Posted on 05/18/2007 6:24:41 PM PDT by Valin
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow on the new immigration bill.
HH: Pleased to welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show now Tony Snow, press secretary at the White House. Tony, how are you?
TS: Im doing fine, Hugh.
HH: Good to have you. I heard you on Michael Medveds show a little bit earlier today, so youve got the Salem Network covered. We wont go back to the same subjects.
TS: (laughing)
HH: Tony, immigration
TS: Yeah.
HH: Are young men who entered this country illegally, or who overstayed their visas illegally, whose country of origin was either in Central Asia or an Arab country eligible for regularization under this bill?
TS: Well, they would be eligible for regularization only if they met a whole series of standards. If they have broken the law while theyre here, theyre not eligible. If they do not remain continuously employed, theyre not eligible for regularization. If they do not provide, do not present themselves for a tamper-proof ID that has biometric information, submit themselves to background checks, they are not eligible for regularization. If they do not master the English language and culture, theyre not eligible for regularization.
HH: Wait, wait, wait. Mastering the English language? I thought that was for
TS: Yeah, English language requirements a part of it, too.
HH: And what is that English language requirement?
TS: The English language requirement is to be able to speak and write coherently in English, and to pass a test that would demonstrate that. And I think also there is a citizenship test requirement.
HH: And so if, say, a Saudi got here in the last few years, but hes been working, you know, continually for a relative, and has kept his nose clean, no run-ins with the law, and can speak passable English, he gets to stay?
TS: No. Well, he gets to stay youre conflating things, because you say if he gets to stay, thats regularization, and theyre two separate issues, because the way the proposal works is that somebody who came here illegally, you are allowed to stay here for up to eight years, but only if you submit to background checks, you remain employed, and fulfill all those other conditions I told you. Plus, you pay a $1,000 dollar fine up front, which is a way of saying, acknowledging that you broke the law. This all this eight years does is get you in a position where you then have to leave the country, and you can apply for the right to become a regularized citizen by getting a green card, and then proceeding through as everybody else does, the process of trying to become a citizen. So after eight years, you run out of options. You either leave, or you have to leave the country and still apply for the right to be considered for citizenship.
HH: Now you mentioned background checks, Tony Snow.
TS: Yeah.
HH: What kind? And whos going to do them?
TS: The federal law enforcement Im sorry, the Department of Homeland Security and I think the FBI will be coordinating on those. Let me explain a very important part of this plan, which is that you have to have the tamper-proof ID with biometric information. You know, theres a cottage industry in fake IDs. You know it and I know it. You go to the convenience store, and they hook you up with the social security number of somebody whos long dead, or maybe somebody whos even alive, and they patch in a picture, and suddenly they pretend like youre legitimate. There are a series of laws that have already made their way through that are going to require biometric information from everybody, real ID for U.S. citizens. And for those who are not citizens, or cannot provide proof of citizenship, theyre still going to have to provide, theyre going to have to submit for an ID card that will have a picture, that will have a fingerprint, and at the same time, also will have a valid social security or other identifying number. That goes into a federal database. Everything is cross-tabbed and checked to make sure that youre not faking. So one of the first steps is youve got to present yourself. And then, based on that information, now youre going to know who they are, where they work, you do the background checks. If you find a fingerprint, and it turns out that theyre somebody who held up a liquor store, guess what? You get kicked out.
HH: But if its a profile along the lines of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom had had a previous run-in with the law, but all of whom had jihadist connections. Theyd be waived through, right?
TS: Well again, lets see, lets walk through. No, because at least in one of those cases, youd had, maybe in a couple of them, youd had expired student visas, which are going to themselves be subject to far more scrutiny. And in terms of background checks, Im going to have to go back and find out whether they kept their noses clean or not.
HH: Tony
TS: But if youre asking me, Hugh, if its going to be possible using immigration law to find out whether somebody has not previously broken the law, whether they are going to commit an act of terror, whether they are an American citizen or not? No, thats not going to be what immigration law is about. But on the other hand, there are other laws that this administration has fought hard to put into place, including the Patriot Act, including surveillance programs, that do in fact give you the data and the ability to track down whether its the Lackawanna cell or others. So I think what youre trying to do is to set up here something that may be a little bit misleading, in the sense that youre trying to place a burden on immigration law, that probably doesnt properly belong there. But instead, what you have pointed to, is give me the chance to tout a law thats been under feverish assault from the left, that has, in fact, been effective in saving lives.
HH: But what Im saying is if there are in fact hundreds or thousands of jihadists who have come here illegally, across the border or via visa overstays, that this law makes no provision for a special category of men, young men, originating from these countries. Theyre going to be waived through. And so while immigration not may not
TS: Well, wait a minute. What do you mean by waived through?
HH: Theyre just getting in the same line with the decent, hard-working Mexicans.
TS: No, no, again, lets step back here. What youre doing is conflating two separate programs.
HH: No, thats not true, Tony, because in law enforcement, you will
TS: Well no, it is true.
HH: This law will end up adding to the cover of any sleeper. It has to.
TS: Well, no, what it does, in point of fact, Hugh, is something that the law doesnt now do, which is to provide a comprehensive rendering of the folks who in fact are on our shores. And what it also does is gives us a greater ability to track and know whos here, and therefore if you have actionable intelligence, much greater ability to go after these folks. So no, I strongly dispute the characterization here. What we have is the situation right now where youve got millions in the shadows, you dont know who they are, you dont know whether they have real or illegitimate ID. All of a sudden, if youve got tamper-proof identification that does have a biometric marking, it does make it possible for you to go through and do some analysis, whether it is using Interpol data, or FBI data, or any other data. These all get put into the database, and therefore, you still have greater capability, not merely on the basis of physical evidence that you now are going to have, that you do not presently possess.
HH: But all of a sudden, youre also
TS: Youre going to have that ability. And furthermore, youre going to have the ability to track them, because you will have background checks, you will have requirements for continuous employment, youre going to have employer reports, and so therefore, youre going to have a much better sense of the whereabouts of such individuals.
HH: But youre also going to legitimize their presence in the country. And if theyre good, Tony Snow
TS: No, no
HH: If theyre good at doing what theyre supposed to do, which is infiltrate, they will be here as long as is necessary, until theyre activated.
TS: But again, what youve just done, what youre creating is a straw man here.
HH: No, Im not.
TS: What youre saying is
HH: Tony, thats not fair, because if theyre here illegally, they cannot function above board. Once theyre blessed, they will function above board, and the law does not make provision
TS: Well no, wait a minute. What youre saying is I love the way that you slam this. Theyre blessed? What youre trying what Im telling you, Hugh, is that you appear to be advocating for a system right now where we dont have any idea who the hell these people are
HH: Not true.
TS: We dont have any way of going after them.
HH: I want a provision that treats
TS: And what were doing is were creating an inventory where youre going to know whos here illegally, and furthermore, youre going to have unprecedented ability to try to focus in on those who are going to be subjects of concern. Youre also assuming that there is a complete disjunction between law enforcement activities and intelligence activity in this new database, which gives you much greater ability to figure out who these folks are. Far from being a blessing, this is an identifier, which I think is the sort of thing that you and I both would want to have.
HH: Actually not, but thats a long conversation about whats in the law. But we dont have the law, yet, because if in fact they provided
TS: Well, the law I think is in. Ive read what youve had and others relax. Its supposed to come out today. This is not a law that is going to be debated without having been read. I guarantee and Im looking forward to it, because I hope you will read it with the kind of care that you do. Youre legally trained. Youre going to have the ability to look at this, because I think youre going to find that a lot of the arguments that have been presented against the law, in fact have no are basically made up, or
HH: Well, lets test that, Tony.
TS: Or report peoples misgivings.
HH: Lets test that. Which agency is actually going to do the background checks on the 11 to 12 to 20 million people who will be eligible? Which agency?
TS: Again, I have not looked at it, but I am assuming its a combination of DHS doing the coordination along with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, but people will find out.
HH: And how many people, how many people do you think its going to take to do 11 Ive had three full field background investigations, each one of which took about six months. You know the drill on this. You know that there is not anywhere near the number of federal employees available to do a sophisticated search of 11 to 12 million people.
TS: But what youre also saying is that youre advocating a full field investigation on 12 million people.
HH: No, I want to find the people we should be worried about from a national security standpoint.
TS: Exactly, exactly.
HH: But were not going to be looking, because you dont identify by country of origin in this law, do you?
TS: No, but what you do have is the ability, Hugh, once again, is to figure out whos involved. And frankly, if you start taking a look at the evolving nature of the terror network, and this is interesting, because notice what were doing is were stepping away from the merits of the immigration proposal, and were talking about the complexities of doing counterterrorism, which is riveting topic, but not necessarily the chief area of focus when it comes to the immigration law.
HH: Tony, they are
TS: What Im saying is that youre going to have the ability to go in and take a look as carefully as you can. There are going to be ID checks and background checks, and all that, but you know what? We will get an opportunity to take a look at the law. And all Im saying is, I want you to give it a chance and look at it with an open mind, because a lot of people have reached preemptory conclusions
HH: Im among them.
TS: about a whole series of things.
HH: Im among them, and Im part of
TS: I know you are, thats why Im making this mention, because I think when you see the law, Im hoping youre going to change your mind based on a fair reading of whats gone into it.
HH: I think the administration can count on a fair reading of me, the only member of the blogger and talk radio Harriet Miers fan club, as far as I know.
TS: (laughing)
HH: So you can count on a fair reading from me. But there are some problems. For example, how much are the employers who cheat after this law is adopted going to pay for employing someone who didnt have the right ID, and who did not have affirmative defense for the employer side? How much do they pay?
TS: Okay, number one, first, they have an affirmative requirement to go ahead and get this ID. First violation, $5,000 dollars, second, $10,000, escalating up to $75,000 per employee.
HH: And so $5,000 dollars per employee, and that goes in from day one?
TS: $5,000 first time. Im sorry, what?
HH: And that goes in from day one?
TS: Yes.
HH: And so, if someones got thirty Mexicans working in their warehouse, and theyre not here illegally, $150,000 dollar fine hits them?
TS: If theyre not here illegally, they have not presented the proper kind of ID, they havent done, there are a whole series of things that the employers have to do. They have to do the verification. If they dont have the proper verification, and if the employees have not presented that tamper-proof ID, with the biometric information, then that employers liable for a $5,000 dollar hit for each and every one of those employees.
HH: Okay, thats a detail which was not out there. Im glad to have that. How many miles of fence, Tony, will be built and in place, double fencing, real fencing, not virtual fencing, before the first new visa comes out for these people?
TS: 370 miles.
HH: Where will those be built?
TS: Right now, I cant tell you exactly where theyre going to be built, but what weve got right now is weve got 112 down right now, in terms of fencing.
HH: Double fencing? Or is it youre not counting the speed bumps, are you?
TS: No, were not counting the speed bumps. Theres 78 miles of speed bumps, the vehicular actually, 59.6 miles of speed bumps, and 78 miles of vehicular barriers.
HH: So 78
TS: And what theyre required to have, what theyre required to have by the end of fiscal year 2008, September a year from now, 370 miles of fencing, not fake fencing, not pseudo fencing, fencing, along with 200 miles of vehicle barriers, as well as 18,000 border patrol agents hired, 70 ground-based radar and camera towers, four unmanned aerial vehicles, along with support systems so that you can get at them, a lot more in terms of the mileages, special roads that gives you ingress and egress into tough areas and so on. That is required before you start the possibility of temporary worker program, or any of that other stuff. So all of that has to happen before you kick in the other elements of the plan. You see, we do agree with the idea of security first. Furthermore, the law written last year remains fully in effect. I know that Duncan Hunter was worried that theyre watering down his requirements. No, that law remains entirely in effect. But this is the baseline requirement before you get to the temporary worker program and all that stuff.
HH: Why didnt the administration insist on the full 854 miles of last years bill prior to initiating the regularization of the millions of
TS: Okay, there are a couple of things. First, regularization, again, keep in mind, when you talk about regularization here, youre still talking eight years down the road, which means by that time, you will have all that mileage, youll have it completed. Were talking about trying to lay on, let me do my math here, another, well, basically, another 248 miles worth of fence in the next 12 months, next 15 months. So the fact is, its going to get built.
HH: But why did the administration agree to cutting it in half, when they had the leverage, they could have gotten the whole thing.
TS: It didnt. It did not agree to cutting it in half. Thats one of the great falsehoods here. What is says is this is a benchmark. Youve got to get halfway, you have to demonstrate youre busy doing this
HH: I understand, I understand the administrations position that the rest will get built. Why did the administration agree to do anything prior to the whole fence getting built?
TS: Well, because at this point, what youre still talking about is putting together a system that is another eight years in coming. At this particular point, I think what you have to ask yourself is, what is most essential in terms of guaranteeing border security? And although the fence is important, if you dont have anybody to patrol it, and you dont have the technical means and the other stuff at that juncture, the fence isnt going to do you much good. Its going to be an architectural curiosity, rather than something that is actually going to be an effective way of policing the borders.
HH: Tony, I dont find that persuasive.
TS: So what were doing here is were setting priorities in terms of what is going to be critical first. And so, Hugh, my sense is that we have already demonstrated with increased border presence that there has been a reduction in crossing, and there has been success. So our view is do you want to wait forever in doing this? Or do you want to get about the business also, while youre dealing simultaneously with the borders, the folks that may be trying to come over, dont you think you need to grapple in a very real and serious way with 11 or 12 million people, some of whom you are afraid of, rightfully so, that have terrorist connections? Why dont you get after the program also of making sure we identify them, and start getting all the security aspects of that part of the program as well?
HH: Because we could do both. Im not persuaded by your answer, because you could do both, and the administration could have had the 854 miles built.
TS: Actually, I dont think you could get a bill in two years. I mean, I just think as a practical matter, and as you also know
HH: Then we shouldnt start regularization until three years.
TS: Were not will you stop this? The regularization doesnt even youre talking about something that doesnt begin for eight years.
HH: Tony, theyre not leaving the country, so youre leaving them in place, and it doesnt fly to say that they are leaving the country, or that theres something other than
TS: Well, wait a minute. Two things, you lets divide this into two classes. Number one, youve got some people who came here, they came here for jobs, some of them have sent their kids off to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, a lot of them have behaved like model American citizens would act if these folks were citizens. Then you have bad actors. What this law does is give us an unprecedented ability to week out the good and bad actors, and get the bad actors out of here for good.
HH: Tony, everybody
TS: So I mean sorry?
HH: Everybody knows the rhetoric by now, but youre talking past the objection from the border security people who are not anti I think you should let most of the 20 million stay here. Id make it very easy for them to stay. But you guys caved on getting the fence built, and you do not have
TS: No, we didnt. No, Hugh, we didnt. I mean, Jon Kyl
HH: You dont have a system in place to find the bad guys. You guys blew past this.
TS: No, wait. No, again, I think youre creating a straw man. You are focusing on the architecture of the fence, and not paying attention to the largest expansion in funding and personnel, and everything else, on border security. I mean, this is something where you ought to be saying you know what? Im glad these guys have stepped up, and youre right. Youre right to be impatient, but there are also a number of huge complexities, including as you know, there are lawsuits now, in Arizona and Texas, where people are suing not to have fences put on their property.
HH: I agree, and thats what I was coming to next is, does this bill have notwithstanding any other law language that will clear away any countersuit by environmentalists, such as are mentioned in Mother Jones, or private property owners who dont want the fence?
TS: Well again, this is something people do, the question here is whether youre going to have an eminent domain proceeding, where you think that a fence is going to be absolutely vital for national security. Ive not seen that part of it. So I dont know. But what youre asking me is the eminent domain question, and you and I, certainly when I was a talk radio host, when it came to the Kelo Case, we were screaming about property rights. And this is going to be a classic eminent domain, national interest debate
HH: Now Kelo was the condemnation of a private home to give to a shopping center. This is the construction of a fence on the border. Theyre not the same thing.
TS: No, I understand that, and what youre going to find out is whether that in fact is, if that is essential for national security, then my guess is that youre going to have a cause of action at the federal level. But I dont want to pretend that Ive seen that language, because I havent.
HH: I dont want to keep you too long, Tony, but Ive got a couple of more questions. You got any more time?
TS: Yeah, sure.
HH: Okay. How many miles of fence have been initiated and completed since last years bill was passed? Because in these numbers, I assume, I could be wrong, that there are fences that were built prior to the 2006 bill.
TS: I think that the vast majority of what were talking about here, let me just pull up, because I had somebody send me the data today. I think the vast majority of this is in fact, what were talking about is stuff thats been put up in the last year.
HH: The 78 miles?
TS: No, the 78 is vehicular barriers. In other words, thats berms, and I mean, I think youve seen the pictures of some of the vehicular stuff. I mean, I just apologize. Im scrolling through. Im away from the office, and looking on my Blackberry. Let me take a look here. My sense is, and Ill have to go back and double check. I think in terms of the primary fencing, were talking about 89.9 miles. But rather than getting ahead of myself, Ill go back and take a look and get a full accounting on that.
HH: And those 89.9 do include the fencing that was constructed prior to the
TS: No, thats what Im saying. Im going to find out. My understanding is that the majority of this were talking about is new fencing.
HH: Okay.
TS: But I dont want to get over my I dont want to get on the air and have told you something that is misleading or inaccurate.
HH: Sure, I understand. Is there a website anywhere that charts the construction of the real fence?
TS: What happens is, I know that we get weekly reports on it, so Ill try and find out.
HH: Cant you get the government to put it up so the American people can see whats going on?
TS: Hugh, Ill find out. There may be good reasons why they dont want to do some of this, and I just dont know.
HH: Okay, last couple of questions, Tony Snow.
TS: Yeah.
HH: Now why the jam down? Why does it get one week of debate in the Senate? Why cant they wait at least until the Senators come home over Memorial Day to hear the outrage in their constituents voices?
TS: Its not a jam down. I think you understand the rules of the Senate, which is that what theyre really talking about, this is not a jam down. What theyre going to do is theyre going to have a motion to proceed next Tuesday, which opens up debate, but also Senate rules are such that youve got almost an infinite ability to go ahead and do amendments, and furthermore, youre going to have a full debate in the House of Representatives.
HH: I dont care about the House.
TS: I understand the importance what you do have, and by the way, this is not highly unusual.
HH: Oh, it is.
TS: A lot of times you will have a
HH: Tony Snow, come on.
TS: No, no, Im serious about this.
HH: The most important law of these two years, with a massive impact upon the United States, is going to get five days of debate in the Senate, and youre saying thats not unusual?
TS: No, what Im telling you is the kind of effort that went in at the front end, in terms
HH: In secret.
TS: The administration
HH: Secret.
TS: A lot of activity, a lot of people working on both sides, that quite often happens in crafting legislation. Theres going to be plenty of time to debate this.
HH: Tony, no theres not. Tony
TS: And what youre talking about
HH: Its a week. Thats the Senates declaration.
TS: No, this thing, look, this thing could very well get held over longer. As Ive said, youve got the ability on the Senate floor to do infinite amendments. Im not sure that anybodys nailed down what the rules are going to be. And as you know, people are going to want to take a good look at it, and it does go to the House of Representatives, too. This is not something where were going to have a magic wand, and the bill suddenly becomes law. And again, I look forward to your having a chance to look through it, because I think youre probably going to have a lot more positive sense of it than your original take.
HH: Listen, Tony, to what John McCain said yesterday in announcing this bill. He had a very important statement about what kind of look see they really want to have. Heres John McCain.
JM: This is the first step. We can and must complete this legislation sooner rather than later. We all know that this issue can be caught up in extracurricular politics unless we move forward as quickly as possible. This is a product of a long, hard trail of negotiation, and Im sure that there are certain provisions that each of us would not agree with. But this is what the legislative process is all about, this is what bipartisanship is about, when there is a requirement for this nation and its security that transcends party lines. Im proud to have been a small part of it.
HH: So you have a secret deal thats not yet even in print, its unveiled for five days of Senate debate, and the leading guy for the Republicans denounces as criticism extracurricular politics. Do you agree with him?
TS: No, you know what hes talking about? You have so over-interpreted this. Oh, my goodness. What hes talking about is in the context of the 2008 presidential campaign. What he says is, youve just described this as the most important legislative item in these two years. What hes saying is lets not screw around and wait another two to three years to do this. He was simply defending the fact that there may be provisions in there that one side or the other would find less than perfect, but thats how compromise happens in legislation. Relax, this is not something
HH: Im not, Tony. Im not going to relax, because the President
TS: Okay, well then, dont relax. But watch what happens. I mean, Hugh
HH: Will the President support a delay of this bill in the Senate until after the Memorial Day recess?
TS: Its not going to get done before Memorial Day. Come on.
HH: Thats what they were, Jon Kyl was talking about yesterday, thats what John McCains talking about.
TS: No, what theyre talking about is trying to get a debate on the Senate floor. Memorial Day recess is in a week. Youve also got the supplemental appropriation. The fact is, this is going to get careful consideration, including by you. I just really think on this one, you really are reading way too much into something thats being done.
HH: Tony, if you cant tell me whos doing the background checks. Which agency with which funds, and how many people.
TS: Well, yeah, but you know what? I apologize.
HH: But its not in the bill. No one knows this. Theyre just going to assume itll get done.
TS: Hugh, the bill text, were hoping is going to be up before the end of the day.
HH: And in that bill text, Tony Snow, on my last question
TS: Yeah.
HH: If there is no mention of whos going to do the background checks, and how theyre going to pay for it, given the overwhelming burden that these agencies already face, and their inability to cope with the laws that already exist
TS: Get Chertoff on, because Chertoffs the guy whos done all the
HH: We have tried to get Michael Chertoff. Again, the administration will not engage with its critics, Tony Snow.
TS: Oh, are you kidding me?
HH: Youre the only one.
TS: Are you kidding me? He got turned down on three shows yesterday, today, because they didnt want to hear from him. Ill work it for you, okay?
HH: I appreciate it.
TS: Ill work it for you.
HH: Tony Snow, I hope you have a great time out with your band. I see youre playing somewhere this week with whatever its called, Beats Workin, but I look forward to discussing the bill with you once we actually have something to read.
TS: Good deal.
HH: Thank you, Tony Snow.
Ping.
Hugh eviscerated Tony. And Hugh is center right, not like some of us radicals. Close the damn border. Then let’s deal with the rest. It’s that simple.
Lying is tough to do ...
Fifth Column Chorus: "We rock. We've Chappaquidicked America
with a bill no one in Congress could have possibly read,
guaranteeing our relections and pensions forever,
all financed by the stupid American taxpaying suckers and their children,
in a bill designed and written by our (illegal alien) servants."
I hate to say this but what Tony is saying is a load of crap; talking out both sides of his mouth. What a shame; when we all know this is about illegal voters for the dimwit party and cheap labor only for businesses; but very expensive for the American citizens since we have to not only pay for it with our money; but possibly with our lives and peace of mind.
I find it hard to understand how Tony, at this point in his life, wants to spend his time arguing and fighting for this. Loyalty is commendable, but geez...
Moronic strategy .... or ....
Some say Pres. Bush’s plan is Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush.
Others say Clinton has the critical stolen FBI files on Bush.
“Tony Snow on the new immigration bill.”
‘Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies...’
Thanks for posting that. Remember when Tony would sub for Rush and ALL he’d talk about was the “invasion” of illegals?
Between he and Roger Hedgecock and of course my One True Love, Dr. Walter E. Williams, I never minded the days when Rush was gone. Much. ;)
Man, you hate to see someone sell out like this but Tony has, IMHO. What does he think he’ll gain? A place in the ‘Rat’s inner circle if the GOP doesn’t get it’s chit together for 2008?
Talk about selling your soul on a margin call, LOL!
Unfortunately, Tony Snow’s job is to represent the President. That’s fine when it’s a matter of defending the President against left wing attacks at press conferences. But when it comes to defending an atrocity like this, of course he bogs down and makes little sense, because he’s defending the indefensible.
I don’t know what else he can do, however, short of quitting his job or refusing to appear on the Hugh Hewitt show to discuss this bill.
But even there, it’s not his job to pick and choose which presidential views he will defend, and which he will pass on. His only real alternative is to quit, in which case we would be back to more lousy press secretaries screwing up in press conferences.
Very disheartening. I couldn’t even read the whole thing.
It’s important to analyze what Tony Snow is saying in terms of FUTURE ACTION because this administration hasn’t done SQUAT in terms of clamping down on illegal immigration... and they won’t likely do it in the future either.
All Tony has to talk about is PRESENT ACTION being carried out right now to uphold the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS.
Since he is not, we can conclude that all this is just SNOWFLAKES for the RINO believers.
Thank you President Bush for compromising with these hard nosed anti illegal immigration advocates and increasing border security.
This is noble despite the reality that doing nothing would have been perfectly acceptable in light of how your “supporters” abandoned you in 2006 and “sent a message” to put in a democratic Congress.
This is exactly what border reactionaries deserve.
Why is the solution from Washington for every problem a move to the same solutions imposed by police states?
As far as I know no one has seen the bill yet...but when I see Two Ton Teddy AND John McCain say it’s the answer to a maidens prayer, alarm bells start going off.
As far as Tony I got the feeling he was pissing on my leg and trying to tell me it’s raining.
Here is the contact info for GOP Senators:
GOP SENATORS:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/d5bd0694-1fef-4412-8493-167677bf3eb0
I bet Tony could change this 3 dollar bill for me.
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.