There was only one branch of goverment that wanted to secure the border and that was the house of representatives. The Republican members of the house voted in December of 2005 to secure the border. But the voters threw the Republicans out of control in November of 2006.
The Democrats have always been for an open border with Mexico for years. Even Ronald Reagan was for opening the border with Mexico. What part of the the Democrats won a big victory escapes you. Bush would be a fool not to read the election returns.
If you wanted to close the Mexican border you should have gotten the voters to elect the candidates that wanted to close the border instead of electing those that want to open the border.
The truth is there is not much support for closing the border as many house members found out when they counted the votes.
BTTT.
Of the Democrats who defeated Republicans in the recent elections, how many ran on open borders platforms and how many ran against illegal immigration?
Bet you don't answer the question because it would illuminate the vacuity of your analysis.
Ironic, what the "let's teach 'em a lesson" crowd brought about, ain't it?
The Iraq war, president Bush's low approval ratings and people like Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Mark Foley's general corruption cost the GOP this election. You know that, and you just lie. What kind of position do you have if you must lie?
Everyone points to Hayworth, but ignores that Brian P. Bilbray, a very well-known minuteman, won in what was considered a swing district by a large margin against a much better funded opponent. Three (four if you count official English) anti-illegal propositions in Arizona easily passed. And many democrats who won, like that sports' player in North Carolina and Sherrod Brown in Ohio, are very pro-border.
Media in ERROR -- Immigration-Reduction did NOT lose at the polls
There was a much better and more detailed article on this myth here on FreeRepublic via Human Events.
For you to even post this known lie is really low.
bttt
The main difficulty here (IMHO) is that both "sides" on this issue are so deeply, if not willfully, deluded about the nature of the problem that formulating, let alone enacting, sensible and effective policy has become nearly impossible.
The "close the border" faction for their part pretends (or possibly is stupid or ignorant enough to actually believe) that our southern border is now "open" and that nothing has been or is being done to improve border security. In fact this perception is wildly inaccurate.
By every metric border security has been greatly and progressively strengthened over the past couple decades, and more so since 9-11, due to massive increases in the resources devoted thereto. Twenty years ago illegally crossing the Southern border entailed, in the typical case, little more than a five minute walk, usually on the outskirts of a metropolitan area. Today (unless you have hundreds to thousands of dollars for a "coyote") it requires a two day walk across desert or other remote and forbidding terrain.
The "(pro) open border" types are equally deluded, pretending that an open border is either possible or desirable in the wake of 9-11.
We're in a bad place right precisely because the borders are neither open, on the one hand, nor approximate to 100% secure on the other.
The borders are just secure enough that we've lost certain advantages attendant to the more-or-less "open" borders of the early 80's and previous: "Circularity" (the percentage of illegals who return home each year of their own accord) has been vastly reduced because it's more expensive, dangerous and uncertain to cross the border. Once an illegal gets here he is much more likely to remain here, and more likely to bring his wife and children with him, since he can no longer cross the border easily to seasonally work here and live there. Obviously illegal families entail far larger social costs than young, single males working here seasonally.
At the same time the need to support families, and/or remain in the country year round, means that illegals need to either seek higher paying, more permanent jobs, and support and contribute to the growth of the black market in fake documents and etc to do so, or have to turn to crime directly to support themselves.
I think the prescription for this state of affairs is pretty obvious. We need to both continue to improve border security AND give illegals who are otherwise of good faith and contributing to society some viable paths that lead them AWAY from the growing black-market sectors that are a danger to our security.
But alas the number of Americans who want to do BOTH these things seems to be very, very small. As a result neither side will give in, little will get accomplished, and the problems associated with illegal immigration and a growing population of permanent illegals will grow worse for the immediate future.
12-10 million targets will invariably overwhelm law enforcement and homeland security. We should be providing means for the portion of illegals who simply want to live and work here (or work here and live elsewhere) to SEPARATE themselves from the growing number of hardened criminals (and worse) among illegals. Instead the current state of affairs is tending to lump these elements together and giving criminals (and worse) plenty of space to operate and plenty of humanity to hide among.