Posted on 05/16/2006 8:32:20 AM PDT by BradtotheBone
WASHINGTON — President Bush drew fresh criticism from House Republicans today for endorsing eventual citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants. On the morning after a prime time speech, the White House sought to emphasize efforts to strengthen border security.
"This is going to be a tremendous enforcement support partnership," U.S. Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar told reporters at the White House, anticipating the deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops to states along the Mexican border.
"We can certainly do what is asked by our commander in chief," added Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, National Guard Army Bureau Chief.
Blum, Aguilar and others stressed that National Guard forces would function in support roles, leaving front-line law enforcement against illegal immigrants in the hands of federal Border Patrol agents.
Republicans expressed support for new attempts to secure America's porous borders, but they rebelled against another element of what Bush calls a comprehensive plan to alter immigration laws.
"Thinly veiled attempts to promote amnesty cannot be tolerated,' said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga. "While America is a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws, and rewarding those who break our laws not only dishonors the hard work of those who came here legally but does nothing to fix our current situation."
Bush's Monday night speech drew reaction as the Senate moved toward the first of several showdown votes over the next week or so on immigration legislation that followed the president's general recommendations. The measure provides greater border security, establishes a new guest worker program and offers an eventual chance at citizenship for most of the estimated 11 million to 12 million immigrants in the country illegally.
Supporters of the measure said they had the votes to block the first of several expected attempts by critics to rewrite it. Advanced by Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., the proposal would require the government to certify that border security provisions were fully operational before any illegal immigrant could receive a change in legal status.
"We must have a more permanent solution for securing our borders," Isakson said in a statement after Bush spoke, reaffirming his intention of seeking a vote on his proposal.
That wasn't how the sponsors of the Senate bill saw it, and Bush described his own views this way: "An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive, because all elements of this problem must be addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all."
The centerpiece of Bush's speech Monday night from the Oval office was his announcement that as many as 6,000 National Guard troops would be dispatched, in coordination with governors, to states along the Mexican border to provide intelligence and surveillance support to Border Patrol agents. The Border Patrol would remain responsible for catching and detaining illegal immigrants.
"We do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that," the president said.
Still, Bush insisted, "The United States is not going to militarize the southern border."
While much of the advance focus on Bush's speech was on border security — a major issue for conservatives — the president's comments on possible citizenship for illegal immigrants were more explicit than earlier remarks and showed an effort to appeal to moderates and business owners who favor liberalized immigration laws.
"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," he said.
"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. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation."
The Guard troops would mostly serve two-week stints before rotating out of the assignment, so keeping the force level at 6,000 over the course of a year could require up to 156,000 troops.
Republicans were unified in applauding that portion of the president's speech. So, too, were Democrats, in a more limited way.
"Democrats are willing to support any reasonable plan that will secure our borders, including deploying National Guard troops," Durbin said. "But Americans don't want a plan that's been cobbled together to win political favor."
Bush's call for a guest worker program and his call for a middle ground — somewhere between amnesty and mass deportation — for illegal immigrants, drew no public support from top House Republicans.
Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., issued a statement that made no reference to elements of the president's speech other than border patrol.
Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that if the Senate passes an immigration bill he was committed to working "to ensure we make border security our first priority and meet our commitments to the American people."
The House has passed a border security bill that makes all illegal immigrants open to felony criminal charges.
Reaction to Bush's speech was mixed among the nation's governors.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said troops might provide short-term relief but he did not believe border protection was an appropriate role for the National Guard, saying the troops might be needed for natural disasters or other emergencies.
But another Republican border state governor, Rick Perry of Texas, said he was glad the administration had suggested the Guard should play a role along the border. "We have the ability to multitask," Perry said.
The White House hopes deployments to the border will begin in early June.
We could all smell this coming. I'm glad he's done something, finally. Even if the guestworker thing goes against the grain, there's much to be said for the take charge attitude, IMHO.
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
"Still, Bush insisted, "The United States is not going to militarize the southern border.""
Then we have nothing...................oh, we will have amnesty.
House Republicans criticize Bush, but he's a big hit with Senate Democrats. They loved the speech.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
How many employers were arrested and/or fined for hiring illegals over the past 5 years? Now, compare this with the last 5 years of Clinton?
minds will change they do every day with our reps
You didn't read the link, did you? The chart contained clearly answers your question.
Thanks Peachie. Though I must say I've not too much faith in what PEW reports.
I'm concerned too about other areas folks don't see the hits taken...like wrecks with illegals driving without insurance, for example. That sort of thing is rampant in the TX valley.
And the editorials yesterday spewing about a 'few nannies and gardeners' wanting some work here... Grrr...
50,000 armed troops on that border would put a real dent into any cross border incursions. Nobody can tell me that they can't staunch the flow.
Won't staunch the flow is more like it.
6000 NG's is a good start. To setup command and control, but what is missing is the follow on troops to get a handle on the border and increase the difficulty in getting across.
Tells me all I need to know......
There's no doubt that illegal immigration is a problem. None.
What's most unfortunate is that we have people here who claim they are abandoning the Republican party as a result of illegal immigration issues.
Like the Democrats would do a better job. LOL
The excrement will hit the fan when the first UNARMED national guardsman is murdered by a coyote or a drug smuggler.
Whatever.... The House Republicans are just talkin' to the wind and they know it, and everybody else does too. I'm sure Kennedy and all his cronies had a good belly laugh while El Presidente spouted off his nonsense...
I didn't hear mention of immediately deporting all the illegals sitting in American jails and prisons. They're sucking up American taxpayer dollars to feed and house these criminals. How many of the brain dead in DC have read all the details of the new immigration bill? I would bet not one.
Sometime's doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing, and amnesty is the wrong thing.
The Senate bill is amnesty and to deny that it is is to discredit one's own credibility.
NRO:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDUzZTQyZWNmNTNmZDAyMjIyNzJhYzczNDFlNzYwMWI=
"
In his Oval Office address, the president squandered what was probably his last chance to reconnect with conservatives on immigration. They will undoubtedly note that the president has waited six years to start talking about enforcement, and will accordingly ask why he can’t postpone his amnesty long enough to give enforcement at try? A speech that had reiterated his support for amnesty in theory, but conceded that enforcement had to come first, would likely have won significant public approval and helped shape events in Congress. The speech he actually gave, on the other hand, is likely further to demoralize conservatives and harden opposition among House Republicans to the Senate amnesty proposal. President Bush’s speech, contrary to its goal, probably ensures that no immigration bill will reach his desk this year. Given the options, that’s probably a good thing."
"That sort of thing is rampant in the TX valley"
Try Los angeles.
You hit the nail on the head, Peach!
Me know.
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.