Replies

Then why weren't you folks ranting about Byrd holding up the immigration reform bill BEFORE this extension was added when the House passed it the second time? The other parts of the bill tighten border security. I didn't see a single one of you guys ranting and raving about Byrd blocking this when it was passed before.

Forgive me if I think that your motives aren't totally pure. I can believe people who are my elected officials, or I can believe a bunch of people who are exaggerating and making claims about blanket amnesty. When one points out that President Bush says NO blanket amnesty, you guys just howl that that's not what he really means.

Do we need securer borders? Yes. Do I support illegal immigration? No. Do I think that SOMETIMES we have to make compromises and show some mercy? Yes. Do I think that Bush is going to open the borders? No.

Are you going to erect a fence all the way between Mexico and the US? That is thousands of miles and would take years to erect. Who is going to maintain it so that people don't cut holes in it? Are you going to have divisions of the Army patrolling? Given our commitments to the war on terror I think we might not have the troops. Then what..call up the National Guard? That has already been done, and they do have other things to do as well.

The solution to the problem is to get Mexico to help and to help Mexico make conditions such that people will stay home. This extension is part of that plan.

But if it makes you happier to think that you are betrayed and that this has an easy solution, if only the President would LISTEN, well just go right ahead.

You have written him a letter outlining your plan to solve this, haven't you?

We don't need another bill passed to tighten border security. WE MERELY HAVE TO ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS! I'm still waiting, over 20 years, for all employers that hire illegal aliens to be fined and jailed. Read the last, last 'Amnesty Act of '86'.

Our nation built the most extensive system of highways, bridges, waterways and railroads in the history of the planet. You say we can't build a fence? You say it will take the Army Corps of Engineers years to re-inforce the fences we already have and build them where they aren't?

I say you don't know what you are talking about.

"Are you going to erect a fence all the way between Mexico and the US?...Given our commitments to the war on terror I think we might not have the troops. Then what... The solution to the problem is to get Mexico to help"???? What a bunch of excuses you make...the solution to the problem is not MEXICO, wake up this is a NATIONAL EMERGENCY, close the borders asap and do it by whatever means are neccessary...troops, citizens, Marines... etc. Set up the new Berlin Wall...we can ill afford not to! All illegals are criminals until proven otherwise!!!! We owe these people nothing, we will accept new prospective citizens only by our (US Citizens) rules!! We have the resources, do we have the will...yet.

The solution to the problem is to get Mexico to help and to help Mexico make conditions such that people will stay home.

That's what Bush should be demanding of Fox. With all those oil reserves in Mexico ---plus the fact they've allowed the oil infrastructure to decay, there should be plenty of jobs for them im Mexico. We allow Mexico to stay extremely corrupt, it seems they'd rather make their money by being the number one supplier of illegal drugs rather than be a decent country.

I can believe people who are my elected officials, or I can believe a bunch of people who are exaggerating and making claims about blanket amnesty. When one points out that President Bush says NO blanket amnesty, you guys just howl that that's not what he really means.

There you go with the "blanket amnesty" straw man again.
Funny how the meaning of that phrase shifts so quickly for those of you who obsess over it.
When a mini-amnesty is pointed out, you run around saying, "it's not a BLANKET Amnesty!" As though that was the point. Yet when you do, you are at least making the correct distinction between a partial and a full ("blanket") amnesty.
However, when President Bush makes a promise against "blanket amnesty," and it's pointed out that this is not a promise against any or every partial Amnesty (which is consistent with the definition you were originally using in your straw man attempt), you feel its out of bounds.
I take President Bush at his word when he says he doesn't favor "blanket amnesty." I also believe that he's looking for any means possible, by any name possible, to grant Amnesty ("normalize," "regularize," etc.) to millions of Illegals.
Just not all of them. Hence: "no blanket amnesty."

Not to worry...... We'll build some fences, station a few more troops along the 1,933 miles of Mexican-US border and issue papers to all citizens so that they can prove they are here legally. Then we'll set up check points within each state and along each state's border crossings and have everyone show their papers as the pass through the check points. Boy we'll have this under control then.... It will really be nice when we all get our papers to carry everywhere we go. Heck if we all just had a Charlie Brown blanket everything would be okay....

You have a good one now.... don't forget your papers when you leave to go out today.

The solution to the problem is to get Mexico to help and to help Mexico make conditions such that people will stay home.

This suggestion ignores the fact that the Mexican government's objectives are exactly the opposite. They benefit enormously from using mass emigration to the north as 1) a pressure valve for their overpopulated, mismanaged country and 2) a source of hard cash for their economy, via money sent home from emigrant workers. That's the good part.

The bad part is that they also see mass emigration to the US as an effective tool for gaining political leverage over their powerful neighbor to the north. By allowing dual citizenship they create a situation where Mexican nationals can become a significant electoral block in American politics, but still retain their identification with the home country. In coming years, they will influence this bloc's behavior at the American polls, and broker that influence in Washington to their benefit - and the average American's detriment. Also, in coming years almost all state and local government from Texas of California will be in the hands of Hispanics, whose national loyalty to Mexico will still be strong. They will govern strongly in the interest of Hispanics (having no appreciation for the caucasian, progressive ideals of equal treatment and civil rights) and ultimately will seek to reintegrate that area with Mexico.

This has been throughly thought through in Mexico, and they have every intention of trying to make it happen. They are not at all interested in keeping people home in Mexico.

I have a close friend that was illegally brought into this country from El Salvador when she was around two by her aunt. She grew up here, went to school, got a job and did what every other citizen does including being issued a social security number not knowing she wasn't a citizen. In her twenties she got married to a friend of ours. On applying for a passport to go to Canada for their belated honeymoon she found out she wasn't a citizen. She was already pregnant with her first child at this time. For the last six years there has been an on going battle with the INS. They now have two children. They have not and are not on welfare. They both have jobs and have paid taxes here all there working lives. The INS is now entering the final stages to deport her.

I'm outraged. It is wrong.

Here in California when the INS wants to see her, she has to travel 200 miles each way, get there by at least 4 in the morning to get in line at the LA INS office. The INS office only takes the first one hundred or so people per day regardless if you have an "appointment" with them. The INS is a bureaucratic black hole.

The world is not as black and white as so many here seem to demand.