "citizen posse."

[MEGoody]

For a year?

While we do what? Do you recall from the speech?

[DuncanWaring]

I am lilly white you a$$!

"Lilly white" is a fairly good description of a lot of the Mexican ruling-class.

[kellynla]

"Yeah! Attacking a backward country that wasn't really developing WMD"


The Iranians, the Kurds and every country's intelligence in the Free World would contradict your accusation.

My fellow Marines & Army Soldiers didn't wear those chemical suits in hundred degree weather when we entered Iraq just because they thought they were fashionable. LOL

And as far as I am concerned, the day we captured Saddam Hussein was the day we found the WMD. And the entire world is better off with Hussein incarcerated!

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"I think the President's policy goes a long way to address this "flooding" you refer to,"

Time will tell. Fear of ICE is causing illegals to think twice about showing up for work, and the Minute Men are having a major affect in the areas they work. Time will tell whether anything stops the flood.

In the meantime, a couple of engineer battalions could build quite a few miles of proper border in a short time, and the BP would be greatly assisted by the use of UAVs.

Is it just about jobs, or is it also about conquest?

Again, time will tell. In the meantime, just for giggles, I think I'll go buy some more ammo.

Michel Frazier

[kellynla]

The wall/s can be built in a year and yes we can then start cutting the budget because we won't have to subsidize the millions of illegals who are living here!

[Rutles4Ever]

Very tough issues. I don't profess to have THE answer. It's not a bad thing that we're divided on this issue. Think of all the DUmmies and their lockstep amorality. At least we can think like we all have independent brains.

For the good of this country, I want W to be a successful president. I would be lying if I said I wasn't EXTREMELY disappointed with his second term. This issue, it seems, has finally put a lot of us over the edge.

[DuncanWaring]

Attacking a backward country that wasn't really developing WMD,...

I presume you're referring to Iraq.

Iraq wasn't "developing" WMD, they "developed" WMD. They had WMD; they proved it - they used them against the Iranians and the Kurds.

The only legitimate question is "Where did they hide them?"

[Dominic Harr]

From where I sit, to claim that W has been more liberal than conservative, is not only simplistic and one-dimensional, but it's also completely bizarre.

So you keep repeating.

Then when I respond, "C's are for smaller govt and strong defense, and this proposal goes against those", you ignored that point and say, "it's completely bizarre".

You didnt' respond to my points, didn't discuss them, aren't in fact conversing with me at all.

Which is your right, of course!

But don't act like you're engaging me in any kind of discussion.