Posted on 02/07/2006 9:59:00 AM PST by boryeulb
I like JD Hayworth and I think he is right on target with almost everything he said here. But I profoundly disagree with the statement above.
How many times in these threads in recent days have we seen people, in reference to the State of the Union speech, write, "But I distinctly heard the President say he was against amnesty!"?
What they failed to mention is that they also heard President Bush describe Bill Clinton as his brother. That description was said in jest but it is nevertheless telling because the President's usage of the word "amnesty" is positively Clintonesque. He takes liberties with the meaning of the word "amnesty" that would make his "brother" Bill proud. They bring to mind stuff like: it depends on the meaning of "is" and oral sex isn't sex.
I don't know how JD Hayworth can claim that the President doesn't parse words when we have all heard him say that he is against amnesty and then in the very next sentence describe an amnesty.
I have not much cared for the President since he pushed through Medicare Prescription Drugs. But among the few things I could always say positive about him was that he says what he means. That is no longer the case.
Okay...and just where does the funding come from to cover the additional manpower, equipment and fences? Ever hear of the Senate Appropriations Committee? It is very apparent that some people ditched the Civics classes...
The central debate being conducted in DC is on a guest-workers bill my friend, not on allocation of money. These debates are so congress can manifest language in a bill where they can create an amnesty program but not let people know about it.
Sorry, but that's simply not true. "Some" of the proposed "guest worker" proposals in Congress involve amnesties.
An acceptable "guest worker program" would:
1) Be for temporary entry to the USA for a fixed period of time, with mandated return to the home country at the end of that period. NO illegal currently in country would be eligible without returning home and applying.
2) Such a program provides NO "leverage" to apply for citizenship. It is wholly "come here and work, then go home".
3) Any children born to any guest worker shall NOT automatically be a US Citizen.
4) Increase enforcement personnel and penaalties for those currently here illegally, and shorten the bureaucacy for deportation.
Ok, your plan sounds great.
However, and unfortunately, I doubt that is the plan Bush is pushing. So, to reword my previous post...
Bush's Guest Worker Program = Amnesty
Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican and chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus pointed out. "Their amnesty plan was dead on arrival when they sent it to the Congress in January, and if they send the same pig with lipstick back to Congress next January, it will suffer the same fate," he announced.
President Bush's plan to ease immigration laws is dead on arrival in Congress, doomed by opposition from Republicans who think it goes too far and Democrats who think it doesn't go far enough.
It was an absolute flop,” said Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., an outspoken opponent of the president's plan. “His proposal is going nowhere.” Even those who are sympathetic to Bush's approach agree that it won't pass Congress this year.
Time to stop beating the horse already...it's dead, Jim.
You said you want him to enforce the current laws. He needs funding to do that and only Congress can provide those funds. That is what I was addressing. As I posted above, Bush's plan is dead. Hayworth is just fearmongering to sell his book and I think that is despicable.
Ha, you were hitting Post while I was still coding my reply. Beat me by almost two minutes.
I'd like to see Hayworth run. He gets it.
Ummmm.... the Posse Comitatus Act is an Act of Congress and it can be repealed or modified by any other Act of Congress, if said Congress every got up the guts to take on the issue.
Blah blah blah go out and hand out some GOP flyers or something.
See, here's the problem. The reason a guest worker program equals amnesty in our minds is that the laws have never been enforced before and we have no reason to think they would start enforcing the laws now. Furthermore, history tells us that every time the government even talks about guestworker/amnesty, we get another huge wave breaking across our border in hopes of taking advantage of l'amnestia.
So, until we see some changes in policy AND tangible results in curbing illegal entry and illegal employment, we conservatives find ANY program that allows illegal aliens to work in the US to be unacceptable.
They provided him funding for 2000 officers last year and he snarkily stated that he just wouldn't spend it. And he didn't.
You are correct about Posse Comitatus, it is up to Congress to make the change. But is that something we really want? I can already hear the cries now about "jack-booted thugs" and "Bush is a Nazi". It just never ceases to amaze me though, that some people on this forum think Bush can just order the military on the border and that will solve the problem.
Look, there's obviously some gray areas here. But the borders are considered international boundaries, am I right? I don't think there'll be massive Army units rolling through city streets. All Bush has to do is expand the Border Patrol by allowing other federal law enforcement branches to join in, such as the ATF and maybe some Coast Guard personnell. Besides, if those who are so suddenly concerned about Constitutional rights worried about the Posse Comitatus Act, they can just as easily dispatch NG or state troopers to the borders and bill the feds.
Order the military to guard the US border? Why, that would be too much to ask the president to do. Oh wait. Didn't he order the military go around the world to Iraq and Afghanistan. oops.
He's right. American people should vote them out.
I really don't think the Posse Comitatus Act covers the borders. The borders are international terrorities. How wide the terrority exists in terms of mileage from the border should be clearly defined.
What the sam hill are you talking about? I NEVER said there was not a problem. I said it is a fact that Bush's plan was DOA on both sides of the aisle and therefore Congress needs to do something. You hold Hayworth up as some kind of saint when he is clearly fearmongering for personal gain. He knows danged good and well Bush's plan was DOA. And what about this:
July 15, 2005 - The Senate backed away from its 2004 pledge to hire 2,000 more Border Patrol agents and fund 8,000 new detention beds for illegal aliens in fiscal 2006. The intelligence overhaul bill passed by Congress and signed into law in last December called for 2,000 new agents and 8,000 new detention beds each year for the next five years in order to meet the threat posed by illegal aliens. But in mid-July, the Senate voted on amendments to the Department of Homeland Security spending bill, providing funds for only 1,000 more agents and 2,240 more detention beds in fiscal 2006.
Of course, Bush bashers don't want to address that fact either.
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.