PDA

View Full Version : So we are going to send 5000 troops to the border


banyon
05-15-2006, 07:37 PM
*edit* looks like 6000. Guess they upped this since the first time I heard this story.

Bush to Send Up to 6,000 Troops to Border
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
25 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush, trying to build support for a major overhaul of the nation's tattered immigration laws, said Monday night he would order as many as 6,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S. border with Mexico and urged Congress to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship.

"We do not yet have full control of the border and I am determined to change that," the president said in a 17-minute prime-time address from the Oval Office.

Bush gave strong support to a plan that would give many of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States an eventual path to possible citizenship — a move derided by some conservatives in his own Republican Party as amnesty. He rejected that term.

"It is neither wise nor realistic to round up millions of people, many with deep roots in the United States and send them across the border," he said. "There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program of mass deportation."

The Guard troops would mostly serve two-week stints before rotating out of the assignment, so keeping the force level at 6,000 over the course of a year could require up to 156,000 troops.

Still, Bush insisted, "The United States is not going to militarize the southern border."

The White House wouldn't say how much the deployments would cost, but said the troops would paid for as part of $1.9 billion being requested from Congress to supplement border enforcement this year.

The president timed his speech hours after the Senate began intense debate on an immigration bill that has been getting increasing attention in a year when all House seats and one-third of Senate seats are up for election. The rare televised, prime-time Oval Office address signified the high stakes for Bush, who has been asking for an immigration overhaul since his the 2000 campaign.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., indicated Bush may have some trouble getting some conservatives on board with his overall plan.

"While I appreciate the president's willingness to tackle big problems, I have real concerns about moving forward with a guest worker program or a plan to address those currently in the United States illegally until we have adequately addressed our serious border security problems," Blunt said.

Bush said the National Guard troops would fill in temporarily while the nation's Border Patrol force is expanded. He asked Congress to add 6,000 more Border Patrol agents by the end of his presidency and to add 6,700 more beds so illegal immigrants can be detained while waiting for hearings to determine that they can be sent home.

For many years, the government has not had enough detention space to hold illegal immigrants, so they were released into society and most did not return for their court date. "This practice, called catch and release, is unacceptable and we will end it," Bush said

The Border Patrol would remain responsible for catching and detaining illegal immigrants, with National Guard troops providing intelligence gathering, surveillance and other administrative support. Yet the National Guard troops would still be armed and authorized to use force to protect themselves, said Bush homeland security adviser Fran Townsend.

They are to come from the four border states — California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas — but those states' governors may also seek Guard troops from other states. Reaction was mixed among the nation's governors.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said troops might provide short-term relief but he did not believe border protection was an appropriate role for the National Guard. California has thousands of Guard troops in Iraq and might need them in case of earthquakes, floods or other emergencies, he said.

"So if you have 6,000 in Iraq and send another 6,000 to the border, what do we have left?" Schwarzenegger asked.

But another Republican border state governor, Rick Perry of Texas, said he was glad the administration had decided the Guard had a role to play along the border. "We have the ability to multitask," Perry said.

The White House hopes deployments to the border will begin in early June.

Many congressional Republicans said they supported Bush's plan to use National Guard troops at the border. But he ran into criticism from Democrats and some other Republicans.

"Democrats are willing to support any reasonable plan that will secure our borders, including deploying National Guard troops," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "But Americans don't want a plan that's been cobbled together to win political favor. This cannot turn into another long-term military deployment with no clear plan."

Bush said the nation has more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during his presidency and has sent home about 6 million people entering the United States illegally. Still, he said, that has not been enough.

"For decades, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders," the president said. "As a result, many who want to work in our economy have been able to sneak across our border, and millions have stayed."

He called for enactment of a guest worker program to allow immigrants to take low-paying jobs, and he said employers must be held to account for hiring illegal immigrants. He said that a tamperproof identification card for workers would "leave employers with no excuse" for violating the law.

And he stressed that those who want to earn citizenship should have to assimilate into society, learn English, pay fines for breaking the law and pay back taxes.

"What I have just described is not amnesty," Bush said. "It is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen."

The president's call for tougher border security is part of a broader plan to overhaul a system that he has described as inhumane, with desperate foreigners risking their lives for a chance to earn U.S. wages. The issue raises emotions on all sides, with many Americans and influential conservatives in Congress angry that foreigners are taking jobs and draining resources across the country.

The White House hopes that the tougher security will be enough to get House conservatives to support the work permits and citizenship proposals that they have been opposed to. A bill that passed the House last year ignored those ideas and instead would increase criminal penalties for illegal immigrants and construct 700 miles of fencing.

Bush addressed some of his comments to lawmakers, calling on the Senate to act by the end of the month so a compromise can be reached with the House. "I want to speak directly to Members of the House and the Senate: An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive, because all elements of this problem must be addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_on_go_pr_wh/immigration

banyon
05-15-2006, 07:38 PM
seriously, this just reeks of the desparation of a President with a 31% approval rating.

What a half-a**ed waste of troops and taxpayer$.

Adept Havelock
05-15-2006, 07:47 PM
Another grand photo-op.

Ohhh...look, men in uniforms on the border.

Here's a question, why not just increase the budget to pay for the 4,000 new Border Patrol agents that that he and Senslessbrenner fought to get authorized for FY 05 and 06 in the National Intelligence Reform Act? Let alone the 6,000 authorized for FY 07-09. Right now, only 300 or so have been budgeted for under this authorization. It seems to me permanently hiring 10,000 more people specifically trained for this job would be more intelligent than this half baked notion.

I guess that wouldn't be as good a photo op. Durbin's right on this one. It's just another pointless military deployment.

Braincase
05-15-2006, 08:15 PM
Bush's National Guard isn't the one he grew up with.

sd4chiefs
05-15-2006, 08:16 PM
A couple of weeks after the troops show up Bush will claim 'Mission Accomplished'

Taco John
05-15-2006, 08:19 PM
Something is better than nothing.

On the face, I approve.

Chiefs Express II
05-15-2006, 08:26 PM
seriously, this just reeks of the desparation of a President with a 31% approval rating.

What a half-a**ed waste of troops and taxpayer$.

National Guardsmen are something that can be mobilized tomorrow. Getting the funding to get more border guards and get them trained would not be quite so immediate.

The biggest question should not be if they are used, but whether it violates the Posse Comitatus act.

If legal this is at least a step to curb the influx of illegals.

In any case the democratic response should tell us all how damaging this will be.

patteeu
05-15-2006, 08:33 PM
Something is better than nothing.

On the face, I approve.

I agree.

The proof one way or the other will be in how effective it turns out to be. If it dramatically slows the flow of illegals then it's great. If it doesn't have much impact then Durbanyon will have been right.

banyon
05-15-2006, 08:33 PM
QUIT TROLLING IN MY THREADS YOU F***ING RETARD!!!

I asked you very politely not to post in them and I would try to ignore you, but that is obviously beyond your self-control.

*edit* I am of course not directing this at patteeu, who posted simulaneously as I posted this.

memyselfI
05-15-2006, 08:41 PM
I think it was great. He pizzed off the much needed Hispanic vote AND the RWNJ vote.

The entertainment value of the shock and dismay of the RWNJs at the Free Republic cannot be overstated. ROFL ROFL ROFL

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632803/posts#comment?q=1

Cochise
05-15-2006, 08:42 PM
I agree.

The proof one way or the other will be in how effective it turns out to be. If it dramatically slows the flow of illegals then it's great. If it doesn't have much impact then Durbanyon will have been right.

Well, I suspect the real measure will be if the number stopped outweighs the cost of putting the guard there.

I'm not sure how you would quantify the cost to the United States of one illegal alien coming over here, let alone the fact that their posterity will be the US' responsibility too.

Cochise
05-15-2006, 08:45 PM
I think it was great. He pizzed off the much needed Hispanic vote AND the RWNJ vote.

The entertainment value of the shock and dismay of the RWNJs at the Free Republic cannot be overstated. ROFL ROFL ROFL

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632803/posts#comment?q=1

The only way this pisses people off is not going far enough. I think you would be hard pressed to find any dyed in the wool conservative who wouldn't say it's not at least a small step in the right direction.

And I'm sure that there is NO chance people like you with nothing better to do than advance your causes on the web would be astroturfing on conservative websites either.

memyselfI
05-15-2006, 08:49 PM
The only way this pisses people off is not going far enough. I think you would be hard pressed to find any dyed in the wool conservative who wouldn't say it's not at least a small step in the right direction.

And I'm sure that there is NO chance people like you with nothing better to do than advance your causes on the web would be astroturfing on conservative websites either.

Step in the right direction? ROFL

Most of the Freepers see it for what it is, a PHOTO OP. Bandaid. Pacifier.
Here is a typical response:

http://members.aol.com/tristartel/FR/VASEL.jpg Copied from the FR website. ROFL

Chiefs Express II
05-15-2006, 08:54 PM
QUIT TROLLING IN MY THREADS YOU F***ING RETARD!!!

I asked you very politely not to post in them and I would try to ignore you, but that is obviously beyond your self-control.

*edit* I am of course not directing this at patteeu, who posted simulaneously as I posted this.

Name calling for a post that is so basic is pure stupidity. If you feel that you don't want to read what is written, then by all means stop posting.

Put me on ignore, at least then I can speak my mind. This is still a free country....right? At least until the democrats get back in office.

Donger
05-15-2006, 08:54 PM
Good. I'd rather it were 50,000 but it's a start. Hopefully, their ROE specify two warning shots, then a head shot.

Chiefs Express II
05-15-2006, 08:55 PM
Good. I'd rather it were 50,000 but it's a start. Hopefully, their ROE specify two warning shots, then a head shot.

I'm relatively sure that would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus act.

the Talking Can
05-15-2006, 08:57 PM
Something is better than nothing.



no, not really...6000 people are going to be jerked around every 2 weeks for no purpose...just more stress on the guard...this is nothing but a "please change the subject" move...well, the police state tpes will be thrilled...never underestimate their desire to see the nation militarized..

there is absolutely nothing that is going on at the border that wasn't going on the day Bush was elected....this is red meat for voters, just like we'll hear about gays etc in the coming months...

this reeks of desperation and reaction....

Donger
05-15-2006, 09:00 PM
I'm relatively sure that would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus act.

Protecting our borders is a national security matter, not a law enforcement issue. 9/11 taught us the difference.

And, if the lawyers bitch that it is, change the f*cking law.

jspchief
05-15-2006, 09:05 PM
no, not really...6000 people are going to be jerked around every 2 weeks for no purpose...just more stress on the guard...this is nothing but a "please change the subject" move...well, the police state tpes will be thrilled...never underestimate their desire to see the nation militarized..

there is absolutely nothing that is going on at the border that wasn't going on the day Bush was elected....this is red meat for voters, just like we'll hear about gays etc in the coming months...

this reeks of desperation and reaction....So you don't think the 6k troops will serve any purpose at all down there? I don't have problem with making an immediate attempt to slow illegal immigration while a more permanent solution is in the legislative pipeline. At the very least, maybe it will catch a few drug smugglers and illegals, while giving our troops practice in desert manuevers.

What would you propose?

Adept Havelock
05-15-2006, 09:12 PM
Protecting our borders is a national security matter, not a law enforcement issue. 9/11 taught us the difference.
Were we in a state of war with Mexico, your statement would be correct. We are not.


And, if the lawyers bitch that it is, change the f*cking law.

Sure, toss Posse Commitatus on the ashbin of history. After all, History shows that democracies always thrive when the military is used for law enforcement duties. [/sarcasm]

Chiefs Express II
05-15-2006, 09:13 PM
no, not really...6000 people are going to be jerked around every 2 weeks for no purpose...just more stress on the guard...this is nothing but a "please change the subject" move...well, the police state tpes will be thrilled...never underestimate their desire to see the nation militarized..

there is absolutely nothing that is going on at the border that wasn't going on the day Bush was elected....this is red meat for voters, just like we'll hear about gays etc in the coming months...

this reeks of desperation and reaction....
Which part of the following confuses you?

I, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

(Note that the last line is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection)

The people in the National Guard and Reserve take the same oath as the active duty military. Each and evey one of them are supposed to be ready when called. As long is it is deemed legal it is their duty to report, that is why the Guard and Reserve draw a retainer every month.

Just in case you are unaware, the President is the CinC of the military and can mobilize the reserve and nationalize the Guard at his discretion. In this case I don't know if it is the proper application of reserve forces, but until proven different they report.

Adept Havelock
05-15-2006, 09:14 PM
So you don't think the 6k troops will serve any purpose at all down there? I don't have problem with making an immediate attempt to slow illegal immigration while a more permanent solution is in the legislative pipeline. At the very least, maybe it will catch a few drug smugglers and illegals, while giving our troops practice in desert manuevers.

What would you propose?Actually funding the 10K increase in the Border Patrol that Senselessbrenner and Bush pushed for in FY 05-09 in a rider bill attatched to the National Intelligence Reform Act.

Instead, they passed the bill with great pomp and ceremony in 2004. Then they ignored it. As of now, only 300 or so agents have been provided for by the budgets the President has offered to congress. Had they actually bothered to put their money where there mouth is, we already would have had 4,000 additional trained border agents on the Southern border, and could leave the already stretched National Guard to it's traditional duties.

jspchief
05-15-2006, 09:19 PM
Actually funding the 10K increase in the Border Patrol that Senselessbrenner and Bush pushed for in FY 05-09 in a rider bill attatched to the National Intelligence Reform Act.

Instead, they passed the bill with great pomp and ceremony in 2004. Then they ignored it. As of now, only 300 or so agents have been provided for by the budgets the President has offered to congress.Fair enough. I still think immediate action is a positive thing. Regardless of whether it's red tape, funding, or whatever other reason we haven't put more agents down there, the one thing this does is add a presence on the border.

I can't find a negative with getting quick support to the issue. Everyday we wait for the permanent solution, more illegals will be coming in. Sticking your finger in the hole in the dam may not be the best solution, but at least it slows the water until the engineers get there to do it right.

unlurking
05-15-2006, 09:21 PM
Actually funding the 10K increase in the Border Patrol that Senselessbrenner and Bush pushed for in FY 05-09 in a rider bill attatched to the National Intelligence Reform Act.

Instead, they passed the bill with great pomp and ceremony in 2004. Then they ignored it. As of now, only 300 or so agents have been provided for by the budgets the President has offered to congress. Had they actually bothered to put their money where there mouth is, we already would have had 4,000 additional trained border agents on the Southern border, and could leave the already stretched National Guard to it's traditional duties.
Bingo. This is a nothing but an attempt to sell amnesty to the voters with a "temporary" assginment of the NG who will not actually be involved in the detaining or arrest of illegals.

WoodDraw
05-15-2006, 09:23 PM
I thought it was one of his better speeches as far as delivery goes. There wasn't anything inspiring, but he got across his message while avoided the clichés that often kill his speeches.

I was hoping he'd take a stronger stand against the anti-immigration wing of the Republican party, but this was obviously a speech designed for the base. It could have been better, but it also could have been much worse.

Donger
05-15-2006, 09:26 PM
Were we in a state of war with Mexico, your statement would be correct. We are not.



Sure, toss Posse Commitatus on the ashbin of history. After all, History shows that democracies always thrive when the military is used for law enforcement duties. [/sarcasm]

We are at war with radicial Islamists, and they don't follow immigration laws.

jAZ
05-15-2006, 09:41 PM
Something is better than nothing.

On the face, I approve.
I've always tended to agree with Bush on immigration. I didn't hear anything tonight that would change my opinion. I think this is a good thing to do and a long, long, long time over due.

Also, I'll say again that I credit the Minutemen with putting this topic on the national media stage. I didn't agree with their approach in the beginning, but the seem to have conducted themselves respectfully and in the process conducted a real grass-roots campaign to change the national dialogue. I will always respect that. Kudos to them.

dirk digler
05-15-2006, 09:48 PM
This is just a band-aid and an attempt to get amnesty passed.

If he was serious about securing the border he would send 20,000 troops to protect it.

Adept Havelock
05-15-2006, 09:50 PM
We are at war with radicial Islamists, and they don't follow immigration laws.

I was told we were fighting them over there so we didn't have to fight them here. Didn't you get the memo? It was attached to the one about the new cover sheets for the TPS reports.

Again, we speak of militarizing the borders, and throwing away a tradition of open borders that is as old as this nation.

A tradition bequeathed by our founders that survived through foreign invasion of US soil, a grave war between elements of this nation, two outright world wars, and third played in the shadows and in the third world.

Of course we are at war with some radical Islamists. And IIRC, every single one of the 9/11 Hijackers entered the country legally. You should amend your statement to read "some radical Islamists don't follow immigration laws", anymore than they follow the laws of human decency, IMO.

I simply find the notion of allowing the use of the military to perform law enforcement duties extremely disquieting. Can you provide even 5 historical examples anywhere in the world where using the military to carry out a law enforcement role proved to be a good idea in the long term?

This is a photo-op, to try to reinflate an abysmal approval rating. From what I've read from the shrill folks at LGF and Freeperland, it's having the exactly opposite affect with the "base".

Donger
05-15-2006, 09:54 PM
I was told we were fighting them over there so we didn't have to fight them here. Didn't you get the memo? It was attached to the one about the new cover sheets for the TPS reports.

Again, we speak of militarizing the borders, and throwing away a tradition of open borders that is as old as this nation.

A tradition bequeathed by our founders that survived through foreign invasion of US soil, a grave war between elements of this nation, two outright world wars, and third played in the shadows and in the third world.

Of course we are at war with some radical Islamists. And IIRC, every single one of the 9/11 Hijackers entered the country legally. You should amend your statement to read "some radical Islamists don't follow immigration laws", anymore than they follow the laws of human decency, IMO.

I simply find the notion of allowing the use of the military to perform law enforcement duties extremely disquieting. Can you provide even 5 historical examples anywhere in the world where using the military to carry out a law enforcement role proved to be a good idea in the long term?

This is a photo-op, to try to reinflate an abysmal approval rating. From what I've read from the shrill folks at LGF and Freeperland, it's having the exactly opposite affect with the "base".


IIRC, legally entered and then overstayed their visas.

Regardless, I'd be fine with armed UAVs rather than troops anyway.

jspchief
05-15-2006, 09:56 PM
This is just a band-aid and an attempt to get amnesty passed.

If he was serious about securing the border he would send 20,000 troops to protect it.I can't tell if this post is sarcastic or serious. What makes 20k the magic number?

And you may be right about it being a band aid, but slowing even a little bit of bleeding is positive in my opinion.

How that equates to an attempt to pass amnesty is beyond me though.

You guys don't honestly believe we're going to be able to punish and deport every illegal do you?

Donger
05-15-2006, 10:02 PM
You guys don't honestly believe we're going to be able to punish and deport every illegal do you?

As much as it's personally revolting to me, I think we'll end up with some kind of amnesty, thanks to so many years of not securing our borders. I think it will interesting to see how many of these crinimals actually do 'sign up' for whatever program the government creates, because I'm of the opinion that most of these criminals have ZERO interest in becoming Amercians at all; they just want the benefits without signing up.

dirk digler
05-15-2006, 10:04 PM
I can't tell if this post is sarcastic or serious. What makes 20k the magic number?

And you may be right about it being a band aid, but slowing even a little bit of bleeding is positive in my opinion.

How that equates to an attempt to pass amnesty is beyond me though.

You guys don't honestly believe we're going to be able to punish and deport every illegal do you?

I was serious. Bush is trying to please everyone and minus the National Guard he added tonight his plan is the same plan he has been trying to push for the last 5 years. He added the National Guard to attempt to please his base which I think has failed.

Several military "experts" said tonight that they would need somewhere between 18,000 - 20,000 troops to effectively control the border.

I agree with several of the House Republicans who said tonight that securing the border is the #1 priority and once who get that under control then we worry about the 11 million illegals here. From what they said they are not going to pass this bill or compromise and I agree with them.

WoodDraw
05-15-2006, 10:06 PM
IIRC, legally entered and then overstayed their visas.

Regardless, I'd be fine with armed UAVs rather than troops anyway.

Armed UAVs? WTF are you going to do with armed UAVs? Bomb the families trying to cross the border to work? I don't want to turn our southern border into Afghanistan to appease a group of Americans who can't get over their irrational fear of immigration.

Putting troops on the border was a gift to the Republican base. Bush was against it and then suddely changed course as his support fell among conservatives. It's in there to convince Congress to give Bush what he really wants - a temporary worker program. Now I wish he would have come out and said that, but I also enjoy seeing Bush lose conservative support.

Donger
05-15-2006, 10:11 PM
Armed UAVs? WTF are you going to do with armed UAVs?

Kill criminals trying to enter our country illegally, after a few warning shots.

Bomb the families trying to cross the border to work?

Oh, that's beautiful. They wouldn't get shot if they immigrated legally, now would they?

I don't want to turn our Southern border into Afghanistan in order to appease a group of Americans who can't get over their irrational fear of immigration.

I've no fear of legal immigration. Please note the word 'legal.'

WoodDraw
05-15-2006, 10:26 PM
I've no fear of legal immigration. Please note the word 'legal.'

I've never understood the Republican obsession with illegal immigration. To me, it's always been an issue that would fit in much better with the far left. A new populism minus the respect for workers.

We all want legal immigration, but it's complex. You can fault the people for breaking the law but it’s a money thing. They need food, water, and shelter and we have it just a few miles away. Our immigration laws are complex and slow. They can wait years to legally to work in a field for minimum wage, or they can go now. They can live in poverty for years hoping to get permission to immigrate, or they can go work towards a better life now. I find that hard not to sympathize with. Calling them criminals and calling for their execution does not appeal to me. By all means fix the problem; just do it in a way that recognizes that these are people who aren't in great situations and don't have easy choices. Please?

Donger
05-15-2006, 10:32 PM
I've never understood the Republican obsession with illegal immigration. To me, it's always been an issue that would fit in much better with the far left. A new populism minus the respect for workers.

We all want legal immigration, but it's complex. You can fault the people for breaking the law but it’s a money thing. They need food, water, and shelter and we have it just a few miles away. Our immigration laws are complex and slow. They can wait years to legally to work in a field for minimum wage, or they can go now. They can live in poverty for years hoping to get permission to immigrate, or they can go work towards a better life now. I find that hard not to sympathize with. Calling them criminals and calling for their execution does not appeal to me. By all means fix the problem; just do it in a way that recognizes that these are people who aren't in great situations and don't have easy choices. Please?

You're speaking to a legal immigrant, so perhaps you'd find a better chat elsewhere.

WoodDraw
05-15-2006, 10:34 PM
You're speaking to a legal immigrant, so perhaps you'd find a better chat elsewhere.

I was enjoying this chat but if you don't feel like responding that's fine. I'd like to hear about your immigration process if you are willing to share.

Donger
05-15-2006, 10:38 PM
I was enjoying this chat but if you don't feel like responding that's fine. I'd like to hear about your immigration process if you are willing to share.

It was a long and hard and unpleasant process, but the end justified the means, IMO. Would you expect anything else from our government? memories.

That's no excuse to circumvent it.

But, if and when amnesty comes, it's a HUGE smack in the face of every legal immigrant in this country. And, we vote and have exceedingly long

WoodDraw
05-15-2006, 10:54 PM
It was a long and hard and unpleasant process, but the end justified the means, IMO. Would you expect anything else from our government? memories.

That's no excuse to circumvent it.

But, if and when amnesty comes, it's a HUGE smack in the face of every legal immigrant in this country. And, we vote and have exceedingly long

Your logic seems, well, illogical to me. The process sucked for you so everyone else should have to go through the same hell? The influx of illegal immigration tells us one thing: our current immigration laws aren't working. They don't allow the immigration demand to be met legally, but allow it illegally. So there are two solutions: 1) change the laws so illegal immigration is no longer necessary, or 2) enforce the current laws so illegal immigration is no longer possible.

To me, number one clearly is the most reasonable solution for all sides.

Donger
05-15-2006, 11:00 PM
Your logic seems, well, illogical to me. The process sucked for you so everyone else should have to go through the same hell? The influx of illegal immigration tells us one thing: our current immigration laws aren't working. They don't allow the immigration demand to be met legally, but allow it illegally. So there are two solutions: 1) change the laws so illegal immigration is no longer necessary, or 2) enforce the current laws so illegal immigration is no longer possible.

To me, number one clearly is the most reasonable solution for all sides.

No. Everyone should have to obey the laws of the country they claim to want to join, regardless of how shitty the process.

Logical
05-15-2006, 11:26 PM
Assuming they are going to be limited to 48 hours guard duty you divide the 6000 by 3.5 for about 1071 or about 2 miles to cover each. I suppose it might improve things but I doubt it can be all that effective.

go bowe
05-15-2006, 11:35 PM
two miles?

is that all?

with sensors, they could set up stations every 4 or 5 miles with 2 guys in each one...

but in any event, it's going to take a lot more than 6,000...

and i'm troubled by the implications to the posse comitatus act...

patteeu
05-16-2006, 06:20 AM
I was told we were fighting them over there so we didn't have to fight them here. Didn't you get the memo? It was attached to the one about the new cover sheets for the TPS reports.

I know this is TIC, but IMO we need to fight them over there AND at the border so that we don't have to fight them (as much) inside our country. We can never get to the point where we would be able to completely ignore the domestic fight because it's too easy to gain legal access to our country to insure that bad guys don't get in, but if we have strictly regulated borders, we can at least have a chance of stopping them at the border (because at least with legal entrants we can screen them).

mlyonsd
05-16-2006, 07:20 AM
This is asinine. It's like standing outside trying to catch rain with a shot glass.

1. Give all illegals 6 months to stand up and identify themselves by getting finger printed.
2. At that time cut off all medical service to anyone that can't produce identification. I'd still support emergency care, but not anything else.
3. Pass a law that in 7 months any company/person found employing an undocumented worker will be fined 1/2 their income reported in the previous year.

Illegal immigration isn't going to be corrected as long as the grass looks greener on this side of the Rio Grande.

beer bacon
05-16-2006, 07:59 AM
If Bush was really concerned about those damned illegals he would pull out of Iraq and occupy the border states.

beer bacon
05-16-2006, 08:04 AM
Kill criminals trying to enter our country illegally, after a few warning shots.


I think we should also cut off the source and execute those traitors that hire illegals as well. To think, fattening their own wallets at the expense of our fair homeland! Disgusting!

unlurking
05-16-2006, 09:10 AM
Your logic seems, well, illogical to me. The process sucked for you so everyone else should have to go through the same hell? The influx of illegal immigration tells us one thing: our current immigration laws aren't working. They don't allow the immigration demand to be met legally, but allow it illegally. So there are two solutions: 1) change the laws so illegal immigration is no longer necessary, or 2) enforce the current laws so illegal immigration is no longer possible.

To me, number one clearly is the most reasonable solution for all sides.
What you consider illogical, I have heard many times. I listen to talk radio a lot (3 round trip drive to work), and immigration has been a huge topic there. 90+% of all interviewed legal immigrants share the same view Donger has. I think a lot of that is due to how hard they had to work to earn that immigration, and how when they receive it, all that hard work makes it that much more special. It's a common understanding that you always appreciate the things you work hardest for. Sadly, I've met several legal immigrants that take much more pride and appreciation in this nation than those born here. To them, supporting this nation is a duty they cherish.

Illegal immigrants being granted amnesty is a slap in the face to those who worked so hard to come here legally. At the same time, as can be seen by all the Mexican flags at rallies of people claiming they are "due" the opportunities of the American way of life, illegal immigrants being granted amnesty will have little patriotic feeling for this country. To me, legal immigrants should honored for working so hard to achieve what we take for granted. Those screaming "me, me, me" and taking what they want should be looked down upon as selfish cheaters.

patteeu
05-16-2006, 09:53 AM
I think we should also cut off the source and execute those traitors that hire illegals as well. To think, fattening their own wallets at the expense of our fair homeland! Disgusting!

:rolleyes: Maybe we should execute all the traitors who eat cheap vegetables and live in cheap housing too. That should take care of the problem.

beer bacon
05-16-2006, 10:02 AM
:rolleyes: Maybe we should execute all the traitors who eat cheap vegetables and live in cheap housing too. That should take care of the problem.

Give them a warning shot, and THEN kill them.

memyselfI
05-16-2006, 10:51 AM
I've never understood the Republican obsession with illegal immigration. To me, it's always been an issue that would fit in much better with the far left. A new populism minus the respect for workers.



In this case, it's all about political expediency. They need not only to divert attention and resources from the debacle in Iraq but also the continuing investigations and scandals surrounding their administration. The whole gay marriage issue doesn't encompass the cultural, national, racial, and socio-economic spectrum that immigration does. Their base needs SOMETHING to get them to start towing the line again....

Iowanian
05-16-2006, 11:19 AM
What a half-a**ed waste of taxpayer$.


Oh....You mean like housing,feeding, educating, incarcerating, and providing tax payer funded healthcare for illegal immigrants?

Cochise
05-16-2006, 11:34 AM
Oh....You mean like housing,feeding, educating, incarcerating, and providing tax payer funded healthcare for illegal immigrants?

No kidding we could probably cut them all a check for $20,000 when we send them back and still come out ahead for having kept them out of the country.

jAZ
05-16-2006, 11:36 AM
Oh....You mean like housing,feeding, educating, incarcerating, and providing tax payer funded healthcare for illegal immigrants?
I take it by the half-assed comment that he'd prefer more troops and believes that 6000 is merely an ineffective gesture and a waste of time.

Not sure I agree, but I don't think his point is to let'em in for free.

banyon
05-16-2006, 12:02 PM
Oh....You mean like housing,feeding, educating, incarcerating, and providing tax payer funded healthcare for illegal immigrants?

You're assuming my stance on immigration is the liberal position.

It is not. I'd like the laws enforced.

I'd like the House bill if they just got rid of the retarded broad provision about making assitance to illegals a felony.

Duck Dog
05-16-2006, 12:21 PM
We (JTF 6, which I was a part of) were working with DEA and BP agents back in the late 80's and early 90's, watching the border and reporting crossers and runners.


I suppose having another 6K sets of eyes watching known routes and looking for new ones is a good idea.

Inspector
05-16-2006, 01:03 PM
We all want legal immigration, but it's complex. You can fault the people for breaking the law but it’s a money thing. They need food, water, and shelter.....

This is what a bank robber or drug dealer should say.

You can fault him for breaking the law but it's a money thing. He needs food, water, and shelter.....

ROFL ROFL

go bowe
05-16-2006, 01:46 PM
This is asinine. It's like standing outside trying to catch rain with a shot glass.

1. Give all illegals 6 months to stand up and identify themselves by getting finger printed.
2. At that time cut off all medical service to anyone that can't produce identification. I'd still support emergency care, but not anything else.
3. Pass a law that in 7 months any company/person found employing an undocumented worker will be fined 1/2 their income reported in the previous year.

Illegal immigration isn't going to be corrected as long as the grass looks greener on this side of the Rio Grande.it is asinine...

sending national guard troops, not trained for this sort of thing, for a period of two weeks before rotating in a whole new batch is a total waste of time and nothing more than a political stunt, imo...

regarding your points, what would you do to those illegals who don't stand up? deport them like we do now? (like that's been really successful)

can we cut off any assistance which is available to other residents of the u.s. without violating the due process and/or equal protection embodied in the constitution and in the legal tradition of our governmetn? that might be a problem whith what is otherwise a good idea, imo...

passing a law punishing employers might help a little, but most illegals that i know can obtain fake documentation (or borrow someone else's id) to show the employer, what do you do then? hold the employer liable for not somehow magically discerning that the documents do not belong to the employee?

we already have a law against employing illegals, but it doesn't seem any more effective than deportation has been in terms of limiting the number of illegals...

and it's not because of the size of the fine, imo...

Cochise
05-16-2006, 01:52 PM
How about we dress up that border like the 38th DMZ, or Berlin complete with the dead zone, and solve this once and for all.

go bowe
05-16-2006, 02:02 PM
Oh....You mean like housing,feeding, educating, incarcerating, and providing tax payer funded healthcare for illegal immigrants?there's no question that there has been and will continue to be a huge drain of funds for those purposes, but we really can't deny otherwise available assistance without violating the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment:Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. any person, not any citizen or any legal immigrant, or whatever...

that's the rub, and that's why the obvious and most likely effective solutions would violate the constitution...

wishing for better enforcement ("closing the border" and deportations by the millions) won't work and limiting benefits appears to be unconstitutional, so the alterrnative has to be considered by congress...

and that alternative is liberalizing the immigration policies of the u.s. government in one way or another, so that most illegals will enter the economy and pay taxes to help defray the costs of providing various forms of assistance and education and the like...

Sully
05-16-2006, 02:34 PM
I'm curious why there is so much venom toward those immigrating, but only a small percentage of that directed at those hiring them, even though without those jobs, there would be no reason for illegals to come here illegally.

BucEyedPea
05-16-2006, 09:20 PM
Sure, toss Posse Commitatus on the ashbin of history. After all, History shows that democracies always thrive when the military is used for law enforcement duties. [/sarcasm]
Speaking of Posse Commitatus, and not with sarcasm, did you know that Bush Administration had suspending that during Katrina on the table...as well as federalizing the National Guard? Former Congressman Bob Barr went around doing talks on this. I listened to a tape on the internet with him on it.

unlurking
05-16-2006, 09:41 PM
I'm curious why there is so much venom toward those immigrating, but only a small percentage of that directed at those hiring them, even though without those jobs, there would be no reason for illegals to come here illegally.
Personally, I think that is the only way to stop the illegal immigrant workers, and am behind massive criminal consequences. Unfortunately we will NEVER see that happen with either party. It really is sad.

At the same time, the border should be controlled for security purposes. The 6k NG addition is a joke though. The only thing that is happening is Bush trying to sell amnesty.

Rausch
05-17-2006, 07:46 AM
PR move, and that's about it.

When I think about how I donated time to elect this man I want to pluck sea urchins directly from the water and eat them whole...