Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1.    #1  
    New York Times

    WASHINGTON, May 12 President Bush will address the country Monday night to spur passage of legislation that could put millions of illegal immigrants on the path to American citizenship, the White House announced today.

    Mr. Bush will speak from the Oval Office beginning at 8 p.m. Eastern time. The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said the president would speak for about 20 minutes, and that television networks had been asked to carry the speech live.

    "This is crunch time," Mr. Snow told reporters this morning....
  2. #2  
    We need to do something. I hope both the House and Senate can get something done.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. #3  
    its a sham in the purest traditions of carny flimflam.

    His base is pissed at his desire to amnesty the millions of illegals -- so he intends to make a speech where he'll promise to block the border (until Nov. 6th anyway) with the National Guard.

    In the same speech he'll give a wink and a wave to the hispanics so as to make them know that he hasn't changed -- that he'll get them to be all legal guess workers soon enough ...

    please. How dumb will the right be if they bet again on one of his 3 card monte scams ??

    If the repugs and junior were even semi serious, do you think it would be so tough to build a truly impenetrable wall along the ENTIRE southern border ??

    (he even opposes the 700 mile extension...)

    (btw -- t2gungho, I did not intend to direct my wrath at you though I had in error initially posted with your quote... )
    Last edited by BARYE; 05/13/2006 at 01:00 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  4.    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    its a sham in the purest traditions of carny flimflam.

    His base is pissed at his desire to amnesty the millions of illegals -- so he intends to make a speech where he'll promise to block the border (until Nov. 6th anyway) with the National Guard.

    In the same speech he'll give a wink and a wave to the hispanics so as to make them know that he hasn't changed -- that he'll get them to be all legal guess workers soon enough ...

    please. How dumb will the right be if they bet again on one of his 3 card monte scams ??

    If the repugs and junior were even semi serious, do you think it would be so tough to build a truly impenetrable wall along the ENTIRE southern border ??

    (he even opposes the 700 mile extension...)

    (btw -- t2gungho, I did not intend to direct my wrath at you though I had in error initially posted with your quote... )
    You hit the nail on the head.

    I saw a documentary last year about migrant workers and their children. The film maker followed Mexican migrant worker familes over the course of many months.

    In one segment, several families and the cameraman were packed inside a passenger van as they approached the INS border checkpoint. The driver instructed everyone to just remain silent because he could speak english. The official looked inside the van at what was very obviously more than a dozen Mexican migrant workers and said to the driver, what is your nationality. The driver said American Citizen. The official said go ahead.
  5. #5  
    The worst thing for the border was the hispanic community becoming the largest minority. Now all sorts of games designed to appeal and manipulate potential new voters has begun.

    Can we agree that this is not about security? There are tons of roads on the Canadian border that are not monitored or patrolled. Heck, some just have booths with a clipboard where you voluntarily sign-in to enter the USA!
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    His base is pissed at his desire to amnesty the millions of illegals -- so he intends to make a speech where he'll promise to block the border (until Nov. 6th anyway) with the National Guard.

    In the same speech he'll give a wink and a wave to the hispanics so as to make them know that he hasn't changed -- that he'll get them to be all legal guess workers soon enough ...
    I am afraid that you will be all too right. Bush has always been, before and after 9/11, extremely weak on border security and the national security threat that uncontrolled illegal immigrant presents.

    I heard a stat reported on MSNBC (or maybe CNN) today that if Amnesty is passed, that the rush of illegal immigrants could reach as much as 20% plus of the total population in America.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I am afraid that you will be all too right. Bush has always been, before and after 9/11, extremely weak on border security and the national security threat that uncontrolled illegal immigrant presents.

    I heard a stat reported on MSNBC (or maybe CNN) today that if Amnesty is passed, that the rush of illegal immigrants could reach as much as 20% plus of the total population in America.
    I'm glad you as well see the National Guard at the border, as the phoney thing it is.

    From the tone of some of your recent posts, and your increasing reluctance in defending junior, I sense a waning of your faith and trust in him.

    with you agreeing with me, and me agreeing with Pat Buchanan of late ... you may want to double check the freshness of your apocalyse supplies
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  8. #8  
    The SF Chronicle had a fairly decent piece in today's paper on the Republican party's game plan for the next several months. The plan is to help them hold onto their majority in the upcoming elections. This is one of the things they want to address to help hold onto/restore the conservative and faith-based bases.

    Apparently, Republicans in the House of Reps. are really worried. Especially the newer members.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    I'm glad you as well see the National Guard at the border, as the phoney thing it is.

    From the tone of some of your recent posts, and your increasing reluctance in defending junior, I sense a waning of your faith and trust in him.

    with you agreeing with me, and me agreeing with Pat Buchanan of late ... you may want to double check the freshness of your apocalyse supplies
    Nope, actually it is far from increasing reluctance to defend Bush, as I have continually been consistent. The thing that is sometimes hard for some to understand and relate to is that I am not a party man. Again I am not about supporting a party or a man blindly or hating a party or a man blindly. I look at the issues and recognize that I can agree someone on one point and disagree with them on another. I have always supported Bush in several areas and have disagreed with him in others. Just like there are items I agree with Bill Clinton and there several areas that I do not. None of those have changed. The only thing that has changed is the focus on subjects I agree with to the focus on subjects that I have never agreed with.

    I have always, since before 9/11, been critical of Bush over his his illegal aliens wet noodle backbone. I feel that same description goes equally to leading Dems as well on the same subject. I see both Rep and Dem playing 100% politics with the issue and threat of Illegal Aliens. They are both more concerned with the votes of that demographic than the well being of the country.....and they pander accordingly.

    There is no doubt that increased security at the border will help. But I do feel that it is a band-aid with the motivation of appeasement. A political move. Not a move offering true resolution.

    I fear Bush is going to play both sides of the fence tonight. Offer increased security at the border for one side. And a ray of hope for amnesty on the other, a move which I have always strongly opposed.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    ...I fear Bush is going to play both sides of the fence tonight. Offer increased security at the border for one side. And a ray of hope for amnesty on the other, a move which I have always strongly opposed.
    agreed.

    the tipping point for this whole mess was the amnesty given by Raygun in '86.

    There were no important numbers of hispanic voters then, and the rules for immigration and political refugees could have been rationalized and strengthened without that blanket amnesty.

    Just one of many reasons that Raygun is so popular with conservatives...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  11. #11  
    I'm sorry, but it is hard to believe I'm sitting here listening to people rationalize illegal aliens in the newspapers. It is hard to believe I watch illegal aliens demonstrating for "their rights." What rights would those be, actually?

    Yes, not undocumented workers. Illegal aliens. Not illegal immigrants. Illegal aliens. Immigrants are people who comply with our laws.

    If we need more workers, we have the power and the ability to change our immigration laws.

    But how can ANYONE possibly rationalize not wanting to protect and control our borders so that the decision of who to let in and when is taken away?

    Quite clearly, Mexico doesn't give a damn. Its government likes being able to shuffle off its poor to the USA.

    So if we don't do it, who will? How can any country with any self respect not control its own borders?

    This has nothing to do with immigration. A total red herring. If we want and need more immigrants, we can allow them.

    It is simply a matter of making sure we get who we want for our purposes rather than allowing anyone with a concept to making a few bucks and sending it home while not caring one whit about America to sneak in. THere are other types of security than physical security.

    Controlling borders means some possibility of actually absorbing immigrants as Americans of the future. The National Guard should have been on the border long ago.
    Last edited by Mark Squires; 05/17/2006 at 08:30 AM.
    If it doesn't have a slot for SDHC--I don't want it. Period.
  12.    #12  
    Carefull, your hatred is kind of boiling over there mark.
  13. #13  
    This is interesting:

    Mexico Threatens Lawsuits Over Guard Patrols

    NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico A U.S.-Mexico border that's impossible to sneak across could devastate impoverished Mexican and Central American communities that depend on the millions of dollars that undocumented migrants (aka, Illegal Aliens) send home to loved ones.

    -----------------------

    "For decades, each president has increased police forces on the border and the number of migrants has increased, not declined," said Mexico City-based analyst Jorge Chabat. "A border that's closed completely? It's fantasy."

    Still, Mexico says it will file lawsuits in U.S. courts if the National Guard arrests migrants, and its leaders worry that increased border surveillance will force crossers into more dangerous areas to avoid detection.

    "I understand that sending 6,000 National Guard soldiers to the border is playing to internal pressures within the United States, but I want to express my complete rejection of this militarization," said Alvaro Elias, a member of President Vicente Fox's National Action Party and head of the executive committee in Mexico's lower House of Congress. "There's nothing else to call it."

    Guatemalan Vice President Eduardo Stein said his country "deplores and rejects Washington's attitude."

    "This is not the solution on the border," Stein said.

    FULL STORY: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195815,00.html
  14. #14  
    I am sympathetic to those immigrants who have come into this county, who are employed, have families who are here in this county, have the potential to pay taxes if given the opportunity and can contribute more than simply providing "cheap" labor(the labor is only cheap for those who are directly using the services-to the rest of us who are not in the position of using labor I think the costs in terms of providing medical, social, educational, legal, etc. services are on the negative side of the cost factor which is not compensated for by reduced cost of products). The last amnesty program which Ragan allowed obviously did not solve the problem due to the lack of control of the both the border and employment of undocumented workers. While not a Bush "fan" I agree with the necessity to control the borders while providing those who are currently here working and living with a way to become "legal" either by "standing in line" for citizenship or becoming documented. Unfortunately, I think the border situation is to the point that border patrols/army presence need to be substantially increased. I have also reluctantly reached the conclusion that some type of fence/wall is going to be necessary to control our border. I have had great reservations about that part of the solution (think Berlin wall) because of the past policies we have had with being an "open" society, however, that time has passed. The reason for the need for what I consider to be drastic measures lies directly at the feet of the Mexican government. We have tried the policy (NAFTA) of trying to assist in fostering an economic environment in Mexico where the citizens can be employed locally without having to risk all of the dangers and risks inherent in illegal immigration to no avail. I suspect that there may be governmental graft invovled in the failure of those efforts. For this reason, I find it to be particularly gauling to hear of the threats of lawsuits brought by the Mexican government against the U.S. for preventing illegal entry into our country. It is particularly hypocritical in light of their (the Mexican) approach to illegal immigrants from South American countries. Unfortunately, the immigration problem is one that has no easy solution, nor is there likely to be a consensus of opinion on this issue.
    Legalbeagle
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Carefull, your hatred is kind of boiling over there mark.
    A remark very typical of the misinformation we get in this field.

    What hatred did you see, exactly?

    I didn't express hatred for immigrants.

    I didn't suggest we disallow immigration.

    I didn't suggest not allowing anyone else in.

    I did suggest that we have the right to control our borders.

    That's "hatred" to you?

    This is exactly the type of one-off emoting that has distorted this debate, the type of thing that let's us witness outrages like illegal aliens demonstrating in the street for their civil rights. This isn't about immigration. It's about enforcing our laws and making sure that we allow the number of people who are good for us. That we get to check to see whether they are criminals, rapists, murderers, terrorists, actually interested in becoming Americans; whether they fill a need in our society. Whether they are likely to assimilate.

    But THEY don't get to make our choices for us. That would seem obvious...

    Every new amnesty program merely means that the waves of illegal aliens continue, convinced everything will work out just fine. And they are right.

    It is very simple to address this problem.

    1. Any employer must demand proof of citizenship. If they do not, and the employee is illegal, the employer goes to jail.

    2. The illegal alien is imprisoned for a minimum term of 1 year prior to deportation. That way it isn't just a game any more, with no consequence and no penalty.

    Enact those two measures, problem is over.

    No nation will survive that cannot control its borders.
    If it doesn't have a slot for SDHC--I don't want it. Period.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Squires
    A remark very typical of the misinformation we get in this field.

    What hatred did you see, exactly?

    I didn't express hatred for immigrants.

    I didn't suggest we disallow immigration.

    I didn't suggest not allowing anyone else in.

    I did suggest that we have the right to control our borders.

    That's "hatred" to you?

    This is exactly the type of one-off emoting that has distorted this debate, the type of thing that let's us witness outrages like illegal aliens demonstrating in the street for their civil rights. This isn't about immigration. It's about enforcing our laws and making sure that we allow the number of people who are good for us. That we get to check to see whether they are criminals, rapists, murderers, terrorists, actually interested in becoming Americans; whether they fill a need in our society. Whether they are likely to assimilate.

    But THEY don't get to make our choices for us. That would seem obvious...

    Every new amnesty program merely means that the waves of illegal aliens continue, convinced everything will work out just fine. And they are right.

    It is very simple to address this problem.

    1. Any employer must demand proof of citizenship. If they do not, and the employee is illegal, the employer goes to jail.

    2. The illegal alien is imprisoned for a minimum term of 1 year prior to deportation. That way it isn't just a game any more, with no consequence and no penalty.

    Enact those two measures, problem is over.

    No nation will survive that cannot control its borders.
    One of the problems with putting illegals who are caught in jail(excluding those who have committed violent offenses) is that the conditions of some of our worst jails may be better than the conditions they would be returning to. We also have the additional expense (Approx. $25,000 to $40,000 a year) to house and feed those incarcerated in addition to the costs of prosecution and defense as those in that category would be unable to pay for there own. In most states any offense which involves the possibility of incarceration requires appointed counsel for those unable to afford. Guess who gets to pay for the attorney? Additionally, at least in my state, the prison/jail systems are already over-crowded with inmates to the point that inmates are being released early to make room for others. The emphasis must be on more efficient border control.
    Legalbeagle
  17. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by mesplin@earthli
    One of the problems with putting illegals who are caught in jail(excluding those who have committed violent offenses) is that the conditions of some of our worst jails may be better than the conditions they would be returning to. We also have the additional expense (Approx. $25,000 to $40,000 a year) to house and feed those incarcerated in addition to the costs of prosecution and defense as those in that category would be unable to pay for there own. In most states any offense which involves the possibility of incarceration requires appointed counsel for those unable to afford. Guess who gets to pay for the attorney? Additionally, at least in my state, the prison/jail systems are already over-crowded with inmates to the point that inmates are being released early to make room for others. The emphasis must be on more efficient border control.
    These costs should be passed on to the Mexican gov't. Maybe this would put a little pressure on them to stop assisting the illeagal aliens in coming across the border. How do we enforce it is the issue.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  18.    #18  
    I think the 29% approval rating comes from the anger and hatred of those even more extreme than the president on this issue.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    These costs should be passed on to the Mexican gov't. Maybe this would put a little pressure on them to stop assisting the illeagal aliens in coming across the border. How do we enforce it is the issue.
    In the unlikely circumstance that the Mexican government was able to even file a lawsuit challenging the U.S. actions in employing a military service on the border as threatened, maybe the U.S. could counter-claim for the costs of controlling the border. Of course this is absurd since there is no basis for the Mexican gov. to file in the first instance. We, being the good guys, are in a no win situation. If we withhold aid or financial assistance to Mexico conditioned upon the Mexican gov doing their part to assist in the solution to the immigration problem, we do so knowing that many of the Mexican people who are staying home tring to earn a living in their own country will be harmed. If we don't come up with some kind of sanction/incentive for the Mexican gov to do their part in border control, we will continue to experience the status quo, i.e., we get screwed. No good answer.
    Legalbeagle
  20.    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    We need to do something. I hope both the House and Senate can get something done.
    They are. They are passing out green cards.

Posting Permissions