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 ...
Americans have performed unpleasant jobs since it's creation. The only thing that has changed is that illegals are flooding in and working off of the books. That makes them cheaper than even an American citizen working for the same wage but on the books.
If you are not bashing Bush, then I was not referring to you.
That's what I'll be praying for. If his speech is nothing more than a hollow attempt at appeasing conservatives, with no real teeth in it...I hope we FReepers have our guardian angels standing with us tonight after his speech.
"California's Prop 187 passed 59/41 in 1994; Arizona's Prop 200 passed in 2000. Both failed to be enacted.
Border states are first-responders - asking why illegal immigration is suddenly a "new" issue is disingenuous at best."
Exactly. It just hadn't reached a tipping point yet.
But watching hundreds of thousands of illegals dancing in the streets demanding their "rights" and calling ME a racist pushed me over the edge.
I think it is sad. I think for myself. Others around here think that if you do NOT subscribe to the RNC group think that you are some kind of traitor.
The Balkanization of America is reaelly the only issue here. All other issues won't matter if America no longer exists.
After watches the millions of foreign nationals marching in the streets a few weeks ago is not clear how anyone could not be deeply disturbed.
If he outlines a serious proposal to improve border security and defers his guest worker proposal, that will be good enough for me - but I will also be looking to see if he follows through on it.
I am. However, that job would do itself for the most part if we'd crack down on the employers and stop providing the illegals with all sorts of government goodies.
No. Just stay home, enjoy & repeat after me...Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, President Hillary Clinton & The First Man, etc., ad nauseum...
Why do you oppose the rule of law?
one can see just from consulting the relevant websites. It is not something we “conspiracy kooks” made up. We are moving—in overdrive—towards a state of affairs that will effectively end what little is left of the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution and the idea of limited government to a state of affairs in which Americans will answer to unelected supra-national bureaucrats—possibly without even realizing it!
We may add to all of this the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which has not gone away but been temporarily shifted to the back burner. This latter may be due to the adverse publicity following the obvious strong-arm tactics the Bush Administration used to get CAFTA passed in the House last summer. The FTAA has fallen on apparent hard times, with the dissolution of the Fourth Summit of the Americas meeting in Argentina amidst a chaos of dissent and protest. Protests also attended the meeting that occurred in Canada four years ago. No one who studies these agreements wants them except the super elite, who see themselves as getting even richer from them. Its members have had setbacks before. They always eventually regroup. The creation of a North American Community places them in a good position to move forward nevertheless, following an agenda formulated by Zbigniew Brzezenski in his book Between Two Ages, which became the bible of David Rockefeller Sr.’s Trilateral Commission. Regional integration under NAFTA has already created tribunals whose members see themselves as having the authority to overrule U.S. court decisions.
The long-term goal, of course, is a world government that would subordinate all the affected peoples to an encirclement of regulatory controls by internationalist bureaucrats, most likely under the auspices of the United Nations whose sustainable development policies are carrying forth the effort on the domestic front. Sustainable development, as Michael Shaw recently showed in detail, is transforming communities all across America, city by city, county by county, and steadily depriving individuals of their private property rights and their mobility. Combine these two—international policies aimed at dissolving entire nations and domestic ones dissolving Constitutional liberties by stealth—and you have the incipient New World Order. Expect it no later than 2010—unless, of course, we experience the kind of economic meltdown described by Devvy Kidd in a recent two-part article. [Must see video; Liberty or Sustainable Development]
World government has, of course, been the goal of the super elite from the start. It was the goal of the Round Table Groups created with Cecil Rhodes; it has been the goal of the Fabian Society, which set the entire English-speaking world on the road to socialism. It was the goal of “Colonel” Edward Mandell House, who had written anonymously (in Philip Dru: Administrator) of “socialism as dreamt of by Karl Marx.” House sat always at President Woodrow Wilson’s side as he maneuvered this country into what became World War I, and then went on to guide the founding of the CFR.
The UN’s backers have always seen it as destined to emerge as a world government. In 1962, the U.S. State Department commissioned MIT Professor Lincoln Bloomfield to produce an essay entitled “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations.” This essay’s Summary opens with these words: “A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which ‘world government’ would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force. Effective control would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the hands of a supranational organization rather than in individual national units, and would assume the effective operation of a general disarmament agreement.”
Between Two Worlds spoke of an “emerging international consciousness” and called for establishing a “community of the developed nations” focusing particularly on Western Europe, Japan and the United States. “This country’s commitment to international affairs on a global scale has been decided by history,” Brzezenski wrote. “It cannot be undone, and the only remaining relevant question is what its form and goals will be.” A few short years later, one-time ambassador Richard Gartner (CFR) wrote of bringing about an “end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece” in his oft-cited “The Hard Road to World Order” in the CFR’s flagship journal Foreign Affairs (1974).
Arguably, this movement went into overdrive during the period 1992-93, which saw the rise of NAFTA, the emergence of sustainable development, the election of the globalist Clinton Administration, and much else besides. It has succeeded in globalizing the curricula in government schools at all levels, from elementary grades to research universities, so that internationalism is simply accepted and the Constitution (with rare exceptions) is simply bypassed, except perhaps as a historical relic. Whether President Bush will find some pretext to be done with it and institute martial law (perhaps following an outbreak of bird flu and calling for the quarantining of an entire city) remains to be seen. Domestic martial law would make it much easier for the super elite to get what it wants without putting up with the grass-roots scuffles it had to deal with over CAFTA. It will enable them to coerce silence from the public and imprison those who refuse to shut up. Admittedly most Americans are still too busy watching football to pay much attention to this; but it is doubtful that they are sufficiently conditioned for martial law. After all, Bush’s approval ratings are at an all-time low, and the number of people who don’t trust his consolidation of power at the federal level has been on the increase especially since the Katrina debacle.
Supposing we avoid martial law a few more years, will America’s masses go along with the dissolution of this country like a bunch of sheep? They can do so by continuing to vote for Demopublicans. Or they can put a stop to it by recognizing that something has gone seriously wrong, waking up, and then getting behind a credible Independent candidate in 2008. It would be nice to see Independents elected to Congress in 2006, but it’s doubtful since such candidates ought to be building up their war chests now, and I know of no cases. If America’s masses continue mindlessly voting for CFR-controlled Demopublicans, the agenda I have been describing will continue apace.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven11.htm
Do the homework people. Then kiss your country good bye.
Oh, yeah, one more thing...
"Vote Republican, we're not as bad as the other guys."
Oh, you ignorant politicians, we cannot do background checks on the CURRENT flow of LEGAL aliens. What the hell makes you think we'll do better with 1 to 2 million a year??? Get Homeland Security to put their [censored] back in their pants and screen green card applicants properly, then we'll talk!
I don't disagree, however that solution has nothing to do with deporting 11 million, it rather says that deporting is not the answer. Other solutions need to be pursued.
Drying up the jobs is not the simple task many would portray it to be. Examine the court cases that have made it difficult to hold employers liable for employing illegals. But that is getting off point. My point is that you can't make progress while the "Kick them all out
The American people want a HIGH WALL.
I really don't believe that anything but a building of a wall will be accepted. Even putting troops on the border will be rejected as a serious move as the president himself is such an open border proponent.
I predict that he will call for spending increases that will also be rejected as just glossing over the problem.
If he isn't going to propose a wall then it would be best if President Bush just skipped the speech as it will do more harm than good.
I guess you missed my point. I'm sorry, maybe it's my TX accent... ;)
We don't NEED cheaper lawn care. If the going rate for a US citizen is $25.00 per hr, and you cannot afford that, then you will need to cut your own grass. That was what I meant. I don't get how illegal aliens are keeping the price of coffee down, but, coffee addict that I am, I would give it up if it meant getting control of our borders.
susie
Thank you, I am doing fine, and thank you very much for all your support on the Iraqi documents issues.
By the way, if you are going to call people idiots, be careful not to resemble "on" youself.
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.