W's Live Speech Thread

Fox News | 1-7-04 | my favorite headache

[My Favorite Headache]

Press conference starts at 2:45 EST....get the prilosec out...we are going to need it.

[CyberAnt]

I agree .. this is a very big problem. For many, many years, we have not had the will to deport people. After 9-11, I thought this would change .. apparently not!

[Stu Cohen]

Yes, and it was a simple question that you could not answer. Do you still beat your wife? I notice that you dodged it. If every question can be anwered with a yes or no, then one might wonder what it is you are hiding and who the hypocrite is. You ask, but refuse to answer yourself.

Oh, and yes, I highly disagree with Reagan and his blanket amnesty. Very highly disagree. Later, he disagreed himself with his blanket amnesty.

So, it would appear that you are the one on the opposite side of the issue from President Reagan.

And, we're all still concerned about the health and welfare of your wife.

[SONbrad]

Your question had nothing to do with the issue and was an obvious dodge. Nice try. But you failed.

No, I am not a hypocrite. I disagreed with a blanket amnesty then and did not vilify Reagan.

This is not a blanket amnesty, I agree with it, and even if I did I would not be demonizing Bush the way people like you are.

Easy, wasn't it.

By the way...you are very good at name-calling when you have no answers.

[Itzlzha]

Mark this date on your calendar. This could very well be the day that GWB lost the election of 2004. Desevedly so.

Yep, this is the equivalent of Bush 41 raising taxes after promising not to.

If Rove thinks that he will gain more hispanic votes than NASCAR dad and Reagan Democrat votes he will lose,he has made a very stupid mistake

This will infuriate million of conservatives just as it has people on this forum

Yes, it is the equivalent of "Read My Lips"...maybe it's "Who wants to be BETTER than an American, and steal their tax money?!"

What infuriates me is these damned Bush-Bots; that if he enacted the Communist Manifesto, they'd sip the Kool-Aide and say "Great Strategy...he REALLY knows what he's doing!"

I swear they are the same as the Klintonoids...their guy can NEVER be wrong, no matter what!

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

Holy Smokes! Did we win this thread?

Let Us Pray....

[Fabozz]

"So my assertion is that the guest worker program will NOT change the current level of demand for illegal workers."

Well actually, your original assertion is that the guest worker program would double the current level of demand—we have 10 million now and you envisioned 10 million more. There just isn't anything inherent in the guest-worker plan that will do that. So the question shouldn't be whether this will make things worse but whether this will make things better.

Wage statistics on illegal immigrants are obviously hard to come by, but the estimates I've seen say that at least a third of illegals actually present papers (e.g. fake/stolen SSNs) such that the employer can at least claim not to know he's hiring an illegal. In those cases the illegal is certainly receiving minimum wage or above. Where the employer is paying less than minimum wage, we can classify that as criminal intent, and filtering out the (let's suppose) one-third of "honest" illegal hirers will still make it easier to crack down on the rest.

Also, consider that the risk of prosecution represents a cost to the employer. The employee's effective wage is thus the real wage plus this "risk tax." Presumably the effective wage the employer is willing to pay stays constant. Therefore, by eliminating the risk tax for an employer, we allow him to pay the employee more. In some cases, this will mean that an employer willing to pay an illegal below minimum wage will be willing to pay a guest worker at or above minimum wage.

So yes, it is probably unrealistic to think that 100% of the current demand for illegal immigrants will be sastified by the guest worker program. It's even possible that the sum of guest workers plus the reduced number of illegal immigrants will be higher than the current number of illegal immigrants. The number of illegals will not rise, however, and every guest worker hired is one new job added to our economy.

[antaresequity]

Like I said in numerous posts...I didn't hire illegals to the best of my knowledge...they had a green car, SS and DL [probably forged...how am i supposed to tell?]

Like I said....in numerous posts...amnesty sucks

Like I said in numerous posts...I got out of the business for numerous reasons, one being the legal/illegal issue was too much to deal with and I didn't feel like breaking the law...

Like I said in numerous posts...
And I stand by my early statement...In Marin County...Hispanics are what is available. There aren't street corners full of Eukranians, Russians, Blacks, Whites or Martians who want to work....its Hispanics

And Like I said in numerous posts...somthing has to be done about it...

The first thing is to seal the border with UAV's and Marines if need be....then we need to find a way to allow people willing to work to come to this country and not get free handouts...

As far as I am concerned, Hispanics are good people with good values...thats my experience....

Quit branding me as some law breaker...there is no labor hall, there is no employment office where you can get labor on the fly when you need it....

[LinuxRocks]

Well actually, your original assertion is that the guest worker program would double the current level of demand...

Yes, an exaggeration...I agree, to say that the number will double. But I stick to the assertion that the guest worker program will not change the current level of demand for illegal workers. I hope I am wrong about that and you are right! Only time will tell. I do not believe that demand for the illegals will just dry up because of this. There will still be individuals and companies willing to take the chance. The net effect could in fact be positive though as you pointed out. Something has to be done...

[riri]

What infuriates me is these damned Bush-Bots; that if he enacted the Communist Manifesto, they'd sip the Kool-Aide and say "Great Strategy...he REALLY knows what he's doing!"

LOL. So true. And then they'd call you a communist for not supporting it because right inside the jacket of the book it said "This is not a communist publication".

[tubavil]

I agree with what you say.

Bush has no more intention of enforcing the "new laws" as he does current law. Companies using illegal labor are going to follow the new laws? Illegal immigrants are going to start adhering to new immigration laws? The whole thing is preposterous.

He's giving corporate America what it wants just before he solicits donations for the 2004 run.

With Bush and corporate America offshoring high tech AND importing illegals, were in deep trouble.

[Miss Marple]

When the President says "they have to go home" he means it. If you do not think so, just ask the Taliban or Saddam Hussein.

The law is a way to get illegals to turn in employers who are breaking the law.

Try to think outside the box, please.

[Hostage]

The 101st Airborne and Special Forces were used to rout the Taliban. Are you suggesting that the President use these military forces against illegal border crossers?

Also the Taliban are still in hiding in Afghanistan. What would you have the President do with illegals that hide out?

[LinuxRocks]

My biggest fear is that in 10 to 20 years because of this amnesty thing, many of these "guest workers" will be in our Social Security system, along with many of the dependents (both legitimate dependents and ones that aren't really their dependents) and that will absolutely kill the Social Security system! Manufacturing jobs have already been sold out by the greedy CEOs and their equally greedy accomplices in Washington. Now they are working on doing the same our high tech industry. Now add the illegals and this. None of it is any good. Illegals will still continue to come here because the amnesty program will not stop the demand for the illegals. The illegals that come here add nothing back to the communities that they live in, do not pay taxes, drive around in uninsured vehicles. If they are made to leave then they soon come back right across the border which is not secure.

[Fledermaus]

As far as I am concerned, Hispanics are good people with good values...thats my experience...

Yes, they are by a vast majority. That isn't the argument.

Quit branding me as some law breaker...there is no labor hall, there is no employment office where you can get labor on the fly when you need it...

Where do you live that doesn't have an employment office? They are in every city over 50-100,000 population. And I'd really doubt illegal aliens are going to go find work in cities so small there isn't an employment office.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Amnisty is a pardon. It wipes away any wrong doing and makes you legal. This is NOT amnisty. It is a guest worker program that does not lead to citizenship. You have to pay a fee if you are already here. That is the punishment. If you don't have a full time job, you have to go home, that is the OTHER punishment.

Where you are wrong is where I've highlighted in bold, and here's why. Bush did not say that once the visa expires they must go home, Bush did say that immigrants can do one of several things however: They can re-apply for another 3 years, apply for full citizenship, or if the first two aren't enough for them, simply get the hell out.

This temporary status is neither a drivers license nor is it a voter card, so the argument that this is pandering to the Hispanic vote is laughable.

[BigSkyFreeper]

This is pandering in it's purest form.

How? They won't vote for him because they can't, not because they're incapable, but because it's against the law for a non-citizen to contribute to the electoral processes. If Bush wins the election from the cemetary vote, the dogs, non-citizens or fabricated voters, or any other illegal means, I'll be the first to gripe. These illegal tactics are Democratic tactics.

[BigSkyFreeper]

America survived eight years of Bill Clinton, God pray we can survive four years of Howard Dean, or something worse because I think a lot of people will do what I'm going to do - just stay home.

You do what you please, makes me no never mind. I'm going to do the decent thing and keep the kooky left from setting foot in the White House and surrendering our national defense to the United Nations by re-electing GWB to the POTUS. The sky certainly isn't falling around me, and it won't 5 years from now unless some rogue terrorist decides to change that for me. Even if GWB enforced the immigration laws, that wouldn't have stopped the terrorists who were already here in the first place from doing what they did to spark 9/11.

[JustPiper]

Bush is making the same mistake Bush 1 made in slapping his base across the face and expecting them to just sit and take it.

Bump!!!

Grassroots CamPain to Write-In Tancredo

[Stu Cohen]

This is not a blanket amnesty, I agree with it, and even if I did I would not be demonizing Bush the way people like you are.

It is blanket amnesty, and then some ... and if a decision deserves to be vilified, then it should be so villified. Regardless of who makes that decision.

When I said that I would not vote for Bush because of this, I stated a fact. I will not vote for him because of it. I think he sold out the party for a special interest group. Dissolving the borders for a some votes seems almost impeachable to me.

If you think that is "vilifying", then so be it - but that is indeed my honest opinion - and I will indeed not vote for him because of it.

You don't have to agree with it - but he won't get my vote this year. I am not under the illusion that my 1 vote will make a difference, i'm sure it will have no impact, but it will be 1 less number on the popular vote count.

Easy, wasn't it.

What are you talking about?

By the way...you are very good at name-calling when you have no answers.

Hmmm. I answered your questions in every post, you never answered a single one.

*shrug* As long as you are happy with your debate techniques, this is what is important.

[SONbrad]

First if all, let's look at technique shall we....

My question to you was...

Did you vilify Reagan when he issued his blanket amnesty?

In other words:

Did YOU (a) when (b) occurred? (It's simple logic really. I assume you had Logic in school)

Following in that context the CORRECT context of your question to me should have been...

Did you beat you wife when she (fill in the blank)? ...

Of course, you couldn't ask the question in the same context because it would not have allowed you to use one of the oldest debating tricks that there is..... misdirection. Unfortunately for you, those old tricks don't work anymore.

So, we return to the question...

DID YOU VILIFY (and therefore REFUSE to vote for) REAGAN WHEN HE ISSUED HIS BLANKET AMNESTY?????

If the answer to this is "No" (forget that Reagan "regretted" it later - that has nothing to do with the fact that he did it), then you are hypocrite to now vilify Bush and say that you will not vote for him. You can't have it both ways.

This is so easy. (I'm sorry I have to explain things to you in elementary school language)

You have dodged the question fairly well...and never answered it. I don't suspect you ever will.