Posted on 05/16/2006 5:36:42 AM PDT by kellynla
For my next trick, ladies and gentlemen, I will perform a death-defying stunt -- no, not climbing a 300-foot ladder, diving through seven rings of fire and landing perfectly safely in a glass of water. That's easy once you know how to do it.
Instead, I shall advise you on how to interpret President Bush's speech on immigration that you heard last night but that was delivered several hours after this column was written. Very simply: Ask yourselves the following questions:
Did the president use the phrase ''comprehensive immigration reform'' several times? That's revealing because this phrase is an example of smuggling. He hopes that by wrapping a ''temporary guest-worker program'' and the ''not an amnesty'' provision to legalize the 12 million illegals already here -- both of which are unpopular -- inside a tough-sounding popular promise to secure the border with the National Guard, he will persuade most Americans to accept the first two proposals.
Did the president spend a large part of his speech on promising to secure the border by sending the National Guard there? Heigh-ho. This is the umpteenth time that Bush has promised to toughen up border security with a new initiative. He does so whenever there is public disquiet about illegal immigration.
Yet this kind of mini-initiative is fundamentally irrelevant. As this column has repeatedly pointed out, porous borders are the result of uncontrolled immigration as much as its cause. You cannot control the borders, however many patrols you hire or fences you build, if you grant an effective pardon to anyone who gets 100 miles inland.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Yes, while we build up border patrol agents. We graduate 500 max a class, currently. We need about 10,000 more.
I'm in Texas. They've promised to strengthen the border patrol over and over again over my lifetime. Never have done much.
The problem is, I've heard this all before, and it's all the same sham. If you haven't heard their previous promises, and seen those broken, then I understand why you might not understand our position.
This is like the Ds promising to cut taxes.
I'm as far right as they come and I don't want to see a wall go up either. Remember Reagan's famous "Tear down that wall, Mr. Gorbachev."
GM must Think Alike. Every time I hear or read another "put up a wall", I think of Ronald Reagan and his defiance to Gorbachev "Tear down that Wall!".
And then I remember who it is these faux conservatives in FR and elswhere are pretending to be.
They demand the WALL be built.
A wall won't keep illegals out. It will just be the proximate and proverbial straw to create more "corruption".
If you think your father-in-law can do a better job, then you SHOULD write him in. Root-hog or die!
Do you think there are no lily white Mexicans. They happen to be running the country.
2 AVOCADOs to you!
Well I believe we agree on practically everything regarding this issue.
I think we both want a secure border and a secure and better America for AMERICANS!
The illegals need to go back to their home country and protest where their problems originate. And if they wish to enter this country; they are welcome to do so LEGALLY; just like the rest of the world! No cutting in line!
Americans are tired of being taken advantage of and Mexico needs to solve its problems instead of dumping them on our back porch.
Semper Fi,
Kelly
It's not fair for you to say I'm not engaged in discussion. The problem here, for you and me, is as much cultural as it is political. Although we may both claim to be conservatives, we view the world differently and find different meaning in what we observe.
For example, imagine a parent working for many years to steer their child on to the right moral path. And yet, there efforts are only somewhat successful because the the teenaged child ends up experimenting with drugs, sex, etc. The parent sees the problem and tries a number of traditional, reasonable, and appropriate measures to correct it. By the time the child becomes 22, he/she is working and mostly law abiding, but is still using pot.
It seems that by your view, this has not been a good "conservative" parent. He/she has not "solved" the problem. But others may see this parent as very good and conservative for having worked to address the child's problems in a practical fashion. Others might argue that the parent wasn't strict enough! She should have applied "tough love," called in the police, or used some other tactic. But the parent feels that such measures would have caused much more damage in the long run.
This is long, but it might help you understand why I view President Bush as a terrific conservative president. He's working to solve a complex problem via measures that are traditional, practical, appropriate, and which reflect what he (and I) consider to be in the spirit of conservatism, a la Ronald Reagan. You may disagree, but if this is not "discussion," then nothing is.
Getting paid by the spin and talking points again, Heh?
Really your ability to alienate people makes some not want to be associated with those you seem to represent. Your grade today: D+
When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.
This is a forum and we are free to post to other posters. At least that is what I keep hearing from the elite posters you associate with.
Let me rephrase: When I give a damn about what you think, I'll let you know.
Few Caucasian-Americans would find it necessary to add the word "Lilly" (sic) to the appellation "white." Makes me even more sure the poster is an "English as a Second Language" person.
When enough illegals get the vote, I'm sure you will have the pleasure of experiencing a demonstration up close and personal too. They will probably vote to outlaw internet forums too, as it just isn't their style.
Your opinion means nothing.
Go back to school where you can force your captive students to kowtow. I'll bet you are really a monarchist at heart.
And how deep would you build that wall, and how high?
You just did it again. :-(
You ignored what I actually said, about "conservative = less govt/border security". Then started a long filibuster of an analogy that is so off base I'd have to spend a long post disagreeing with that straw man. I mean, child-rearing? Tough love? It's very simple -- 'conservative = smaller govt/tough on defense'.
Never mind, I appreciate your attempts to chat with me.
It would just be more productive next time if you'd actually in some way respond to the things I'm actually saying.
A wall would be nice ,but right now I would settle for a leader who did not openly encourage illegal immigration.
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.