Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years. Read the report here.
Here's the President's speech.
Here's today's reaction. From National Review is Rich Lowry's piece with this nut graph:
Having the National Guard sharpen pencils and fetch coffee for the Border Patrol can't fix our broken immigration system. It is no substitute for a fence, nor for real interior enforcement that punishes employers for hiring illegal labor. The Bush approach to the latter also relies on symbolism. A 26-state immigration raid garnered extensive press attention last month, but most of the aliens arrested were quickly released again.
Editors of the NRO also call this a lost opportunity. Big Time.
In his Oval Office address, the president squandered what was probably his last chance to reconnect with conservatives on immigration. They will undoubtedly note that the president has waited six years to start talking about enforcement, and will accordingly ask why he can’t postpone his amnesty long enough to give enforcement at try? A speech that had reiterated his support for amnesty in theory, but conceded that enforcement had to come first, would likely have won significant public approval and helped shape events in Congress. The speech he actually gave, on the other hand, is likely further to demoralize conservatives and harden opposition among House Republicans to the Senate amnesty proposal. President Bush’s speech, contrary to its goal, probably ensures that no immigration bill will reach his desk this year. Given the options, that’s probably a good thing.
The Washington Post calls the President's plan the 'middle ground' here.
A Republican strategist with close ties to the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly about the president's problems, blamed Bush for not standing up forcefully to supporters of a House bill that would make felons of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country as well as anyone who tries to help them. "The president responded to that House bill rather passively," he said. "Leadership is standing up to demagoguery." This strategist said last night's speech was less about immigration than "about the total collapse of the president's numbers among conservatives."
Friday, May 12, 2006
Immigration Speech Reaction: Guarding the Border with Symbolism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
When forest fires need fighting, the "military" is used. When folks need rescuing from Mt. Hood, the ocean, or floods, the "military" is used, so why can't the "military" be used to protect our own BORDERS?! When riots occur, the "military" is right there. Now we will hear that we cannot be protected from an alien invasion, and if Americans try to protect each other, we sill be called vigilantes....sheesh.
Right on, Bear. Let's bring our National Guard troops home from Iraq or wherever, and put them on the border. After all, isn't that what the National Guard is for? To guard our Nation while the regualr Army and Navy and Marines are out doing what they are trained to do. If they don't have enough troops to get the job done without using the Guard, then it is time to reinstitute the draft. Then, we will get to watch while all the cowards head for points outside the country, like they did some 35 years ago.
Hello we agree with the president Plan and agree with our troops protecting our borders We appreciate our military and support our troops we will be looking forward to hearing the president Speech and reading more about it.
Gods blessings
Atkinson for Governor 06
T&T
For once I couldn't agree more with you scottiebill.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the draft reinstated, but for backing up the Border Patrol, not necessarily the Military.
Here I could agree with Democrats (so far the only ones)that have been calling for another draft.
Two years actually doing something for the country might just instill some good old fashioned respect and gratitude in many people today.
lew:
I agree with you: two years service in the military would do wonders for many people. Notably, thirty years ago, William F. Buckley urged that all colleges adopt a rule either requiring service prior to being accepted for admission, or at least giving strong preferment to those who had served -- and as I recall, he favored four years. I served for two years in the United States Army, and it did instill in me a great respect for this country and its institutions.
David, I served for a little over 8 myself, got fed up when Carter came in and declared amnesty freely to draft dodgers.
However, my proposal is more for backing up the Border Patrol. This could alleviate pressure on National Guard troops and active Military and work to give young people much needed respect and such.
I disagree with a Military Draft but for the Border Patrol I think it could help all out immensely.
For five years out from 9/11, Bush and the Republican Congress cut funds to Border Patrol, kept the borders wide open, did nothing to inspect the overseas containers coming into our ports ... 5 months out from an election where he's in the 20%'s approval and Congress is even lower, and they call out the National Guard, most of whom are in Iraq and extremely overextended?
Why not just hire the required number of Border Patrol officers?
The solution. Rather than use the National Guard, outsourc to the Iraqi Army. It is so well trained.
Way to go fizziwigg your biting wit and wisdom is showing (sic).
For five years out from 9/11, Bush and the Republican Congress cut funds to Border Patrol,
Document this claim, please.
Most recently,
The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday.
Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.
But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.
San Francisco Chronicle 2/9/06
Typical Government funding. Authorize one amount fund another. See 100000 new policeman program.
Well, Moderate, too bad you don't actually read articles before quoting them. From the very article you quoted:
"Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress,"
Bush can only propose a budget, Congress actually passes it.
Relying on the SF Chronicle for accurate information is like relying on the New York Slimes.
A few more quotes for you;
President Bush’s FY 2007 Budget for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Totals $7.8 Billion
A 9.8 Percent Increase over FY 2006
CPB.gov
Border plan swells budget
Bush wants billions more to secure crossing
Feb. 7, 2006 12:00 AM
Still, Bush asked for significantly more money for border security and immigration enforcement agencies, part of the Department of Homeland Security. The president said he wants to gain control of the U.S.-Mexican border and cut down on illegal immigration and the hiring of undocumented workers.
The proposal would add muscle, in the form of money, to recent policy statements by Bush and other officials.
But lawmakers and others said money alone won't stop illegal immigration. Even Bush's allies said the funds in the proposed budget wasn't a solution.
"He's having to balance interests here," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "Given the desire to cut the deficit in half before the end of his term, he's applying a lot of money toward this border problem. But is it enough? No." (When has it ever actually been "enough?")
Arizona Republic
U.S. / Mexico Border: Bush administration seeks budget boost, federal troops, for border security
President George W. Bush’s proposed 2003 budget includes $6.3 billion for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), an increase of $1.2 billion over last year’s allocation
rtfcam.com
Please note, the above was for 2003!
Money alone will not solve this problem, that's only a Liberal's dream of throwing money at everythng solves everything. Of course, it is always other peoples money they throw.
Please note also, most "cuts" in government are actually a decrease in proposed increase. The money is still increased but not as much as was originally proposed.
LiberalLew: not to be confused with "Lew" the Good Lew, LiberalLew your a typical Socialist Liberal just through more "FUNDS" at the problem. Actually I like the Idea of pressuring Employers. But the Idea of pressuring Landlords is starting to be tossed around. No job, No place to stay, what do you do,but go home.
Bush is to be commended when he does something right. I agree with sealing the border as a first priority. This may be a little late but at least it is being done. Politicians of all stripes are to blame for the current situation. No left and right to this mess.
Moderateme, I have to somewhat agree with you. This mess falls upon both major parties and will not easily be resolved. First priority to me is to seal the border.
However, I disagree with my President in his non-amnesty amnesty program. I still support him overall but feel his call for illegals that have been here to come forward and pay back taxes, a fine and go to the end of the line for citizenship just may prove to be a waste of time.
If they have been here this long with no hassles, why change now and pay something they may not have been paying all along? If there is no effort to get them to come forward and no effort to detect or deport them, all stays the same for them if they just continue as they are. Not every illegal in our country is here wishing to become a citizen and pay our taxes and such.
While it may be true that we cannot deport them all, why is it not also true that we could deport the ones we do detect and catch, if real efforts were being made?
Until both parties (or a really strong third party rises)join together and get past their petty bickering and actually address this mess, I'm afraid it will just continue as is and get even worse.
lew:
Your comment reflects a great deal of sound thouhgt, and I agree that the undocumented immigrant who is not striving for citizenship has litlle incentive to adhere to any part of the Bush program. Indeed, one thing i found completely lacking in the proesident's program is an encouragement to employer to stop employee illegals. This reflects one of my negative views about Mr. Bush, He is beholden to major corporations, many of which either use illegal aliens or benefit from their presence in this country to artificially lower the rage rates of less skilled workers. the best way to counter this economically depressing force is to add an enforcement provision that would penalize employers for using illegal workers. Robbed of the incentive to overlook the law, employers would be brought in line, and that would make any enforcement effort much more genuinely effective.
For President Bush's supporters, his speech on immigration policy must have come as a disappointment. Here is the President who had warnings that al Qaeda was planning an attack before September 11, and ignored the warnings; who was told in the classroom where he was reading "My Little Goat" that the nation was under atack, and ignored the statement; was warned that the consequneces of Katrina would be cataclysmic, and ignored the crisis; and has managed by a feat of vaccuity to ignore the immigration problem for six years. Finally, he decides that something should be done, and immediately wants to push through an amensty program, almost before the National Guard can be deployed on the border. His apparent hope is that by using the National Guard to support existing border patrol forces, we will be able to stem the flood of illegal immigrants, so that only those now in the United States can take advantage of the anemsty offer.
But, Mr. President, what if it doesn't work as planned? What if more illegals, encouraged by your amnesty proposal, pour over border? Do we offer a new amnesty program every six months, each time with a more emphatic message of "oh, please, please, don't come across the border any more"? Perhaps the best that can be said is that with the confusing situation in Washington, D.C., it seems that the congressional republican stalwarts will be able to resist the President's call for adopting a law giving amnesty, so that wwe, the American people, can have some idea what we are getting into.
Sorry, David, but I can’t let you get away with that.
1. Warnings Bush received were general in nature and expected to be overseas. I remember well in the weeks prior to 9-11 listening to news reports expressing caution to any traveling. Had Bush acted and grounded all aviation travel on the evening of 9-10 he would have been lambasted as over reacting to nothing at all.
2. Bush was told initially of an aircraft hitting the World Trade Center, not of an attack. No one assumed any attack until after the second aircraft hit the second tower. Still, even the Principal of the school where he was reading to children came forward and stated he acted properly to prevent from panicking the children. She is a Liberal Democrat, by the way.
3. First response from Katrina is the responsibility of the Mayor and the Governor, both Democrats. Bush called Mayor Nagin and told him to evacuate residents. It was Mayor Nagin that let some 500 buses sit idle both before and after the hurricane hit. It was Mayor Nagin that sent people to the Superdome. It was corrupt Democrats in power in New Orleans that wasted monies sent to bolster the levies and diverted it elsewhere.
4. Granted, Bush hasn’t been very effective on Illegal Immigrants, but neither were Presidents before him, including some Democrats. I don’t recall Clinton doing much else other than a wag the dog war in Kosovo and of course, Monica.
I see Bush’s call, even though not as strong as I wish, a step forward, provided it is enforced and the Senate doesn’t water it down totally.
I personally don’t care what Vincente Fox thinks; militarizing our borders during a time of war sits well with me. As I have said elsewhere, I also advocate a draft of able-bodied American males to serve two years with the Border Patrol. I also advocate imprisonment of employers who knowingly employ Illegals. If it were up to me, they wouldn’t receive anything more than emergency medical attention to heal them well enough for a bus ride back to the border.
As I said above, even though all cannot be deported, many can and if our borders were really secure, as they should be, they wouldn’t be back.
In the case of Mexico, I can appreciate the Mexicans wanting a better life. But, if a fraction of the energy they spent here protesting were expended down there against their own corrupt government, they might make life better in their own country and not need to sneak in here.
For those that think they will take the West Coast and Southwestern States back to Mexico, good luck! If you succeed you can expect them to return to what you fled, corruption and abject poverty. Be careful what you ask for, sometimes you get it.
Thank you westsidedavid, Lew to the contrary we know what Bush did and did not do pre-911. We can either believe Lew or our lying eyes.
Gee moderatelew what did Clinton do in response to the first WTC bombing in 1993 or any other attack that occurred during his administration? We can either believe our lying eyes or you?
I have asked the question whether Bush knew the exact day, flights and targets prior to 9/11. Nobody stepped forward to say so.
So my conclusion is your eyes lie and you have chosen to believe because of your feelings of hate towards Bush. Just because you hate Bush is no reason to blame him for 9/11.
Gee moderatelew what did Clinton do in response to the first WTC bombing in 1993?
The perpretrators were arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned. Look it up.
And he let the Iraqi chemical mixer go not once but three times where he also 'boogied' back to Baghdad. He supposedly was 'jailed' but has never been found and disappeared into the woodwork. Wow. They also indicted UBL (alleging connections with Iraq btw). They sure showed him, huh?
America cannot secure its borders and maintain its national security in the courts. You can look THAT up.
Moderatelew,
Finding the perps for the first WTC does not excuse the Clinton administration's failure to respond to every attack in a forcefull manner.
Bin Lauden declared war on America and American civilians during the Clinton years in office. Fighting terrorism can not be done using law enforcement, that is what contributed to 3000 deaths on 9/11 and was Clintons method of choice.
It was Clintons team that prevented law enforecement and intelligence agencies from cooperating and passing of information concerning terrorists.
You can look all of this up.
Clinton's failures are not an excuse for Bush's failures. The attack occurred on his watch.
Bush has spent 40% of his Presidency on vacation. He was vacationing when he was sent a document titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." on August 6, 2001. He relaxed at golf the next day and stayed on vacation for weeks. His 2001 summer vacation went from August 4 to August 31.
Moderate, spare me.
Your hatred of Bush fogs your brain. You really expect anyone to think that simply because 9-11 happened 7 months into Bush's first term it is all his fault. Yet, who among you lefties condemns Clinton for the first WTC attack that happened shortly into his first term?
Even the clairvoyant would have a hard time deciphering that 19 terrorists were going to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings based on general information. Had Bush taken the step to ground the nations aircraft fleet on September 10, you lefties would have been up in arms over his overreaction to a "perceived" threat. No amount of evidence would have been enough to convince any of you that the aircraft were to be highjacked and flown into buildings. Of course, he couldn't do that as there was absolutely nothing that said it was going to happen in that manner at that time given to either Clinton or Bush.
Let me ask you, since you think Clinton knew enough about it all to "warn" Bush, why didn't Clinton take any necessary steps to prevent it? Since he claims to love America and Americans so much (especially young White House interns), shouldn't he have taken strong measures to prevent it instead of passing it on and waiting to see it happen?
Your hatred defintely interferes with any perspicacious thought.
As for vacations, I can't begrudge any of them whatever time they may try to take for respite. Even you should know that no President, regardless of party, ever gets a total vacation in the sense that we may. Wherever they may go they are in constant contact with D.C. and the Nuclear Football is nearby.
Like I said, hatred fogs critical thinking and hate is all consuming.
Gentlemen, and Victoria:
What Clinton did or did not do over a decade ago, and how much time Bush spends on vacation seem beside the point. For the past several years, the media have been pounding the drums on the immigration issue, but it is only now, when the matter has approached a crisis, that President Bush has seemed to pay any attention. And consider his response: he seems firmly aligned with the staunch liberals of the Democratic Party in favoring what amounts to a sweeping amnesty program which, coupled with his very generous guest worker program, could flood the United States will some 100,000,000 immigrants within a few years.
My. Bush seems so out of touch that Larry King this evening devoted an hour of his cable television show to "Right Turn for Bush," asking if the President is losing the support of his conservative base.
As I see the President's problem, he has two key blocks among his supporters: populists and corporatists. The populists favor firm protection of the borders and oppose any sort of amnesty program. After all, the immigrants who have come here illegally are illegals. Why should the government reward them for their illegal behavior? The corporatists, however, do not favor a strict immigration policy. After all, these are people who understand a basic rule of economics. So long as the supply of labor is high, real wages can be kept down. If the labor pool is restricted, wages will tend to rise.
Ms. Taft has several times suggested that we should treat immigration like a sports draft, taking the best of the immigrants to improve society. But what do you think the big corporations have been doing and are doing now? They are taking the workers who will accept the lowest wages, and rolling in the resultant profits.
So which part of his base will Goerge Bush favor, the corporatists or the populists?
David, the immigration problem transcends Bush, it is a dual party problem in that neither is or has addressed it seriously.
Both parties have failed to secure our borders or propose any serious legislation to secure our borders.
Democrat, Republican, none have made a move until recently to tackle this and so far, I am not overly impressed with the performance of either party.
For example, look at todays Senatorial vote on English being the official language of the US followed by declaring it a "common and unifying" language. Two dozen Senators voted for both!
I guess all in D.C. wish to ensure they retain the Illegal Alien vote.
It seems everyone plays a fantastic Monday morning quarterback. Blame Clinton, blame Bush. How about we blame the folks that attacked us?
That said, "reactions" seem to be what should be discussed. Clinton was in no position to react to 911 as commander in chief, so the criticisms must end there. No one can tell the future, not matter how good or bad the intelligence and the outcome based on the over/under-reaction to said knowledge. Sure, he could have done more, but there's no way to know that would have changed anything. You can not articulate an argument around the "could have been." Because, it simply "is not" - and that's reality.
Remember when Bush said he would be a "uniter, not a divider?" Remember when he said "no nation building?" Remember when he stood at ground zero and pledged to the American people? Remember how that felt? That's the Bush I voted for.
So what happened? In what direction has Bush taken us since that day on 911?
Do you feel his direction, his "reaction," is justified? Or do you already have your fall guys set up to take the "blame" if we are attacked again?
Part of the posting that Victoria Taft started this thread with said that President Bush's speech was less about immigration than about the collapse of his support among his core supporters. I think there is considerable validity to that comment. Thursday evening on his cable television show, Larry King devoted a full hour to the topic, and I believe all of the guests that he had on had strong connections to the Republican Party. Several of them were members of the Congress, Republicans, who are not satisfied with the President's performance. On the topic of immigration, they are quite upset that the President seems determined to support a bill in the Senate that is essentially a product of the Democratic caucus, a bill that includes a sweeping "guest worker" program. Such a program amounts to amnesty of one sort or another for millions of people who have entered the United States illegally. How can the rank and file of the Republican Party continue to support George Bush if this is his response to this hot button issue?
WSD - How can the rank and file of the Republican Party continue to support George Bush if this is his response to this hot button issue?
Because we aren't "lock-step" people who have to blindly follow and adhere to whatever officials would tell us.
Still, don't let disagreements with the administration fool you into thinking there is no longer any support. Bush cannot be reelected, no matter what he does. I'm looking more at what Congress does over this than worrying about Bush.
Presidents only suggest and request. Congress actually passes laws and programs.
"Because we aren't "lock-step" people who have to blindly follow and adhere to whatever officials would tell us."
I see, so it's only "lefties" that you hold to this standard...?
Interpret any way you wish, Bakwards. You will anyways.
So, everytime one of us "lefties" questions or makes claims to not support something this administration has done or decided to do, we are "treasonous."
But when you do it, that makes you what? Not "lock-step?"
Don't try to just sweep me under the table here lew...answer the question.
lew:
George Bush remains the most significant Republican office holder, and the leader of the nation. Yet over the past several days, I have heard many Republicans railing against his immigration proposals. More than one congressional Republican has vowed to never let a "guest worker" program get out of the congressional conference committee, and in Oregon, the Democrats are already gearing up their strategy for the gubernatorial election: portray the race as Kulongoski against Bush-Saxton.
To paraphrase Dickens, it is the best of times, it is the worst of times.
Backwards -> Don't try to just sweep me under the table here lew...answer the question.
*YAWN*
David, that's Politics for you. What you hear today and what people, of both parties, end up doing this November possibly will be two different things.
Of course Democrat strategy will be to try to link any Republican to the immigration issue. But, don't be too surprised that it either fails or bites them in the butt.
Personally, as I have said before, I wish both parties would get off of their duffs, stop playing politics with ILLEGAL immigrants and actually accomplish something about it.
One thing I have written in and proposed is to reinstitute the draft, but for the Border Patrol. Regardless of party affiliation I feel we all are fortunate to have been born in America and owe the country a small service. The military isn't for everyone, but I see no harm in men spending two years supporting the Border Patrol.
In more than a couple ways I feel it would greatly benefit our nation by giving young men a training they currently don't receive.
Hey everyone, lew wants you to ignore that he is a hypocrite...so go ahead, please ignore that he is a hypocrite.
Still "yawning" there lew?
Bassackwards, will you ever grow up?
Now, go sleep it off like a good little liberal.
lew:
I disagree with you only in one regard. I think military training would be a prerequisite to border patrol work. Beyond this, two (or four) years of compulsory service would do many of today's young men wonders in terms of teaching them discipline, self-esteem, commitment, sense of purpose, espirt d' corps, and a host of other values that will serve both them and the nation very well.
(suomynona: why lower yourself?)
David, you actually don't disagree with me at all. Although I haven't fully expressed my thoughts on drafting for the Border Patrol, I include at least Military style basic training and AIT for the Border Patrol.
Personally, I don't oppose a Military Draft either. But I can imagine the outcry from the anti-war left if one ever was reinsituted.
At least on this issue, we agree more than we disagree.
Bassackwards, will you ever grow up?
Now, go sleep it off like a good little liberal.
Hmm, I expected a good rebuttal from you lew. Instead you are just avoiding some simple explanation for your statements.
I guess we know, when you expect others to do one thing but not do the same yourself, that you are just not "lock-step."
Now that I've got my "lowered self" reaction out of the way...what would keep drafted "border security" from being re-assigned during their service? Or is that of no concern?
Backwards - what would keep drafted "border security" from being re-assigned during their service?
Since we are only talking proposals and preferences, what says they would be reassigned to Military? Or, do you even care?
I wouldn't comment if I didn't care...
I ponder, because I think you could fill the need for border guard without any draft, IF there was assurance that reassignment would not be in the cards.
suomynona: I am not sure just what you mean by re-assigned. If you mean that border patrol personnel might be reassigned to purely military duty, and potentially sent to combat zones such as Iraq, that could be blocked. Enlistment in the military creates a contract between the service person and the military. Employment by the border patrol creates no relationship with the military, so that there would be no legal basis for reassigning border patrol personnel to the military as such. On the other hand, if your concern is reassignment from, for example, southern California to New Mexico, I think that is an inherent burden of the service. Anyone who signs up for service in the border patrol can be required to serve wherever the border patrol wants them. Personally, I do not see that as a great burden. Indeed, one of the benefits of service in an organization such as the military is that it teaches a concept of subordination, that the individual puts himself at the disposal of the unit. Many of today's young people would do well to learn that concept.
suomynona: I am not sure just what you mean by re-assigned. If you mean that border patrol personnel might be reassigned to purely military duty, and potentially sent to combat zones such as Iraq, that could be blocked.
Yes, that's what I was referring to.
Enlistment in the military creates a contract between the service person and the military. Employment by the border patrol creates no relationship with the military, so that there would be no legal basis for reassigning border patrol personnel to the military as such.
I must have missed something. Are we not talking about a draft to stock up on a military controlled border guard? If not, how could you ever expect to "draft" citizens to border partol? What am I missing here?
And if we are reaching for yet another division of the military, as only border guard, how can you block them from being a resource in a time of war or conflict? How is this different from the National Guard?
Post a Comment