Just the non answer I was looking for.
In 2004, the borders were not secure. You and the Pat Buchannan brigades could have thrown Bush out for the Bum you think he is— I don’t think that— never have never will.
You could have run another candidate— You didn’t.
The Mexican border was not the access point for 911.
It is fair to say that this is a diversion of material and political capital that will also increase the risk of terrorism.
I do not like the tone of these discussions.
It is not possible for enforcement legislation to be portrayed as anything but Shamnesty.
Since when are facts a non-answer?
In 2004, the borders were not secure. You and the Pat Buchannan brigades could have thrown Bush out for the Bum you think he is— I don’t think that— never have never will. You could have run another candidate— You didn’t.
Rather ingenuous response. We were in the midst of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan and we had an incumbent Rep President under attack by the Left. At the time, Bush was not urging amnesty for 12 to 20 million illegals.
The Mexican border was not the access point for 911.
But it might very well be for future 9/11s. I provided you with links about terrorists coming across the Mexican border. We have no idea as to who has come here and may be in place now for some planned attack in the future. I might also add that part of border security is a system to monitor, track, and repatriate visa overstays. A number of 9/11 hijackers were in violation of their visas.
It is fair to say that this is a diversion of material and political capital that will also increase the risk of terrorism.
Oh come now, you sound like a Democrat. I guess we are increasing the risk of terrorism by being in Iraq due to a "diversion" of political capital. A nation that does not control its borders is not a nation. Money spent on securing the border is well spent.
I do not like the tone of these discussions.
You and Trent Lott.
It is not possible for enforcement legislation to be portrayed as anything but Shamnesty.
You have no idea what you are talking about. In 2006, the House passed H R 4437, an outstanding piece of legislation that stressed an enforcement first approach. The Reps voted 203-17 for it and also attracted 36 Dem votes, i.e., about 18% of the Dems. The WH stabbed the House Reps in the back in its lack of support of the bill. Read this bill and tell me what is "Shamnesty" about it.
Saying this this amnesty bill is going to result in enforcement of anything is a shell game. They don’t want enforcement, Bush and most of Congress wants to give out citizenship.
Rome, Greece, and many other former great civilizations went this way. When the powers that be no longer care about the nation, that nation will pass away. We are at that point now.