Posted on 05/15/2006 5:48:16 AM PDT by areafiftyone
May 15, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - In his live, nationally televised address tonight, President Bush will tell Americans that it's impossible to deport the estimated 11 million illegal aliens living here.
"We must reject amnesty, but recognize that it is not realistic to round up millions of people and send them home," said White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri in a preview of Bush's speech.
She said Bush plans to spell out his vision for sealing the border, enforcing the law, and "creating a rational system for workers to come into our country and to do jobs Americans won't do." Bush plans to visit the U.S.-Mexican border this week, and will dispatch his Cabinet to help sell the immigration plan.
The Senate plans to return to the contentious issue this week now that Republicans and Democrats have a deal to plow through controversial amendments. But the House and Senate are far apart on whether to put illegals on a path to citizenship.
Tamburri said Bush would call for "better equipment, increased funding, and advanced technology" to secure the border.
She didn't confirm press reports that Bush wants to expand deployments of National Guard Troops to step up border enforcement. Some Guard troops are already deployed in Arizona and New Mexico, but Bush is considering a big increase.
White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said that enforcement was the Border Patrol's job - but then asked whether they needed help from the Guard on an "interim basis."
"This is not about militarizing the border," he said. The president is looking to do everything he can to secure the border. It's what the American people want."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
"That has exactly what to do with illegal immigrants?"
This plan would, for all practical purposes, dissolve the borders between each nation and end the lip-service that must still be paid to the Constitution within our own. It would bring NAFTA to fruition, building more of the “architecture of a new international system” about which Dr. Henry Kissinger spoke candidly back in 1993 when NAFTA was being accorded bipartisan support as a “free trade” agreement.
Do you get it now pin head?
"to do jobs Americans won't do."
This phase actually works for me. It's true. Perhaps you have not dealt with the industries that employ Mexican labor. For example, the meat industries - all the killing of animals, etc. etc. - it's not pleasant work - crops that require back breaking efforts to produce at harvest time, not pleasant work. Seasonal work; no benefits, no work some days, not pleasant if one has a family to support or even just rent to pay.
We should acknowledge that there are unpleasant jobs out there that no one would choose to do, unless one is at the bottom of the economic ladder or below. If fact, some American minory groups will not do the work outlined above - they would rather be on welfare or sell drugs.
We need Mexican labor, but only in a way that falls in line with our laws.
Enforce the LAW! THAT's what we want! PLEASE!
I'm sorry folks, I didn't want to start another forum on this, so I will just post this opinion piece here:
From: http://blogs.wizbangblog.com/2006/05/15/gop-in-danger-of-tipping-point-on-immigration.php
GOP in Danger of Tipping Point on Immigration
Many of our politicians are suffering from an inability (or refusal) to call things by their proper names. They avoid using terms like "legal" and "illegal" and they avoid honestly discussing the nature of the illegal immigration problem and its costs to taxpayers. They avoid publicly reprimanding many of the leaders of this so-called "immigrant's movement" who claim American citizenship as a right, not to mention those that openly call for the reacquisition of much of the American south-west by Mexico.
Over the years, the political terminology of this debate has undergone a gradual but steady evolution. Those who came into the country illegally were once universally referred to as "illegal aliens". This then became "illegal immigrants", followed by "undocumented immigrants", then "undocumented workers". The latest proposed euphemism is "guest workers".
I'm sorry, but "guests" don't sneak into your home, live there, eat your food and otherwise cost you money without being invited. Much less show up and demand these benefits of you, and then call you a racist if you refuse. The rhetoric of the recent protests in our streets featuring Mexican flags underlines this point.
While it is most certainly true that America is home to millions of immigrants who truly want to become Americans, and subject themselves to our country's laws and customs, learn our language and make a contribution to society, it is also true that our country is the target of an invasion by those who wish to take rather than contribute.
They take jobs from unskilled and under-educated Americans by offering to work for less. They take from taxpayers by reaping government benefits at the invitation of our politicians. They take from our culture by refusing to assimilate and learn our language. And an unnerving but growing number of them aim to take over sections of our country by default through the sheer force of demographics alone.
In the face of this onslaught we have politicians that are working, not to enforce our laws and keep such invaders out, but rather to reward their lawlessness with amnesty and perhaps even US citizenship.
Grassroots opposition is fierce. From the Internet to your local grocery store, you find people that oppose anything that smacks of rewarding those come here in violation of our laws. On the other hand, they vigorously and overwhelmingly support measures to enforce our laws and protect our borders. Most are grassroots activists and workers, local political party officials and campaign contributors. To a great degree, they represent the very structure of the Republican Party.
I have personally listened as such people voiced strenuous and constant complaints about current attempts to pass a plan that would grant what amounts to amnesty to illegal aliens. Without prompting, they have named names of elected officials and warned of consequences, worried that it could split the GOP. But that is anecdotal. What do the polls say?
A recent IBD poll demonstrates that over 67% of Americans favor "enforcement only" style immigration reform that resembles what passed the House of Representatives this past November. In other words, a bill that focuses on enforcement of our laws, enhanced border security and increased punishment for businesses that hire illegals. 74% say the government should take legal action against such businesses. For Republicans, that number rises to 81%.
68% want politicians to focus on border control before any sort of guest-worker program. Among Republicans, it's 76%. Only 49% agree with the claim that these immigrants are needed to do jobs Americans won't do, while 64% think our lax border enforcement leaves us more vulnerable to terrorists. A recent Zogby poll shows likely voters favoring an "enforcement only" bill by over two to one. Among Republicans, over 80% favor such an approach.
Given the GOP's current status in public opinion polls, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to suggest that, if an amnesty type bill passes this year, the Democrats are sure to take control of one or both houses of Congress. What is so maddening is that the Republicans have the most unified base on this issue, but the most disunited leadership - and one that is often outright hostile to the views of its constituency.
I think we are rapidly approaching a point of critical mass on this issue. A "tipping point" if you will. At some point, the issue will be out of reach of the current crop of elected officials. Positions and opinions will have hardened and voters, not being supplied with the product they desire from those in power, will opt for new suppliers. There is a proper name for that too; it's called supply and demand. Republicans beware.
Drew McKissick is a Columbia, SC based political consultant. He maintains a blog at Conservative Outpost. Check it out.
Disagreeing with Bush is not bashing. It is not only our right, but our obligation to speak out. I'm sorry you see that as bashing.
susie
Very well put.
susie
A little more team playing would be a help to keeping a Republican majority.
WOW, that easy, problem solved!
We shall see.
I know that where I last taught in TX the jobs program (for HS kids) did have trouble finding them jobs. I have no idea why, but I remember the teacher in charge saying something about that one day.
susie
Yes, and another purge from FR will ensue. Many conservatives have been banned or suspended.
The Irish were a secure Dem voting bloc until about 10-15 years ago too.
I have friends like your father-in-law. I keep gently reiterating my perspective with those who believe that Republicans are not compassionate enough. One friend who is practically a daily communicant (and a nurse) believes that being against abortion is uncompassionate.
The CFR report, which went online late last spring, has the endorsement of the Bush Administration. On March 23 of this past year, President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin joined in committing their governments to this “regional integration.”
For the details here, go to the website of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). President Bush has spoken of the common commitment of the three eventually-to-be-dissolved North American nations “to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security.” Notice that he speaks of markets, not free markets. Note that he speaks of democracy, when what our Founding Fathers created was (in Ben Franklin’s immortal words) “a republic, if you can keep it.”
You're about as thick as a brick, aren't you?
No, that's not my point! Try again.
Are you suggesting we invade Mexico and kick out their corrupt political class??
susie
Or, look what happened in Serbia. Milosevich (not a saint himself, by the way) allowed persecuted Albanians into his land for refuge. They mass-populated like varmints and decided they want their own piece of Serbia as their own country. The Albanians, being muslim terrorists, were being whooped by the Serbians who, as being one of the poorest countries in the world, didn't have luxury of putting the problem off like we have; and well, you know the rest of the story (we bombed Serbia for not complying and arrested Milosevich for it).
We don't have to 'round them up'. We can deport them as we find them, instead of turning a blind eye to the situation. And we can fine employers big bucks for employing illegals.
Then why did they just pass a law saying Illegals could not get Medicaid?
susie
This gives me an idea for a tagline:
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.