I just posted this on another thread; it fits here too:
I'll tell you what, IMO, has taken place. A deal has been cut with the House/Senate and the White House. Bush will not veto this bill, as the deal is when Congress reconvenes, following the November elections, the Pubs, assuming they maintain control in the House and Senate, will then fashion a "temporary visitor's program" and pass the bill which Bush will, of course, then sign. They may even try to go for an amnesty measure, as no one at that point will have to worry about re-election for two years in the House, and only some in the Senate will have to worry. Thus, Bush will shortly get what he wants, and if the Dems win in the mid-term election, Bush will get ALL that he wants on immigration, as the Dems will stall funding or de-fund the 700 mile fence, will pass an amnesty bill, along with a guest worker bill, and will leave the floodgates on the border open (got to get more Dem voters, you know, legal or illegal). Either way, a win win for Bush, and he knows it. The truth of the matter.
"I just posted this on another thread; it fits here too:
I'll tell you what, IMO, has taken place. A deal has been cut with the House/Senate and the White House. Bush will not veto this bill, as the deal is when Congress reconvenes, following the November elections, the Pubs, assuming they maintain control in the House and Senate, will then fashion a "temporary visitor's program" and pass the bill which Bush will, of course, then sign. They may even try to go for an amnesty measure, as no one at that point will have to worry about re-election for two years in the House, and only some in the Senate will have to worry. Thus, Bush will shortly get what he wants, and if the Dems win in the mid-term election, Bush will get ALL that he wants on immigration, as the Dems will stall funding or de-fund the 700 mile fence, will pass an amnesty bill, along with a guest worker bill, and will leave the floodgates on the border open (got to get more Dem voters, you know, legal or illegal). Either way, a win win for Bush, and he knows it. The truth of the matter."
SPOT ON and thank you for being about the first to say so! IMO cause for celebration is very premature on this. Why? I take Bush at his word and I do not believe that for a single moment, he has backed off from this position or that Rove suddenly regrets pandering to LaRaza:
"To secure our border we MUST create a temporary worker program that provides foreign workers a legal and orderly way to enter our country for a limited period of time," Bush said.
"But people in this debate MUST recognize that we will NOT be able to effectively enforce our immigration laws until we create a temporary-worker program." GWB
“This creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will NOT stop. To secure the border effectively we MUST reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across," the president said.
"An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive," the president advised Congress in his speech, "because all elements of this problem MUST be addressed together, or NONE of them will be solved at all."
Instead, they have just found another way to go about getting it!
I also do not think for one moment that all of those Senators from both parties who voted against the Isakson Amendment to Senate 2611, Border Security first, BEFORE guest worker/amnesty, have suddenly changed their minds.
There was no 'wake up' call here. There's just more to the story and we aren't seeing it. Had national security/securing of our borders taken precedence over the OBL/SPP/NAU agenda, our borders would have been secured 5 years ago, on 9/12, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants and their supports would not have been permitted to shut down major cities in protests across the country, and our immigration laws would be being enforced.
That's my take on things. Time will tell, but what I see happening is 'virtual' border security with a 'virtual' fence (if any at all) in exchange for guestworker/amnesty.