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 ...
I was against the prescription drug plan and the spending spree of congress/president these past years, but I like a lot of what Bush has done. It is my guess that our next President, like the previous one will most likely be much more liberal and/or untrustworthy.
Okay, here is Article 1, Section 8... where does it say build a fence and put Federal Troops and Federal control in my great state of Texas????
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
" This is a States' issue."
Hogwash. Texas doesn't dictate national security to the rest of the nation.
It's obvious you are on the wrong side of the fence/wall right now. ---
Well EXCUSE ME! For not being one of you non thinking sheep!
Build that and watch Mexico become the next Venezuela. I trust the President's wisdom on this issue. His harshest critics, those "conservatives" who continually bash him on this issue, are recklessly damaging the conservative movement.
...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Well boo-fvcking-hoo. Tell YOUR town to quit hiring those people and to start enforcing the current laws. But don't you come down here to my great State of Texas and start building a disgusting wall and putting Federal troops in my great State!
Damn crybabies can't even enforce the current laws and they want to screw up my State of Texas with a stupid wall and Federal Troops!
You are NOT a Conservative. You are right-wing moonbat!
I didn't say "on the wrong side of the fence/wall ISSUE".
I said on the wrong side of the WALL, period.
I have a tough time believing the most powerful man in the world worries so much about a third world leader but that is just me.
This isn't about liking or disliking Bush, to me. He's not up for re-election. The Congressfolks *are*.
This is about policies proposed, that I oppose.
This proposed policy of Mr. Presidents' is a non-starter to me. And I will not vote for any Congress Critter that votes to put it into law.
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. ---
I am sorry, but where did it say build a disgusting wall in my State of Texas and to put Federal Troops in my State of Texas? It didn't!
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization... "
Gee, we already have laws for that. Why don't you go whine to your Representatives for NOT ENFORCING THE CURRENT LAWS!
Keep the Federal Government out of Texas! Got it!
Seems like it's right there.
Border security is a 'defense' issue.
Your suggestion that border defense is not a federal issue is, um -- interesting.
And it's a non-starter, I'd think.
"No I am not...I do not care about any "Article?"
So you're not familiar with our Constitution and you "don't care about any Article" of our Constitution and you want us to take anything you say seriously?
move along...
the only response you warrant is my tagline.
Frankly, I don't like the idea of a wall. Not because of illegal immigration (which should most definitely be halted), but because I would fear that eventually it is used to prevent illegal emmigration. This country is moving fast in the direction of the Soviet Union and while it is not there yet by any stretch of the immagination, I would rather not have a wall there if/when the time came.
Conservatives are damaging the conservative movement?
How arrogant is that?
You don't think the R politicians enacting liberal policies are the ones damaging the "conservative" movement?
bttt!
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.