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 ...
As much as I'm sure you wish otherwise, Texas is still part of the United States.
I did not hear the speech. One person I know said he announced an end to catch and release. What exactly was said and what has been elaborated on to deal with that.
That would be the key part of the entire speech. It is new and it is the mechanism for illegals getting caught and arrested but not sent home -- because they don't appear for their deportation hearing.
What exactly was said?
" and provide for the common Defence "
Heh heh... Notice the spelling of the word "Defence".
As in "We need to build de fence"
"I doubt you'd recognize your mom if you met her."
You should be banned for saying that...
One way promote voluntary return of illegals is to bar relatives of those who have entered this country illegally, even if at a later date they secure legal documentation, from gaing entry into this country. Many of those who entered illegally would undoubtedly leave this country to reunite with their family.
Zook, you don't have to be a kook. :^)
Your error is, you don't understand the conservatives.
Calling them "one trick" is a big misunderstanding. A 'conservative' is for smaller govt and strong defense. Over and over again, Mr. Bush has pushed for larger govt and ignored border defense issues.
This is not "one trick". It's "the latest trick". This is the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Bush has been, by my thinking, 30% conservative (the war) and 70% liberal (medicare drugs, the border, etc, etc, etc).
For you to put personal loyalty to him above "conservative" principles is your right -- but don't be surprised if others handle it differently.
Hillary...."Bush's plan for contolling illigal immigration into the USA is an emply shell. I will, within 100 days of my inauguration, send the military to the 2000 mile border and control what enters this country. President Bush, if he were serious about fighting terrorism, would have controlled the entry of foreigners into this country immediately after 911. We will stop illigal drugs from flowing up from Mexico. We will plug the drain illigal put on an already strained medical provider system. We will stem the drain on our educators with influx of foreigners. We will take care first of American workers and union members. All of these things will be done with the simple act the President should have done in Ocotber 2001, but did not."
Now, whether these things are true or would be true will be irrelevant to Hillary. But I think this would be enough to get Hilary elected. The House needs to stand strong.
If the House goes along with him we'll be dragged over with him, but as of last night I declare a divorce.
The Rockeffellar's think we're too ignorant to understand what they are doing, they peddle lies that it isn't amnesty, they expect me to show up and vote in spite of this? Forget it.
The House has a chance to save itself, and maybe even the party. If they fold screw them all.
This article starts out so mature and intelligent, I've got to hop right to reading it as soon as I'm done clipping my toenails.
I'm no longer going to suffer insults and not respond in kind. I started out making a reasonable argument, albeit one that you and others might not like to hear. Next thing you know I'm hearing from fringe prigs telling me how much I don't know. Well the heck with that.
But I think it's the only language some people understand around here. Rationality just doesn't seem to work with the extreme Bush bashers.
"prig?" (I guess you don't know the rules around here.)
"Please:...NO personal attacks"
typical...when sorts like you can't rebut an issue you lapse into to calling people names.
move along, you are not only ignorant of Mexico but ill mannered to boot!
Ha!
"De fence, boss, De fence!"
Making life in the United States less profitable for illegals would be a great encouragement for these people to return to their native lands voluntarily.
Yes, you've made your disdain for conservatives and conservatism clear.
Rockefellar Republicans have always disdained conservatives, they wish they didn't have to associate with them. They do so with distatse because after decades of controlling the party it was only when conservatives took the reigns that they won.
They have spent the last two years announcing their independence and trying to claim the Majority conservatives built. The result is poll numbers in the '20's for Congress. That's what your precious Rockefaller's have done for the party.
Conservatives didn't bring us here, your liberal establishment types did.
"Over and over again, Mr. Bush has pushed for larger govt and ignored border defense issues. "
There's simply no way to have a rational discussion with anyone who would try to sell this kind of distortion of reality. To the contrary, "over and over again" the President has worked hard to increase national security overall and to protect this nation from another terrorist attack. His border policy may not be to your liking or to the liking of extremists, but it is in line with the thinking of most conservatives, including Ronald Reagan.
" How are we going to deport all those people? "
This has been addressed countless times on these threads. It's really very simple.
If you enforce the existing laws against hiring illegals then they will have fewer and fewer opportunities to find work.
After all, work is what they came here for, right?
As time goes on, they deport themselves. This, along with beefing up border security would solve about 95% of the problem. You can't solve all of it because no system will be perfect, you just have to get it down to a manageable level.
Quit rationalizing the fact that you are attacking people left and right on this thread, as well as making false claims as well, such as polls support Bush and not his critics.
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.