Did These Ploys Sneak into Bush's Speech?(Bait & Switch)

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | May 16, 2006 | JOHN O'SULLIVAN

[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.

[Dominic Harr]

Um, I thought we were discussing the Bush immigration plan, not general government corruption.

We are discussing Bush's immigration plan.

The problem with his plan is that it will fail for the same reasons the other attempts to do this did -- the 'system' will not follow the law. In his speach, or in his plan, he doesn't offer any reason to believe his plan will succeed where the others have failed. He didn't even *address* past attempts and why they failed. Instead, he just said he was going to do the same thing others have tried.

I'm surprised at all the folks who seem to have such short memories, personally.

That's why the only solution I can think of is the 'enforcement first' idea. Show us you will give us border security *first*. Only then will we discuss amnesty.

*IF* they do give us real enforcement, then an amnesty would be something that I could discuss. Cuz I then I could be reasonably sure that the situation would not get any worse. But without that enforcement, amnesty creates a nightmare scenario in which millions more illegals would rush here.

"First, stop the bleeding".

[Señor Zorro]

Oops! Tinfoil hat cutting off circulation there, Mr. Z.

Say what you will. But before you mock my "tinfoil hat", I suggest that you re-read your American history. Tell me, in what direction is this country heading? Towards bigger government or smaller? Towards laissez-faire or towards government interference?

I am not saying that the United States will ever be totalitarian or communist. I am saying that the trend is in that general direction and I'd rather not take my chances. Paranoid? I don't think so.

If I am wrong, then prove it. Currently, you have one ad hominem argument and that's it. That proves nothing. At least I provided evidence. Broad, generic evidence, but still evidence. I can go more in depth, if you'd like...