Replies

Your blue writing doesn’t impact ME...don’t know about others.

You cannot seriously argue that Reagan’s amnesty made the issue a clean slate for Bush.

All THAT did was ratify all of those that came here prior, and it set the stage for “boatloads” more to think they could do it and one day get amnesty, too. Hence it was a green light for many, many more to come...

Yes, there is terrorism today. However, the terrorism has been ongoing since the 70s. And as Hannity loves to say - although he didn’t originate it - THEY were at war with us though we weren’t at war with them.

Terrorism from the Middle East and other Islamic countries aside, there is still no valid excuse for a great nation to allow its borders to be invaded. You and I can agree on that, surely. So in any era and with or without terrorism from the ME, there’s no valid excuse.

Our government is massive. There are seperate but equal branches with powers and responsibilities. There is perpetual politics. To blame it strictly on Bush or any one individual is wrong.

What I think ticks off so many is that when Bush speaks on the subject he riles them up. They hate his words when he says certain things about illegal immigrants. They feel he sympathizes with blatant lawbreakers. They feel he suggests that Americans who are against his comprehensive reform ideas are prejudiced and uncaring. They are angry enough just at the problem, then Bush’s words rub salt in their wounds.

I know where he’s coming from. I’m a Texan, born and bred. I’ve grown up around Hispanics. Plenty of them are not here illegally. They are decendents of familys here for hundreds of years. Others have gone though proper channels to get permission to come here and work. There are some lovely people who are good citizens. They have mostly an admirable culture and impact upon culture, with the exception of that language barrier. Yet, many of them are poorer than dirt, many, but by no means all. Bush is a man of deep personal sympathies, and once they are stirred in him, he never forgets.

I’m convinced his personal, emotional biases have kept him from viewing this as a terrorism issue, in the main. Contrary to popular perception, this man is not stupid. I’m sure he knows terrorists could sneak in over the border. He’s said as much. But the big picture guy, which he is, still looks at this primarily as a humanitarian and economic and cultural issue, based on his formative years dealing with the matter as a Texan and as a governor and professed Christian.

I’m not excusing him or anyone else. Or anyone else. Or anyone else.

Your blue writing doesn’t impact ME...don’t know about others. It's not intended to do anything more than differentiate who made the comments a little differently. I prefer it, but it's not mean to offend you.

You cannot seriously argue that Reagan’s amnesty made the issue a clean slate for Bush. I did not argue that, so why would you say this? I mentioned Clinton prominantly in my post.

All THAT did was ratify all of those that came here prior, and it set the stage for “boatloads” more to think they could do it and one day get amnesty, too. Hence it was a green light for many, many more to come... Yes and no. The Reagan plan involved new rules governing employers. It set penalties and discouraged employers from hiring illegal immigrants. There were some other issues covered, but I don't remember what they were right now. The plan was to clean the slate and start over with new laws. Reagan didn't know that any attempt at enforcement would be abandoned under Bush.

Yes, there is terrorism today. However, the terrorism has been ongoing since the 70s. And as Hannity loves to say - although he didn’t originate it - THEY were at war with us though we weren’t at war with them. Yes there has been some terrorism directed at us since the 1960s. I do think you'll admit that until the Trade Center was attacked in the 90s, there weren't serious attacks taking place on U.S. soil.

Terrorism from the Middle East and other Islamic countries aside, there is still no valid excuse for a great nation to allow its borders to be invaded. You and I can agree on that, surely. So in any era and with or without terrorism from the ME, there’s no valid excuse. I agree with that.

Our government is massive. There are seperate but equal branches with powers and responsibilities. There is perpetual politics. To blame it strictly on Bush or any one individual is wrong. While I agree with that while legislation is being drafted, voted into being and signed, once it's the law the enforcement becomes the perview of the Executive Branch. Congress doesn't decide to enforce or not. The Executive Branch chooses to make this a priority, or to look the other way. Bush isn't the only one to have done so. His dad did, Clinton did, and now he has. Those are the three Presidents who are resposible for the illegal immigrants who are here today.

What I think ticks off so many is that when Bush speaks on the subject he riles them up. They hate his words when he says certain things about illegal immigrants. They feel he sympathizes with blatant lawbreakers. They feel he suggests that Americans who are against his comprehensive reform ideas are prejudiced and uncaring. They are angry enough just at the problem, then Bush’s words rub salt in their wounds. I think that pretty well sums it up. There is a jaded sense that we cannot trust him or others at this point to be honest about the subject. I find myself not believing much of what he says on the subject. I wait to verify if what he has said has been followed thorough on. And that's something that has really destroyed my trust in the office. I say this even after Clinton, because I don't look at Bush like Clinton. He is a guy who is supposed to be honest and forthright, and I am never quite confident he is anymore.

I know where he’s coming from. I’m a Texan, born and bred. I’ve grown up around Hispanics. Plenty of them are not here illegally. They are decendents of familys here for hundreds of years. Others have gone though proper channels to get permission to come here and work. There are some lovely people who are good citizens. They have mostly an admirable culture and impact upon culture, with the exception of that language barrier. Yet, many of them are poorer than dirt, many, but by no means all. Bush is a man of deep personal sympathies, and once they are stirred in him, he never forgets. Look, are we talking about folks who have been here hundreds of years? Are we talking about folks who are not here illegaly? Are we talking about folks who have gone through the proper channels? Are we talking about folks who are lovely people and good CITIZENS? Are we talking about the culture? We are talking about people who are flooding across our borders and by the very fact they are here, they are changing the make-up of our nation. In Los Angeles for instance, less than 50% of the working age men can write or speak functional English. Is that our goal? I don't believe that you think it is. It isn't right for our citizens to have their hard earned salaries stripped from them to be used to pay for these poor immigrants who should not be here. It's flat out robbery. It costs us in so many ways, it's just a pain to try to mention them all. It just isn't right. As for Bush's sympathies, where's the sympathy for us? Where's the sympathy for the U.S. Citizens who have to pull their kids out of the public school system and pay very expensive tuitions on top of the taxes they already pay for a school system their kids can't use?

I’m convinced his personal, emotional biases have kept him from viewing this as a terrorism issue, in the main. Contrary to popular perception, this man is not stupid. I’m sure he knows terrorists could sneak in over the border. He’s said as much. But the big picture guy, which he is, still looks at this primarily as a humanitarian and economic and cultural issue, based on his formative years dealing with the matter as a Texan and as a governor and professed Christian. This is a period of time when we can't be the big picture guy. 09/11 was pulled off by 19 individuals. We can't afford to adopt a policy that says most of the illegal immigrants won't cause us a problem. It doesn't take more than a few. That's the main reason why I have said that we have been fortunate, and may continue to be. Then again, one terrorist cell that may have slipped in could cost us dearly. It's certainly not going to give me any pleasure to point back and say, see, I was right! No. The point is to avoid this possibility. And you do that by getting your border under control.

I’m not excusing him or anyone else. Or anyone else. Or anyone else.

The way to help poor Mexican nationals, is to demand that Mexico put policies into place that will raise the standard of living for it's people. Widespread investment would be good. Corporate influx into the Mexican markets would be good. Fast food, automotive centers, CD sales, clothing stores, a broad spectrum of economic concerns would help employ the citizens and raise their standard of living. If some creative policies were put in place along these lines, there would soon be no need for Mexicans to come here. And that's what we want. It's sortof analgious to the fish line of reasoning. Do you give a guy a fish to eat, or do you teach him to fish. We need to teach the Mexican populace to fish.

I can't believe that more U.S. corporations haven't seen Mexico as a great place to expand their markets. The same things that make our communities run, could be helping Mexican communites run.

I don't have a problem with the Mexican people. I want their standard of living to be brought up to scale and have said so ever since I started addressing this issue. I am also tired of them being exploited, and placed in danger as they cross the border.

This whole thing needs to be rethought, but who is driving it? It's as if our government prefers to have these problems rather than actually contribute to making the Mexican people's lives better. That really bothers me. It has for a long time.