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 ...
"You probably do not even live in a border state"
wrong
"This is a States' issue."
wrong again (ya might want to pick up a copy of the Constitution and READ IT!)
bttt
A 'Wall' ASAP.
"It's hard to continue to be on board with a president who worries more about what the leader of a corrupt third world country thinks of him than his own citizens who put him in office for 8 years."
Well said.
I disagree with him on this one.
Except -- Bush has proven over and over again that domestically, he's no conservative.
Your 'one issue' complaint seems specious, considering we're talking about the final straw that breaks the camel's back.
The ones that scare me are the "I back the Prez no matter what he does". That's a real independent thinker . . .
Bush has been a huge dissapointment.
Well now, Joe, I suspect you've another 'dissapointment' in your future.
I would not put too much hope on the Senate, there, it is every woman for herself. The only hope is the House Republicans, they did the right thing to impeach Clinton. Hopefully, they will hold their position, and least understand they are the only body of government where every member is up for election in November. Tancredo and King nearly admitted on CNN last night with the way things are shaking out with the President and his strangebedfellows, Kennedy, McCain and Vincente Fox, that no bill is better than any compromise with the Senate.
Well he's certainly right that 'omnibus' type bills that put several things together like this are done to pass unpopular legislation by wrapping it with popular bills.
What, exactly, do you disagree with?
Not real familiar with Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, are ya?
P.S. I, too, live in a border state.
In a Dem controlled Senate, with Dem committee majorities, do any conservative judges even make it out of committee? Not during these moonbat times.
I agree completely.
I'm thinking it's time to nationalize this next election, using this issue.
"but what is the solution to the 11 million illegals in the country?"
not my problemo...
when someone breaks into your home, do you say, "heck since you're here, ya might as well stay?"
you might, I won't!
they got here...they figured out how to get here;
let them figure out how to go home!
there are planes, trains & buses leaving here evvvvvery day!
No I am not, but I will look it up later today. At any rate, NO FEDERAL TROOPS IN MY STATE! I do not care about any "Article!" Keep the Fed. Govt. out!
This really isn't an option.
Sorry but you're wrong. Federal Borders are the responsibility of the Federal Government. This isn't a states issue.
The Safety and Security of the Country is directly a Federally Constituted Responsibility. I.e. "Provide for the common defense".
I agree with you. But please keep all of the folks that jump the border in Texas, we have enough trouble here in the big city without them sponging off of us.
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.