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 ...
Maybe not, but whatever he proposes is going to have to go through Congress for the most part.
Exactly.
The people who are flaunting the law now are going to continue flaunting the law. The people who have *been* enabling this illegals flood will continue to enable it.
Nothing Bush said last night will change that. He didn't even address that. Nothing about new ways of cracking down on the problem. Just offered up the same solution that has failed multiple times before.
I don't know if you're old enough to remember Carter. But he passed laws to end 'baseline budgeting'. He considered it his biggest accomplishment. Went around giving speaches about how he had beat that problem.
Of course, 30 years later, we still have baseline budgeting.
Bush hasn't addressed the real issue yet. I think he might get there, but I'm not sure he (or anyone) has the guts to really address govt corruption.
Diet on this. Take your own hike old chum. I aint leavin' so get use to it. I may not be koolade drinker but a 100% rock ribbed conservative. There dosen't seem to be enough of that going around here.
oh and PS:
if when I look at who the Dems would most likely put up for prez next time and if for some reason Bush could run again.....I would probably vote for Bush again rather than throw my vote away. Just cause I voted for the guy, dosent mean I have to like everything he does.
I think it will help in some places, but it is not the answer.
I've been "reeeally" interested a long time since my involvement with this matter since pre-Prop 187 and my involvement with Prop 187.
Obviously, from the tone of your posts, we'll just not have to discuss, you and I.
Better a monarchist than a wuss.
Did I not mention at some point that I believe that we'll have better border security in the long run by not building a wall, by not deporting millions of Mexicans, by doing all we can to support a stable Mexican government, by not doing things that will increase the likelihood of a Marxist regime on our border. I thought I said or suggested at least a few of these, but I suppose I did so in other posts.
If "conservative" implies "taking draconian measures," then Bush isn't one. But I don't think that's what it means, and that was what my analogy was trying to point out--we view the word "conservative" differently and in my opinion, Bush's position is more conservative in the long run, more likely to conserve freedom.
Guess who these ILLEGAL ALIENS will vote for?
The one that offers the most goodies?
DEMONCRATS!
And have LITTLE respect for our laws knowing we bend them to fit the will of people.
Usually one and the same.
the problem with losing the Senate is that they confirm Bush's judges...and forget about any tax legislation passing, instead look forward to Kennedy and Hillary as committee chairs.
You're not conservatives; you're spoilers.
I'm more conservative than ghengis khan.
So you are acknowledging this is something new, not the 'same old thing' as you implied.
Yes, this is a temporary measure. Do you know what they will be ramping up while this temporary measure is in place?
Guest worker visas
I didn't get this part. There's already a work visa program in place, so I don't know what Bush is expecting will be different.
You are being silly ... to put it nicely.
Is this what passes for well-reasoned dialog in your world?
one more time, sloooowly --
I didn't say anything about "draconian measures". Straw man, yet again.
I said, "smaller govt and securing the border".
You, again, failed to mention, comment on, respond to, or in any way refer to what I'm saying.
You're having a conversation with yourself.
HERE IS A SCALE MODEL OF THE FENCE PROPOSAL
This is the 2000 mile border each line is 100 miles. (20 dashes)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
According to senator frist the proposal has 370 miles of new walls. (3.7 dashes, rounding to 4).
- - - -
Thats it. This is the "barrier" in the law.
(ps to WH: amnesty in slow motion is still amnesty. Stop trying to be a clintonesque used car salesman.)
HERE IS A SCALE MODEL OF THE FENCE PROPOSAL
This is the 2000 mile border each line is 100 miles. (20 dashes)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
According to senator frist the proposal has 370 miles of new walls. (3.7 dashes, rounding to 4).
- - - -
Thats it.
Um, I thought we were discussing the Bush immigration plan, not general government corruption.
Government is made up of people. The vast majority of people are corrupt, or would be corrupted if they had the least bit of power. Therefore, government will always have some level of corruption.
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.