Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: IMMIGRATION - News articles merged here
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Immigration
Pages: 1, 2
Indianhead
I can't wait...CNN has set up a blockbuster!

Bush is setting up a photo-op two-step in an
effort to pull his spiraling presidential plane
out of the current tailspin. Prime Time tonight.

CNN has Lou Dobbs sitting at a desk taking notes,
ready for the camera as soon as George W is done.

Let's see...whom is more intelligent...whom is considered
more trusted...more connected to the pulse of America...
I bet George didn't see this one coming...Karl must be
busy with something else. bigsmile.gif

Have you ever watched a pro filet a fish? tongue.gif
Arneoker
He's going to temporarily reinforce the border with the National Guard. That is certain to solve our immigration problems forever! Once the border is reinforced, I guess it will just keep out those illegals by itself.
tomhye
What's going to be most fun about it is watching Dobbs give his reactions when he hasn't had time to calm down about all the beef byproducts the administration is spouting.
Indianhead
"I want you guys to smile nicely...that's good.
Now for the second and last order...when ya
seem illegals coming in I want ya to wave...like this."


D103486
QUOTE(Arneoker @ May 15 2006, 12:57 PM)
He's going to temporarily reinforce the border with the National Guard.
Temporary being the operative word, here. I heard on the news today that when Vincente Fox called Bush and expressed his concerns about military on our borders, Bush assured him it was a temporary measure. In other words, just long enough to trick the public into thinking he's actually doing something about illegal immigration (before the election).
Indianhead
One of the trick bags GW is going to have
to deal with tonight is the expectation he'll
use only about 5,000-7,500 NG troops
so troop strength "won't be strained".
That leaves the flip-side: what can that few do?

Then there is the temporary nature. That begs
the question must they be replaced before they rotate?
Then that begs...whom are their replacements to be
and what's the cost?

Then there's the big gorilla in the room...will the border
be secured prior to any amnesty approval? Or must
The House bow down to Bush and accept "Guest Worker"?

There lies the rub...there ain't no way in Hell GW
answers all the questions...at least not completely.

And, finally, do citizens realize minorities make up more
than 50% of the population under five years old? That
means that in 13-15 years we'll probably have a new
voting majority...if amnesty is approved. That's okay too,
but the larger percentage of folks who have less, the
more the schizm between haves and have nots.
I don't think Republicans have thought this far...
sometimes I wonder if they think at all.
tomhye
QUOTE(Indianhead @ May 15 2006, 12:09 PM)
"I want you guys to smile nicely...that's good.
Now for the second and last order...when ya
seem illegals coming in I want ya to wave...like this."



*


I thought he was saying "I see THIS many of you!"
D103486
QUOTE(tomhye @ May 15 2006, 03:01 PM)
I thought he was saying "I see THIS many of you!"
roflmbo.gif

Or .. "I can count this high!" w00t.gif
Indianhead
or maybe...

"Repeat after me: I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the NAFTA States of America"
tomhye
Cheney moves his hand like this to open my mouth wide.
vet65/69
let a military draft start and see how many stay, might be a mass exodus
Indianhead
Okay...Bush was talking about 6,000 Guardsmen
going to the border in support duties for two week rotations.

More border patrolmen by "late 2008" - after the
presidential election - surprise, surprise.

So, I guess it gets down to:

Do you believe he will do anything major?

Y'all know my answer. He ain't gonna do sh*t - except
demand a guest worker program and send a few thousand
NGs down for their summer, two-week training. Total B.S.

And, saying you can't punish illegal employers unless
you put in place a magic card program? How long and how
much is that? God only knows.
tomhye
Don't worry, Wolfowitz will figure out how to fund it!

QUOTE(Indianhead @ May 15 2006, 05:43 PM)
Okay...Bush was talking about 6,000 Guardsmen
going to the border in support duties for two week rotations.

More border patrolmen by "late 2008" - after the
presidential election - surprise, surprise.

So, I guess it gets down to:

Do you believe he will do anything major?

Y'all know my answer. He ain't gonna do sh*t - except
demand a guest worker program and send a few thousand
NGs down for their summer, two-week training. Total B.S.

And, saying you can't punish illegal employers unless
you put in place a magic card program? How long and how
much is that? God only knows.
*
Indianhead
(on CNN) Texas border sheriff says speech was ambiguous..
Wants details, says we have people that want to
help stop illegal immigration, but without any funds.
He said he wants to know what Bush meant by funds
for local law enforcement.
Apparently no one in D.C. thought to ask him how much, or what sort of help he needs.
tomhye
QUOTE(Indianhead @ May 15 2006, 05:49 PM)
(on CNN) Texas border sheriff says speech was ambiguous..
Wants details, says we have people that want to
help stop illegal immigration, but without any funds.
He said he wants to know what Bush meant by funds
for local law enforcement.
Apparently no one in D.C. thought to ask him how much, or what sort of help he needs.
*



Of course not, central planning is more efficient, that why we're using it in Iraq!
Indianhead
Larry King just got an intro for his following program
- he's on the border with Tijuana - and believe it or not no illegals
were sneaking over. Let's keep Larry King on the border!
Enforcement improves immediately!

Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Arizona:

"In Arizona 6,000 illegals attempt to cross the border daily...
I believe first last, always enforcement is the key component...
the rest can be put before the American people."

"I respectfully disagree with the notion that
the only way to support this is to include reform (amnesty)."

"Any talk of a guest worker plan is concidered South
of the border and otherwise as amnesty."
Indianhead
Let me say this now -

If our local Republican Representative
says publically - that enforcement is first and alone -
before any "comprehensive reform" - I will not rule out
a vote for him. For me that's a strong statement.

For instance, I think Senator Jeff Sessons, R-Alabama,
has grown two feet taller during the debate.
Dyan
Did I hear this correctly? The Guard won't have the authority to arrest, detain or deport people crossing the border illegally? What are they supposed to do? Shoot some of Zell Miller's spitballs in the direction of Mexico?????
Indianhead
Man, no one on Larry King liked the speech.

The Mexcian female TV commentator says Bush is
talking out of both sides of his mouth. Most blame
President Fox for not doing anything.

I've come to one major conclusion:

Bush's folks are no good talking about complex issues.
They only score when it's "gay marraige", "right to life",
"purple heart bandaids" and other elementary sloganeering.
If they've got no one to hate - they are clueless.

Everybody wanted more details, or their issues addressed better.
He got into that trick bag, like I said. Better to shutup GW...you
screwed up again.

Larry King:

"This entire panel seems to be disappointed in this speech."
Indianhead
QUOTE(Dyan @ May 15 2006, 08:10 PM)
Did I hear this correctly?  The Guard won't have the authority to arrest, detain or deport people crossing the border illegally?    What are they supposed to do?    Shoot some of Zell Miller's spitballs in the direction of Mexico?????
*


10-4
And, for two weeks before they go home and another
unit comes in to learn what's happening. Amazing.
Indianhead
Another point made:

Bush's leadership in the Senate asks for $1.9 billion
to do this "plan". As even Wolf Blitzer said "We spend that
much in two weeks in Iraq." Bam.
tomhye
Yet another 5 year plan with completely centralized control and not enough resources. Think he'll appoint a commisar?
Indianhead
Larry King found someone who liked the speech!

The head of the U.S. Border Patrol...
who works for George W. Bush!

Surprise, surprise!

He also mentioned "our five-year plan". Wonderful.
USA#1
Well --- This is my thoughts.

The Guard gets paid lower than $10/Hr (avg.) 1.5 times wage in hazardous pay duty ... when they come back from Iraq ... they'll have to work harder than any American that can be hired at good WAGES. The national Guard is used in an Emergency Situation ... So They'll Make CRAP !!!

Don't the Guard have real jobs & FAMILIES to get back to, Well Don't they???

This IS BS.

Use the Active Military, they get paid more and they are more prepared. Weekend warriors were not supposed to be used in Iraq (although they were), but they need to go home to their families.

I think this is BS.

beach.gif
USA#1
That's right ... I went bankrupt, got a divorce and now have nothing ... except I'm a National Guard. Woopeee !!! mad.gif

beach.gif
TheRestofUs
Enforce the wage and benefit laws. Everything else will follow.
USA#1
Yeah --- that's right I left a $45,000 Job to defend our Country ... But my average pay is $26,000.

I lost my wife ... I've been so far away (and she has needs) ... I lost my house, I had a fat mortgage, which I sure as SH^% can't pay on Guard's Salary, and now I'll file Bankruptcy ... well CRAP while I was gone the Fat Cats ... passed new bank laws and I'm SCREWED !!!

I LOVE AMERICA !!!

... Kiss My Ass !!!

beach.gif
JasonATexan
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGOKB837T1.DTL

Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents
President uses law's escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force

Michael Hedges, Houston Chronicle

Wednesday, February 9, 2005

Washington -- 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.

The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said.

Retired Adm. James Loy, acting head of the Department of Homeland Security until nominee Michael Chertoff takes over, said funding only 210 new agents was a "recognition that we need to balance those things as we go on down the road with other priorities."

The White House referred questions about the border agents to the Homeland Security Department.

The law signed by Bush had a caveat that went virtually unreported at the time. A summary, published by the Senate Government Affairs Committee, required the government to increase the number of border patrol agents by at least 2,000 per year, "subject to available appropriations."

Democrats were unhappy that the proposed budget used the escape clause so soon after the president approved the huge boost in border agents.

"We know we must do more to shore up security along our borders," said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, top Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. "The president's budget does not even attempt to meet this challenge."

Some Republicans also were displeased.

"This is an area of homeland security that needs to be ramped up in order to increase surveillance and patrols of our nation's vast and often remote borders," said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

A Jan. 24 letter signed by leading Republican lawmakers implored the president to fully fund the new law "in order to secure our borders against infiltration by terrorists."

The lead signer was Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a leader of GOP efforts to toughen immigration laws and anti-terrorism statutes.
USA#1
What was Lou's take on the speech?

That's what I want to know ... I put him on a pedestal ... he's an authority on the subject in my view.

beach.gif
USA#1
QUOTE(JasonATexan @ May 15 2006, 11:09 PM)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGOKB837T1.DTL

Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents
President uses law's escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force

Michael Hedges, Houston Chronicle

Wednesday, February 9, 2005

Washington -- 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.

The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said.

Retired Adm. James Loy, acting head of the Department of Homeland Security until nominee Michael Chertoff takes over, said funding only 210 new agents was a "recognition that we need to balance those things as we go on down the road with other priorities."

The White House referred questions about the border agents to the Homeland Security Department.

The law signed by Bush had a caveat that went virtually unreported at the time. A summary, published by the Senate Government Affairs Committee, required the government to increase the number of border patrol agents by at least 2,000 per year, "subject to available appropriations."

Democrats were unhappy that the proposed budget used the escape clause so soon after the president approved the huge boost in border agents.

"We know we must do more to shore up security along our borders," said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, top Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. "The president's budget does not even attempt to meet this challenge."

Some Republicans also were displeased.

"This is an area of homeland security that needs to be ramped up in order to increase surveillance and patrols of our nation's vast and often remote borders," said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

A Jan. 24 letter signed by leading Republican lawmakers implored the president to fully fund the new law "in order to secure our borders against infiltration by terrorists."

The lead signer was Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a leader of GOP efforts to toughen immigration laws and anti-terrorism statutes.
*



The Repiglicant's implored him to fully fund the new law ... Fully Fund ... HA Ha HA HA!

Bush is catering to his eliteista ... the Argi-Businessia --- that rapes the mexicanista ...

On AAR I heard about this Roofer/Co. who hired illegals to work for him, when payroll came around the Owner would call INS and have them picked up ... thus keeping all the cash profits for himself ... guess where TEXAS !!!

Ha ha ha ... I guess I fooled you! Enforce the laws on the Employers ... that's really the ONLY WAY !!

Typical Texas rates last in healthcare, education ... the list goes on and on.

Corporatism ... Pure and Simple !!

mad.gif

beach.gif
Snuffysmith
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/washingt..._r=1&oref=login

Transcript
Bush's Speech on Immigration


Published: May 15, 2006
The following is the text of a speech by President George W. Bush on the subject of illegal immigration, as recorded by The New York Times:


"We do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that," the president said.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH. Good evening. I’ve asked for a few minutes of your time to discuss a matter of national importance: the reform of America’s immigration system.

The issue of immigration stirs intense emotions and in recent weeks, Americans have seen those emotions on display. On the streets of major cities, crowds have rallied in support of those in our country illegally. At our southern border, others have organized to stop illegal immigrants from coming in. Across the country, Americans are trying to reconcile these contrasting images. And in Washington, the debate over immigration reform has reached a time of decision. Tonight, I will make it clear where I stand, and where I want to lead our country on this vital issue.

We must begin by recognizing the problems with our immigration system. For decades, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders. As a result, many who want to work in our economy have been able to sneak across our border and millions have stayed.

Once here, illegal immigrants live in the shadows of our society. Many use forged documents to get jobs, and that makes it difficult for employers to verify that the workers they hire are legal. Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, ... it strains state and local budgets ... and brings crime to our communities. These are real problems, yet we must remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law.

We are a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We’re also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals. America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time. We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system that is secure, orderly, and fair. So I support comprehensive immigration reform that will accomplish five clear objectives.

First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security. Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration, and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists.

I was the governor of a state that has a twelve-hundred1,200- mile border with Mexico. So I know how difficult it is to enforce the border, and how important it is. Since I became president, we’ve have increased funding for border security by 66 percent, and expanded the Border Patrol from about 9,000 to 12,000 agents. The men and women of our Border Patrol are doing a fine job in difficult circumstances and over the past five years, they have apprehended and sent home about six million people entering America illegally.

Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I’m calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we will increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we will have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my Presidency.

At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We will employ motion sensors, … infrared cameras… and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings. America has the best technology in the world and we will ensure that the Border Patrol has the technology they need to do their job and secure our border.

Training thousands of new Border Patrol agents and bringing the most advanced technology to the border will take time. Yet the need to secure our border is urgent. So I’m am announcing several immediate steps to strengthen border enforcement during this period of transition:

One way to help during this transition is to use the National Guard. So in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems, … analyzing intelligence, … installing fences and vehicle barriers, … building patrol roads … and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities. That duty will be done by the Border Patrol. This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year. After that, the number of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online. It is important for Americans to know that we have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, to respond to natural disasters, and help secure our border.

The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, ... to confront common problems like drug trafficking and crime, ... and to reduce illegal immigration.

Another way to help during this period of transition is through state and local law enforcement in our border communities. So we will increase federal funding for state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions. And we will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain illegal immigrants. State and local law enforcement officials are an important part of our border security resource and they need to be are part of our strategy to secure our borders communities.

The steps I have outlined will improve our ability to catch people entering our country illegally. At the same time, we must ensure that every illegal immigrant we catch crossing our southern border is returned home. More than 85 percent of the illegal immigrants we catch crossing the southern border are Mexicans, and most are sent back home within 24 hours. But when we catch illegal immigrants from other countries, it is not as easy to send them back home. For many years, the government did not have enough space in our detention facilities to hold them while the legal process unfolded. So most were released back into our society and asked to return for a court date. When the date arrived, the vast majority did not show up. This practice, called “catch and release,” is unacceptable and we will end it.

We’re taking several important steps to meet this goal. We’ve have expanded the number of beds in our detention facilities, and we will continue to add more. We’ve have expedited the legal process to cut the average deportation time. And we are making it clear to foreign governments that they must accept back their citizens who violate our immigration laws. As a result of these actions, we’ve have ended “catch and release” for illegal immigrants from some countries. And I will ask Congress for additional funding and legal authority, so we can end “catch and release” at the southern border once and for all. When people know that they’ll will be caught and sent home if they enter our country illegally, they will be less likely to try to sneak in.

Second, to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program. The reality is that there are many people on the other side of our border who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. They walk across miles of desert in the summer heat, or hide in the back of 18-wheelers to reach our country. This creates enormous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone will not stop. To secure the border effectively, we must reduce the numbers of people trying to sneak across.

Therefore, I support a temporary worker program that would create a legal path for foreign workers to enter our country in an orderly way, for a limited period of time. This program would match willing foreign workers with willing American employers for jobs Americans are not doing. Every worker who applies for the program would be required to pass criminal background checks. And temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay. A temporary worker program would meet the needs of our economy, and it would give honest immigrants a way to provide for their families while respecting the law. A temporary worker program would reduce the appeal of human smugglers and make it less likely that people would risk their lives to cross the border. It would ease the financial burden on state and local governments, by replacing illegal workers with lawful taxpayers. And above all, a temporary worker program would add to our security by making certain we know who is in our country and why they are here.

Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire. It is against the law to hire someone who is in this country illegally. Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud. Therefore, comprehensive immigration reform must include a better system for verifying documents and work eligibility. A key part of that system should be a new identification card for every legal foreign worker. This card should use biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamper-proof. A tamper-proof card would help us enforce the law and leave employers with no excuse for violating it. And by making it harder for illegal immigrants to find work in our country, we would discourage people from crossing the border illegally in the first place. Fourth, we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here already. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration.

Some in this country argue that the solution is to — is to deport every illegal immigrant and that any proposal short of this amounts to amnesty. I disagree. 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. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation. That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, … to pay their taxes, … to learn English … and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I’ve have just described is not amnesty 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.

Fifth, we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America. English allows newcomers to go from picking crops to opening a grocery, … from cleaning offices to running offices, … from a life of low-paying jobs to a diploma, a career, and a home of their own. When immigrants assimilate and advance in our society, they realize their dreams, ... they renew our spirit ... and they add to the unity of America.

Tonight, 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. The House has passed an immigration bill. The Senate should act by the end of this month so we can work out the differences between the two bills, and Congress can pass a comprehensive bill for me to sign into law.

America needs to conduct this debate on immigration in a reasoned and respectful tone. Feelings run deep on this issue and as we work it out, all of us need to keep some things in mind. We cannot build a unified country by inciting people to anger, or playing on anyone’s fears, or exploiting the issue of immigration for political gain. We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say. I know many of you listening tonight have a parent or a grandparent who came here from another country with dreams of a better life. You know what freedom meant to them, and you know that America is a more hopeful country because of their hard work and sacrifice. As president, I’ve have had the opportunity to meet people of many backgrounds, and hear what America means to them. On a visit to Bethesda Naval Hospital, Laura and I met a wounded Marine named Guadalupe Denogean. Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean came to the United States from Mexico when he was a boy. He spent his summers picking crops with his family, and then he volunteered for the United States Marine Corps as soon as he was able. During the liberation of Iraq, Master Gunnery — Master Gunnery Sergeant Denogean was seriously injured. And when asked if he had any requests, he made two: a promotion for the corporal who helped rescue him … and the chance to become an American citizen. And when this brave Marine raised his right hand, and swore an oath to become a citizen of the country he had defended for more than 26 years, I was honored to stand at his side.

We will always be proud to welcome people like Guadalupe Denogean as fellow Americans. Our new immigrants are just what they’ve have always been: people willing to risk everything for the dream of freedom. And America remains what she has always been: the great hope on the horizon, … an open door to the future, … a blessed and promised land. We honor the heritage of all who come here, no matter where they are from, because we trust in our country’s genius for making us all Americans, one nation under God. Thank you, and good night.
david sobien
With 2 weeks at the border the gardsmen will have time enough to learn where the bathroom and coffee pot are and then leave. That will really help a lot.
USA#1
QUOTE(david sobien @ May 15 2006, 11:26 PM)
With 2 weeks at the border the gardsmen will have time enough to learn where the bathroom and coffee pot are and then leave. That will really help a lot.
*



And get a wage that comes out of that part of their body too!!!

You ever see NG wages ... ??? Non hazardous duty ... pathetic !!!

anger.gif


beach.gif
Beamer
By beefing up the borders, Bush is trying to make an immigration reform bill palatable to Members of Congress so that it can pass. Why Reid suddenly caved on this issue I don't know. I thought this was dead in the water until after the election. Even Hillary said so. Why Kennedy supports this bill, I don't know. Are all of our Senators just working for big business?
ap215
Dean's Response To Bush's Immigration Speech

http://democrats.org/a/2006/05/governor_dean_r_1.php
bigtom
The whole thing was creepy.

He looks and talks like a animitronic Disney display. It left me with a weird feeling. One minute Mexico is our neighbor, and the next he is talking about building barriers. Great confidence building stuff.

If I were a Mexican I would be afraid.
Snuffysmith
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1501739_pf.html

Bringing in Guard Raises Concerns Of Militarization

By Sylvia Moreno and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 16, 2006; A08

LAREDO, Tex., May 15 -- For years, Mayor Elizabeth G. Flores has been asking Washington for more help in controlling not only illegal immigration but also drug trafficking here at the nation's second-busiest border crossing. More Border Patrol. Better technology. More federal resources.

But militarize the border with National Guardsmen? That is where she draws the line.

"We have over 300 Border Patrol officers from here serving in Iraq. Why doesn't [President Bush] bring them home to do the job they were trained to do?" said Flores as she walked inside City Hall, which overlooks Texas and U.S. flags out front and the Mexican flag about a quarter-mile away at the border. This seat of government sits in one of "los dos Laredos," the two Laredos, as locals say -- Laredo and Nuevo Laredo, through which 4.4 million pedestrians, 6.3 million vehicles and 1.4 million trucks pass yearly.

"The National Guard is trained to protect us from deadly people," said Flores, a Democrat who has been in office 8 1/2 years. "People crossing over here to work are not our deadly enemy. . . . I think this is all about discrimination and nothing else."

To assuage such concerns over a militarized border, Bush in his nationally televised address Monday stressed that the National Guard troops would play a strictly supporting role, saying, "The Border Patrol will remain in the lead."

But the front-line fears of some local officials reflect only a few of the broader questions about how the new National Guard role will work. Apart from whether the Guard is the right force to use, Guard officials themselves wonder how their forces, stretched by war-zone deployments and homeland defense, will tackle a new mission, what skills it will demand and -- perhaps most critical -- for how long.

Bush said as many as 6,000 Guard troops will be deployed along the border for at least a year to help operate surveillance systems, to analyze intelligence, to install fences, to build patrol roads and to train. Guard units will reduce their numbers as the Border Patrol gains strength, he said, and will not be directly involved in law enforcement.

Defense and Guard officials said the new mission would create challenges for the Guard but should be feasible as long as it remains temporary. "I personally think we can handle it," said Maj. Gen. Roger P. Lempke, president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States. But he said he hoped the mission would last no longer than one year. "As long as we are there and visible, there will be pressure to get the final solution done," he said.

The 440,000-strong National Guard has had more than 280,000 troops federally mobilized for overseas missions and homeland defense since 2001. Nearly 71,000 are currently deployed, with 17,000 of them in Iraq.

In the most likely scenario, Guard troops sent to the border would remain under the command of governors but be paid for with federal funds, officials said.

The additional troops for the border would be drawn from around the nation, defense officials said, although initially most would come from states on or near the border or from underused units. Guard units could also perform their required annual training on the border, a defense official said.

The Guard could also expand the 400-strong force of full-time Guard members now assisting border security personnel in countering drug trafficking and narco-terrorism in the four border states. This force, the Southwest State Joint Counterdrug Task Force, has existed since 1989 but has shrunk from about 1,000 people in 1999 because of a 44 percent cut in its budget, according to Guard figures.

"We could very quickly ramp up and double the effort if the funding was available," said a National Guard counter-drug official at the National Guard Bureau who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the new policy was not finalized. "You are using the same techniques to find illegal drug traffickers or to find a person."

The Counterdrug Task Force operates four RC-26 aircraft and 15 to 20 OH-58 helicopters equipped with infrared radars and high-powered lights that can photograph and track movements of vehicles and people crossing the border.

The task force also uses military ground sensors to detect people coming over the border and gamma ray imagers to inspect vehicles and cargo. Guard engineers have helped build roads and fences. The task force also assists with intelligence analysis such as reviewing license plates and phone call records, tracks money laundering, and provides Spanish-speaking military linguists who translate recordings and documents.

About 10,000 Border Patrol agents are deployed along the U.S.-Mexico border, and patrol hours climbed about 167 percent between 1997 and 2005. But there is no clear link between staffing and arrests, or between arrests and a reduction in the flow of illegal immigration, analysts say.

Estimates of how many agents are needed vary. In 1999, one estimate given the House projected that 16,000 were needed on the southern border. In 2004, Congress authorized the hiring of 10,000 more and is slowly funding them.

But in Laredo, although some officials agreed on the need for more border forces, they voiced fear that military deployment could send the wrong message.

"It's showing your teeth before you reach out your hand," said the president of Texas A&M International University here, Ray Keck. Keck said federal officials do not understand the interdependence of U.S. border cities and their Mexican counterparts, noting that 10 percent of his university's students are Mexican nationals.

The Mexican consul in Laredo, Daniel Hernandez Joseph, said he welcomed proposals to increase border security. But he said that deploying the National Guard would "not be seen as a friendly act."

"Do they understand that every Hispanic is not illegal?" Hernandez said of the National Guard. "The Border Patrol has that training."

Tyson reported from Washington. Staff writer Spencer S. Hsu contributed to this report.


© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Snuffysmith
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Immi...0and%20Refugees

Stakes Are High for Bush's Immigration Speech

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: May 15, 2006
Filed at 11:10 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush 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, as he tried to build support for a major overhaul of the nation's tattered immigration laws.

''We do not yet have full control of the border and I am determined to change that,'' the president said in pressing for his $1.9 billion plan 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's Plan to Seal Border Worries MexicoSenate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said Bush ''got off to a good start tonight, but now he must stand up to right-wing members of his own party who are working to block Senate action.'' He called on Bush to ''denounce the misguided approach of House Republicans'' who won passage of a a tough immigration bill that would erect fences along the Mexican border and treat people who sneak across as felons to be deported.

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.''
Snuffysmith
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/washington/16assess.html

News Analysis
Behind a Talk, Bush's History

By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: May 16, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 15 — The headline news from President Bush's immigration speech on Monday was troops to the border, but in substance and tone the address reflected the more subtle approach of a man shaped by Texas border-state politics and longtime personal views.

In an attempt to placate conservatives, Mr. Bush talked tough about cracking down on immigrants who slip across the United States' long border with Mexico.

But the real theme of his speech was that the nation can be, as he phrased it, "a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time" and that Congress could find a middle ground between deporting illegal immigrants and granting them immediate citizenship.

What was remarkable to people who knew Mr. Bush in Texas was how little his rhetoric had changed.

"He's always had a more welcoming attitude," said Bruce Buchanan, a presidential scholar at the University of Texas. "He always spoke well of Mexican nationals and regarded them as hard-working people. So his grace notes on this subject are high."

Even before Mr. Bush was governor, his views on immigration had been largely formed.

"He understands this community in the way you do when you live in a border state," said Israel Hernandez, an assistant secretary at the Commerce Department who traveled with him as a personal aide when he first ran for governor. "Philosophically he understands why people want to come to the U.S. And he doesn't consider them a threat."

There were no major battles over immigration or immigration legislation when Mr. Bush was governor, but he is remembered for saying emphatically that the children of illegal immigrants had a right to go to Texas schools. His views were in sharp contrast to those of another politician of the time, Pete Wilson, who closely tied his successful 1994 race for California governor to Proposition 187, a ballot initiative that denied public services to illegal immigrants and that passed overwhelmingly.

"There was never any effort to cut off benefits, and Bush basically bought into the notion that they were going to be Texans," said Paul Burka, senior executive editor of Texas Monthly, who closely followed Mr. Bush then. "He didn't believe in closing the borders."

Mr. Bush first met Mexican immigrants at public school in Midland, Tex., where Hispanics made up 25 percent of the population. Later, when he owned a small, unsuccessful oil company, he employed Mexican immigrants in the fields. When he was the managing partner of the Texas Rangers, he reveled in going into the dugout and joking with the players, many of them Hispanic, in fractured Spanglish.

"In every dimension of his career, whether it was politics or the private sector or the sports world, he's been engaged with the Hispanic population," Mr. Hernandez said.

Mr. Bush was also living in a state that has stronger historical and cultural ties to Mexico than any other.

"The cultures mingled much more freely here than in California," Mr. Burka said. "Here there was not nearly as much antipathy. There were always workers coming over, and they were very essential."

At the same time, Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's veteran political adviser, recognized that there was potential in the Hispanic vote and that Republicans could appeal to Hispanics on the issues of abortion, religion and family values.

"Karl has always been a strong believer that Hispanics were a natural Republican constituency," Mr. Burka said. "He once told me that 'we have about 15 years to put this together.' "

When Mr. Bush got to the White House, immigration was going to be one of his signature issues, a key to his relationship with President Vicente Fox of Mexico and essential in attracting Hispanic voters to a Republican Party that Mr. Rove envisioned as dominant for decades to come.

The Sept. 11 attacks suspended the White House push on the issue until late in the first term, but in a speech in January 2004 Mr. Bush threw himself into the subject with personal passion.

"As a Texan, I have known many immigrant families, mainly from Mexico, and I have seen what they add to our country," Mr. Bush told hundreds of wildly cheering Hispanics in an East Room gathering. "They bring to America the values of faith in God, love of family, hard work and self-reliance, the values that made us a great nation to begin with."

Every generation of immigrants, he added, "has reaffirmed the wisdom of remaining open to the talents and dreams of the world."

Mr. Bush's speech that day, more than 2,300 words, devoted only 200 of them to border security. Even then, he mentioned only what he said the nation was doing right — employing more Border Patrol agents, improving technology — and made no urgent statement, as he did Monday night, that "we do not yet have full control of the border."

In that same speech, the president proposed a temporary guest worker program for the nation's 11 million or so illegal immigrants, as well as for immigrants seeking to enter the United States.

The reaction was immediate and largely negative. Immigrants and many Democrats said the plan did not go far enough, and conservatives said it amounted to amnesty. Mr. Bush dropped the proposal as too risky for his 2004 re-election race, but he campaigned heavily among Hispanic constituencies and attracted 40 percent of the Hispanic vote.

With the election out of the way, Mr. Bush picked up the issue last October, but by then he had changed his emphasis to border security to calm down conservatives. On Monday night, with his polls showing a drop in conservative support in part because of his immigration proposals, he toughened his language even more.

Now immigration, as divisive as it is, remains as Mr. Bush's last major domestic issue and a test of his remaining powers as president.

"He's putting capital behind it," said Mark McKinnon, the president's media consultant from the 2004 campaign. "He doesn't have to."
Snuffysmith
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/washingt...0and%20Refugees

Bush's Plan to Seal Border Worries Mexico


By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: May 15, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 14 — President Bush's plan to send National Guard troops to patrol the southern border of the United States has raised the concern of his longtime ally President Vicente Fox of Mexico, who called Mr. Bush on Sunday to express his worries.

White House officials said Mr. Bush assured Mr. Fox that a permanent National Guard presence on the border was not being considered.

"The president made clear that the United States considers Mexico a friend," said Maria Tamburri, a White House spokeswoman.

Ms. Tamburri said the president told Mr. Fox, "What is being considered is not a militarization of the border, but support of border patrol capabilities, on a temporary basis, by National Guard personnel."

In a televised address scheduled for 8 p.m. Monday, Mr. Bush is expected to call for a significantly increased National Guard presence at the border. Officials have indicated that Mr. Bush could call for a force of thousands but that it would not be as high as 10,000, a number that had been rumored late last week.

Reports of the plan over the weekend also caused concern among lawmakers, including some Republicans, who said they feared the National Guard was already overextended with military missions abroad and with its response to natural disasters at home.

On Monday, Mr. Bush is also expected to outline several other proposals aimed at sealing the border and cracking down on workers who are illegally in the United States, and the employers who hire them. Aides said he would renew his calls for an overhaul of the nation's immigration law that includes provisions to grant illegal immigrants the right to work here legally.

The president's speech, his first on domestic policy from the Oval Office, is to come as the Senate begins trying again to pass a bill that addresses competing demands to stem the flow of workers across the border from Mexico and the desire of American employers to have reliable access to a low-wage work force.

White House officials have made it clear that they hope that a plan to seal the border will help Mr. Bush in that effort to strike a compromise between any bill passed in the Senate and the one passed in December in the House, where many Republicans have opposed any steps to legalize illegal workers.

Lawmakers from both parties expressed concerns on Sunday about the idea of deploying the National Guard.

Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, who helped draft the Senate immigration bill, said he was skeptical about whether the plan would work.

"We have stretched our military as thin as we have ever seen it in modern times," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "And what in the world are we talking about here, sending a National Guard that we may not have any capacity to send, up to or down to protect borders?"

He said he did not believe border protection was "the role of our National Guard."

Speaking on "Late Edition" on CNN, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said expressed similar feelings, saying, , "We're stretching them pretty thin now. We're going to make a border patrol out of them?"

But White House officials said late last week that they believed the president's address on Monday would be welcomed by voters, who have told pollsters they would like to see tighter control of the borders.

"The president is looking to do everything he can to secure the border," said Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, on "Face the Nation" on CBS. "It's what the American people want, it's what he wants to do."

Mr. Hadley said sending National Guard troops to the border — officials say there are about 200 there now — would supplement the Border Patrol as it adds agents whose training and deployment will take time.

White House officials said that was the message that the president conveyed to Mr. Fox, whose defense minister met on Friday with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Ms. Tamburri, the White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Fox and Mr. Bush also discussed "cooperative efforts under way" on the border.

A statement from Mr. Fox's office said that during the president's 30-minute conversation he reiterated to Mr. Bush his conviction that the best way to manage the problem of illegal migration was with comprehensive legislation.

Migration has been the centerpiece of Mr. Fox's foreign policy in the six years of his presidency. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, his hopes faltered for swift passage of measures to legalize an estimated six million Mexicans working illegally in the United States.

The relationship between Mexico and the United States grew tense as the Bush administration began focusing more on ways to seal the border than to expand opportunities for the legal flow of migrant workers. Still, Mr. Fox publicly supported most of Mr. Bush's law enforcement efforts on the border. His cooperation with the United States has cost him significant political clout, however, among an increasing number of left-leaning leaders across Latin America.

And with presidential elections less than two months away, feelings that Mr. Fox has subordinated Mexico's sovereignty to American interests threaten to affect the chances of the candidate he hopes to succeed him, Felipe Calderón.

Mr. Fox's expression of concern to Mr. Bush, along with that of members of Congress and some governors, underscored the constituencies the president is juggling as heseeks a legislative victory on an issue of special interest to him at a time when much of his agenda is stalled.

His push for granting illegal immigrants legal status, and his veiled discussion of a path to citizenship — he often says those who want to become citizens would have to go to "the back of the line" — has been dismissed as "amnesty" by some conservatives. And, as his party faces a rough midterm election fight, Republicans have worried that his push on immigration has helped demoralize core conservative voters.

Ginger Thompson contributed reporting from Mexico City for this article.
DWB04
Humpty-Dumpty Republicans


By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 15 May 2006

I will cut back legal immigration to 250,000 a year and I will defend America's border, if necessary with American troops.

-Pat Buchanan, 27 October 2000


George W. Bush will be delivering a big speech tonight on immigration, and will specifically announce the deployment of National Guard troops along the southern border of the United States. The New York Times reported today on the motivation behind this speech, stating that, "White House officials said late last week that they believed the president's address on Monday would be welcomed by voters, who have told pollsters they would like to see tighter control of the borders."

This, while true, is not the entirety of the story. The main reason for the delivery of this speech, and for the deployment of Guard troops to the Rio Grande, has to do with GOP inside baseball and the looming midterm elections. The powerful Republican coalition between movement conservatives and business conservatives has shown significant signs of fraying lately, and the issue of immigration is at the heart of the matter.

Before the immigration debate blew up, the GOP coalition was one big (mostly) happy family. The business conservatives - the ones with the money - happily deployed the movement conservatives - the ones with the causes - as their "useful idiots" on the ground. So long as the GOP remained stalwartly against Roe v. Wade, and so long as Bush continued to mouth platitudes about Jesus, the movement conservatives would keep voting Republican, and the business conservatives would get the tax cuts and deregulation they live for. It was a match literally made in heaven, if you believe what you read on GOP direct-mail flyers.

Underneath the seamless facade, however, was the fault line of immigration. No other subject is as divisive, or as potentially destructive to the GOP coalition, as this. In 1992, Pat Buchanan forced George H. W. Bush to run a far more conservative campaign for president by hammering on the immigration issue, which ultimately contributed to Bush's defeat at the hands of Clinton. In 1996, Buchanan was at it again, beating Dole in New Hampshire and forcing him to spend far more than he could afford. Again, the immigration issue was central to Buchanan's message.

The divide here is straightforward: The movement conservatives want massive border security, want to deport every illegal immigrant in the country and want to make citizenship harder to obtain. The business conservatives, on the other hand, enjoy having a massive pool of illegal laborers to tap because they can pay those laborers slave wages, avoid having to offer them insurance and thus pad their profits.

This divide was ripped wide open when two competing bills appeared in Congress recently. The House bill, a truly draconian piece of work offered by Rep. Sensenbrenner, pandered to the movement conservatives. The Senate bill, which allowed for citizenship for illegal immigrants after a long series of hurdles, was more suitable to the business conservatives. The two bills were incompatible from the start and the entire debate collapsed into a blaze of acrimony.

George W. Bush, as leader of the Republican party, was the inheritor of this mess. Though he owes his political success to the work of the movement conservatives, Bush's heart lies with the businessmen. He voiced support for the Senate immigration bill, and then watched as his favorability numbers among the GOP grassroots dropped like a ruptured duck. A recent New York Times/CBS poll placed his approval rating on the immigration issue at 26%, and for the first time, Republicans appear to be abandoning him.

It was, strictly speaking, a terrible time for this kind of division to erupt within the GOP ranks. Iraq is a mess, Goss has quit the CIA under terribly suspicious circumstances, the #3 man at CIA just had his house searched, the scandal surrounding Duke Cunningham has reached into the heart of the House Intelligence, Appropriations and Armed Services Committees, Rep. Jerry Lewis of California is the newest name on the list of those being looked at, the Abramoff scandal continues to walk and talk, Karl Rove has reportedly been indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald in the Plame investigation, and it seems that the NSA has been harvesting millions upon millions of telephone calls from Americans to Americans, despite strident denials by Bush administration officials that anything of the sort has been going on.

And the midterm elections are coming. And a Harris interactive poll has Bush's overall approval rating at 29%. And the approval ratings for this Republican congress make that 29% look tall and mighty by comparison.

There isn't much Mr. Bush can do about this long laundry list of scandals and catastrophes during his speech tonight; it is all going to have to unspool itself in due course. He can, however, try to pull together the separating spheres of his coalition. By announcing a significant military presence along the southern border, Bush is seeking to mollify the movement conservatives, without whom any attempt at national electoral victory would be a comprehensive waste of time.

He will also, in all likelihood, voice support for the Senate version of the immigration bill, thus mollifying the business conservatives who write all the checks during campaign time. Somewhere in there, or afterwards, he and his spinners will have to explain how deploying National Guard forces, which are already massively overtaxed because of Iraq, won't weaken our military even further. There will also be the matter of how he plans to pay for this operation, given the ocean of red ink currently flowing through Washington.

It will be, in the end, one heck of a straddle, and the stakes are tremendously high. If Bush is unable to bring the Republican coalition back together again in time for the midterms, a lot of conservative voters will stay home on election day. The Democrats could conceivably pick up enough seats to regain the majority, and if that happens, the subpoenas will start flying out of Conyers's office faster than one can say, "What did the president know and when did he know it?"

Reading tea leaves is a dangerous hobby, and nobody knows for sure how all of this is going to shake out. But the malevolently divisive spirit of Pat Buchanan still stalks the highways and back roads of New Hampshire, and the immigration issue he used to snap the campaigns of two consecutive Republican presidential candidates remains as dangerous now as it was in 1992. Can Bush's speech tonight stuff this genie back into the bottle? Watch and see.


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051506Y.shtml
Snuffysmith
On Immigration, Bush Seeks 'Middle Ground'

By Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Weisman

President Bush said last night that he will dispatch 6,000 National Guard troops starting next month to help secure the porous U.S.-Mexican border, calling on a divided Congress and country to find "a rational middle ground" on immigration that includes providing millions of illegal workers a new...

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...er=emailarticle
Snuffysmith
In Speech, A Balancing Act of Policy And Politics

By Dan Balz

President Bush once saw the immigration issue as an opportunity to expand the Republican Party by attracting more Hispanic voters with a message of tolerance and inclusion. His nationally televised speech last night was an admission that the issue has now become a problem that, if not managed...

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...er=emailarticle
Snuffysmith
Canadians Fear Fallout of Mexico Rules

By Doug Struck

TORONTO, May 15 -- Every 4.7 seconds, on average, a cargo truck rumbles across the border from Canada to the United States. More than 6,000 passenger cars cross to the United States every hour. Inspectors on both sides wave through nearly 70 million visitors a year.

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...er=emailarticle
Snuffysmith
Bush Set To Send Guard to Border

By Peter Baker

President Bush tried to ease the worries of his Mexican counterpart yesterday as he prepared for a nationally televised address tonight unveiling a plan to send thousands of National Guard troops to help seal the nation's southern border against illegal immigrants.

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...er=emailarticle
Snuffysmith
Bringing in Guard Raises Concerns Of Militarization

By Sylvia Moreno and Ann Scott Tyson

LAREDO, Tex., May 15 -- For years, Mayor Elizabeth G. Flores has been asking Washington for more help in controlling not only illegal immigration but also drug trafficking here at the nation's second-busiest border crossing. More Border Patrol. Better technology. More federal resources.

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...er=emailarticle
Snuffysmith
http://www.counterpunch.org/faux05152006.html

NAFTA's Failure and the Increasingly Desperate Mexican Economy
What Bush's Speech on Immigration Will Miss

By JEFF FAUX

In his speech tonight, President Bush will likely once again ignore the 800-pound gorilla sitting in the center of the immigration debate: Mexico, the source of over three-quarters of illegal immigrants in America.

Like the rest of Washington, Mr. Bush talks as if the problem of illegal immigration can be solved within the borders of this country. More border guards might make crossing the frontier more difficult, and amnesty and guest worker programs might redefine the meaning of "legal," but they will not stop--and may well accelerate--the growing tide of people driven north by poverty and the lack of job opportunities at home.

Some 40% of the more than 100 million people still living in Mexico say they would come to the United States if they had the opportunity, which can be bought for the roughly $2,500 or so it costs for a "coyote" to smuggle them across the border. Last year, at least 400 died in the attempt.

This was not supposed to happen. Thirteen years ago, when illegal immigration from Mexico over a less-protected border was half of what it is today, we were assured that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) would transform Mexico into a prosperous middle-class society. "There will be less illegal immigration," promised President Bill Clinton, "because more Mexicans will be able to support their children by staying home." Mexican president Carlos Salinas told Americans it was a choice between getting Mexican tomatoes or tomato-pickers.

But NAFTA did not deliver. Mexico has grown too slowly to create enough jobs for its people, and the benefits of trade have largely gone to the wealthy, making it one of the most unequal societies in Latin America. Moreover, the agreement flooded Mexico with highly subsidized U.S. and Canadian grain, driving between 1 and 2 million Mexican farmers off the land and adding to the supply of desperate Mexicans looking for work.

NAFTA stands in vivid contrast to the experience of the economic integration of Western Europe, which actually provided for free migration among the participating nations. Originally there was great fear that Germany, France, and the other rich economies would be flooded with workers from Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and Greece. To avoid this, the European community provided funds for economic development programs, which stimulated job growth in the poorer nations, and insisted on domestic reforms that assured that the economic growth would be broadly shared. The result was that the people of the poorer nations stayed home and prospered.

It is time for the leaders on this continent to acknowledge that NAFTA has not fulfilled its promises and go back to the drawing boards. We need a new deal among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. It should include a transfer of funds to Mexico for infrastructure, education, and other public investments aimed at creating jobs and raising wages there. In exchange, Mexican leaders would have to agree on enforceable protections for human rights, free collective bargaining, minimum wages, and other policies to promote the equitable sharing of wealth.

Such a new deal with Mexico would not be easy. But it would be far better to address the source of the problem directly than continue with the illusion that it can be solved simply by new immigration laws and ever-taller fences. So long as the Mexican economy cannot provide its people with jobs, they will keep coming.

Jeff Faux was founding president and now distinguished fellow of the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.
lazyboy
Another fence going up on Bush's watch. What happened to 'the Cold War is over' mentality. Of course, that was just a figment. It was a green light for certain other political activities to take place. The apartheid fence in Israel is to be followed by another one in Mexico. The criminals will be the people who are putting it up. Like the shark in charge of the swimming pool. I bet that makes you all feel so much safer.

Nobody WANTS to work in America. It is just that they HAVE to in order to survive under the terms of America's foreign policies. Summed up they are, We make the rules and so we can break the rules. And then, as in England, I am sure that America will continue to INVITE WELL QUALIFIED people from all countries to fill employment gaps in hospitals and education. And their qualifications will inevitably be less than that of the home-grown people who will be paid to stay out of work despite speaking English so much better... Thus making resentment in the UK and America grow, and resentment in the countries where the brains are taken from, also grow.

The ideal for Bush and Blair, is cheap labour. They are trying to reconcile it, at least for the cameras, with security, but of course that is impossible. And anyway what kind of 'security' when they claim that they allowed terrorists to train in the USA and to live in the UK?

So we have elections in the UK and the groundswell of feeling is that immigration was a bad idea. This is something Enoch Powell said decades ago. But of course they had to have immigrants so that they could set them up as patsies for 7.7.2005 and, of course 9.11.
lazyboy
Where is the justice in, for instance, subsidized grain being sold at low prices in Mexico? And guess who pays...you, the taxpayer. And who benefits? The huge farm corporations. And who is seriously hurt by it? Farmers in Mexico.
Snuffysmith
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.p...nt=yes&id=14861

Bush's Message: I Won't Enforce Laws We Have Until I Get the Laws I Want

by Mac Johnson
Posted May 16, 2006

President Bush tonight gave a hopeful speech on immigration reform. And by that I mean he hopes you believe his speech. Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, and for our nation, the American people no longer trust the leaders of either party to make an earnest effort to enforce the law when it comes to stopping the corruption of illegal immigration.

Perhaps trust is so totally lacking because Mr. Bush has been President now for five years and has done nothing to seriously address the issue of uncontrolled borders until tonight. Indeed, illegal border infiltration and visa fraud have gotten far worse during his presidency.

Yet these problems did not seem to bother Mr. Bush until backlash against them threatened his long-desired “temporary” guest-worker program and a stealth amnesty for the 10 million to 20 million immigration criminals already here. (And bear in mind that legalization, whether we call it “amnesty” or “earned citizenship” or any other name, will allow these 10 million 20 million to bring their extended families into the United States under family reunification laws, so we are really talking about legalizing around 40 million persons, most of whom are not yet in the country at all.)

Or perhaps mistrust of our leaders over “comprehensive” immigration reform is so total because we’ve been sold that bridge once before. In 1986, we were told that simply enforcing our existing immigration laws was an unrealistic approach and so we had no choice but to allow Congress to pass a comprehensive reform bill—one that included both increased law enforcement and an amnesty of the 3 million immigration criminals already in America. Common sense dictated a “carrot and stick” approach, we were told. Congress gave away the carrots just fine, but somehow it never got around to using the stick.

As a direct result, today our illegal immigration problem has grown from a quaint 3 million to at least 11 million—and by some estimates 20 million. Far from bringing people “out of the shadows” as was promised, “comprehensive” reform spread the shadow of illegal immigration across the entire nation. What was mostly a border state problem is now a truly national problem. Does anyone really believe that applying the same approach today will produce a different result?

The President’s promise of enforcement as part of a “comprehensive” plan is thus simply unbelievable in light of past performance. But worse yet, it is now just plain irresponsible. Every one of the President’s proposals for increased security could be passed quickly, if they were not tied to a guest worker amnesty. Indeed, all of them could have already been passed and signed into law if they weren’t being used as sugar to coat the bitter pill of legalization for millions of illegal aliens. But the President and Senators John McCain and Teddy Kennedy (as well as others) want the amnesty giveaway so badly that they refuse to allow the Senate to vote on the enforcement measures as a separate bill, as the House of Representatives has done.

Essentially, they have offered the American people a take it or leave it deal: give us our guest worker amnesty, or we will let the whole world across our open borders until you do. Give us the laws we want, or we will not enforce the laws we already have.

Every month that increased security measures are held up by this game of political chicken, another 30,000 to 50,000 illegal aliens sneak or lie their way into the country. This number includes the proverbial hardworking and honest laborers, and it also includes fugitives escaping foreign courts, drug smugglers, thieves, rapists, murderers, aspiring welfare defrauders and, very probably, potential terrorists. Yet the Bush-McCain-Kennedy axis has chosen to allow the dangerous unchecked flow to continue, creating the crisis atmosphere they know is necessary to force through a guest worker amnesty they believe they need to buy the votes of former illegal aliens and the industries that profit from their cheap labor.

If a guest-worker program and amnesty are such good ideas, then why can they not be passed as separate bills, as the increased enforcement measures easily could be?

If increased enforcement, by itself, is doomed to failure, then why do open borders advocates fear it so much? Shouldn’t they simply pass an enforcement bill and show everyone how right they were? An amnesty could then easily be added later.

The simple fact is that an enforcement-only approach would work better than any comprehensive bill promising legalization to lawbreakers. And this is why every proponent of amnesty and guest worker shenanigans is working so hard to see that an enforcement-only bill will never pass—even if that means leaving America’s borders wide open as long as it takes to frustrate voters into accepting a comprehensive bill.

The illogic of the comprehensive reform scam can be seen in the numerous self-contradictions the president uttered in support of it in a mere 16-minute speech.

Deporting the 11 million to 20 million illegal aliens already here is simply impossible we are told. But then in tonight’s address the President bragged that we have deported 6 million illegal aliens in just the last five years. Why is 6 million possible and praiseworthy, but 11 million is a ludicrous impossibility?

The President bragged tonight of his commitment to deporting every illegal alien caught crossing our border. And then reasoned that we cannot deport those that have been here illegally for a few years. Why is it good to deport those caught at the border, but wrong to deport those that make it inland and buy a fake ID? How is the criminal transformed by this illegal stay?

How can the President promise to use all manner of technology—motion sensors, drones, cameras, fences, vehicle barriers—to keep dangerous illegal aliens out, and then argue that those same criminal aliens become indispensable and honorable once past the gizmos? Why bother to keep out anyone, if they all become wonderful by the time they reach Dallas?

Why, in short, would he have us believe that enforcing immigration laws at the border is a good thing, but we must not enforce immigration laws just a few miles north of the border?

Because you cannot simultaneously argue for earnestly enforcing the immigration laws in our interior and also argue for a guest worker amnesty of the millions of illegal aliens already hiding there.

And the guest worker amnesty is the only part of the allegedly “comprehensive” bill that the President is actually interested in. If we support the President’s plan, all we can be sure we’ll get is the amnesty part—just like 1986.

The only way we can secure our borders is to pass an enforcement-only bill, and then see to it that it is actually enforced. Our nation’s security cannot be held hostage to the politics of amnesty any longer.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.