Posted on 09/27/2004 11:40:43 PM PDT by Robert Lomax
The U.S. has no plans to deploy troops along the Mexican border to stanch the deluge of illegal aliens currently pouring into the country at the rate of 3 million per year, President Bush said in an interview broadcast on Monday.
"As the governor of Texas, I was very aware of this issue," Bush told Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly.
Story Continues Below
"There is a long border, that makes it hard to control. We have beefed up places along the border to try to stop" the flow, he said. When told that his policy didn't seem to be working, Bush insisted, "It’s working a little better.
"They're doing a pretty good job down in Arizona, which is the main border crossing. ... I think there's a thousand more border patrol agents along the border. We’re modernizing border techniques, we’re using better surveillance methods to stop this crossing at the border."
The president contended, however, that illegal immigration was driven primarily by the economic realities of the region.
"If you can make 50 cents in the interior of Mexico and five bucks in the interior of the United States, you're coming for the five bucks," he explained.
"I happen to believe the best way to enhance the border is to have temporary-worker cards available for people," he said. "I think the long-term solution for this issue on our border is for Mexico to grow a middle class. That's why I believe in NAFTA."
When warned that "a lot of people are not going to like that answer," Bush told O'Reilly, "Well it’s a, a truthful answer."
Then apply RICO to the employers hiring them, Jorge. Confiscate their property if they're caught. Easier, cheaper and it gets the job done. Dry up the jobs and the taxpayer assistance, and they'll deport themselves.
"I think the long-term solution for this issue on our border is for Mexico to grow a middle class. That's why I believe in NAFTA."
Er, Jorge, Mexico already has a middle class. It's just that none of the Mexican taxpayers will support their poor. They ship them into the US and force us to take care of them.
Unbelievable, that in a time of war, a war in which the enemy is trying to infiltrate our country, OUR President, strives and works to keep our borders uncontrolled and unprotected.
You'll get my vote this november Mr. President, but after that, I will be with Tancredo all the way.
The Wall
If we build it, they won't come.........
Mr. President, you swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States. In that constitution it states that you WILL protect the states against invasion. I suggest you sit down and read it, because after the election someone may just make sure a few federal judges and your attornies do.
A number of public entities have been party to what looks as if it might be collusion, to avoid enforcement of precepts of the Constitution, not to mention any number of civil penalties relating to employment practices across this nation. Where contributors might have benefited, this could get real sitcky.
Literally hundreds of federal officials have participated. Literally thousands of local district attornies, local city councils, police departments as well as the FBI have turned their back on this.
Flouting the Constiution of the United States of America, is a violation of someone's oath of office. I wonder who. Both the House and the Senate, the Executive Branch including the Justice Department, the INS, state and local governments have all participated in collusion to avoid adhering to one of the most sacred documents of our nation, shirking responsibility to the American public, in favor of the Government of a foreign nation and it's people.
This opens up so many cans of worms, that I shudder to think where it will end.
By your actions and the actions of others, you are taking money out of my pocket, out of my local, state and federal coffers to play Santa Claus to foreign nationals. You and thousands of others have banded together to desimate our healthcare system, our local schools, our local municipalities, our highway and other types of infrastructure and our standards of living.
I'm curious just how long you thought you could get away with this, without someone calling you on it.
Specifically how would you secure the Mexican border?
There is no public mandate now for something violent and extreme, like a wall or land mines. Too many innocent people will be killed or hurt.
Probably the only thing that would create the public mandate is a squad of terrorists coming to the usa via the porous border, and causing a whole lot of damage to the USA. Then people will see it is a national security issue, and not an immigration issue.
Until then, since we can't possibly police thousands of miles of border by using men, and there is no overhwlming public sentiment to blow little mexican families rushing the border to bits, what can we really do but wait it out.
Sad but true.
I don't understand why a wall, sort of like the iron curtain except taller, can't be constructed to keep them out. There must be some design that is impervious to ladders and such. All you'd need is guard tower every mile or so with either cameras or men with night vision capabilities.
Not to mention ten times the welfare benefits.
Totalitarianism here we come.
Maybe not but fineing toward seizeing the business of anyone employing or renting to an illegal alien knowingly.. WILL...
This issue is going to blow up in our faces in 2008 when a third party emerges on immigration. Can you say president Hillary ?
Yes, the old adage holds true. "It's tough being at the top".
Look at the bright side, they aren't coming here to relish in the returns of our 3rd world economy....
NAFTA does have it's good talking points to be sure.
What do prisons do to keep criminals in? A couple of fences, one slightly shorter than the other running parralel spaced around 5 ft apart. Razor wire looped oround both fence tops. BUT.. Go one step further-- Electrically charge the fences.. Like one big bug zapper (space fences slightly closer).
Bull feces. The border is open, because the bosses in DC want it open. It can be closed simply by dropping our meant-to-fail "Keystone Kops" aproach, adn adopting "wartime rules of engagement" to prevent the possible infiltration of terrorists.
As far as morality goes, once the new ROE were clearly promulgated, FEWER Mexicans would die crossing the border than they do now, because they would stop trying to cross. What leads to MORE Mexicans dying in the desert, is holding out the promise of amnesty, drivers' licenses, "guest worker" cards etc.
So if you really want to save their lives, then you will support closing the border.
The fedgov confiscates property all the time.
Why should businesses which break the law and employ cut-rate illegal alien laborers be exempt?
OH-OH! Can't do that here on the left coast! Might 'harm' the bugs and/or 'threaten' the snakes. ...'sides, by the time you got your 'EIR' done, to get 'permission' to do that, it'd already be 'mexifornia'. (Okay then... If you don't believe me, just ask Cruz Bustamante!)
We are well on our way with Arnold. That is for sure.
"[ Bush: Militarizing Border Won't Stop Illegal Deluge ]"
What a load of BS. Does he actually think that if we had military on the border (all of it) would not stem the flow if not STOP it? Does he think the American people are stupid enough to believe that statement? I was and am behind the President as pertaining to the war on terrorism but damn, why the hell is he leaving our front and back doors wide open?
By going forward with the war and doing nothing about our borders makes him extremely negligent. He is giving an open invitation to terrorist/illegal invaders to cross our borders and they ARE! Why the heck is he so hell-bent on destroying our country?
W, your making it very difficult for me to vote for you this election but I have no choice.
hmmm.. Yea, your right. Ill think of something else.
what a joke --- How can you have a war on terrorism, with multi colored flags flying, and billions of dollars being spent everywhere.. and have an open border anyone can just run across with bombs and weapons..?
Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither and lose both.
bump
All I want is results in the domestic War on Terror...right now, that's what we should all want and demand.
He won't care what you or I care in Feb..... He knoes we have no other choice...
"There is a long border, that makes it hard to control. We have beefed up places along the border to try to stop" the flow, he said. When told that his policy didn't seem to be working, Bush insisted, "It’s working a little better.
>>>
I'd be laughing, if I weren't crying...
Red
The problem here is one of containment. How do we protect ourselves and contain the government at the same time? The answer is not implement laws and practices that are aimed at taking the liberties from one group in favor of another.
I support building a wall. Bush's approach is unconstitutional. I'd be willing to wager that there would never be an immigration amendment passed in this country that would allow him to do what it is that he is proposing legally.
Red
BTTT
I guess today we AREN'T at War.../bs
Also, a few years back, a community here tried to sue a major (meat-packing) employer which actually recruited illegals and brought them here. A large percentage ended up in jail. The community tried to sue the company on behalf of the taxpayers, as they were forced to build a new and much larger jail. As it was before the major influx, they were cowed into silence by the media. What are your thoughts on this; what type of recourse should taxpayers have?
What specifically are the wartime rules of engagement to police the mexican border? That's 1000s of miles - specifically how can that be made impenetrable without resorting to draconian tactics?
For all we know we have hundreds or thousands of bombers in our midst, maybe even communications couriers, packing into America more than just a poor discourse towards our nation...??
Or, insulate about 10 inches of the bottom of the fences from any electrical charge. Then the bugs and snakes can crawl through.
However, since you would have to be in contact with both fences to get zapped, the bugs would be ok. Still have the problem with the snakes, though -
Bush seems to want the foxes to guard the henhouse (Re: Mexico and the border.) George, it just doesn't work that way.
A steady trail away from the likes of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Palosi, Tom Dachle, marriage destruction, and a Judicial membership that disavows what our country was formed to respect.
Calling for a slow process back to what has made our country great, cannot be a bad thing, however to attempt change of 40 years of destruction over night, will only lead to a quick and fruitless fix.
Follow the transition, it has been to the better and patience will show it to be a well deserved outcome for all.
Lest we all focus on the bad and disregard the good.
Money is private property too. I don't know. For the short term, the border can be beefed up and we can make use of better technology in an attempt to slow them down, but I don't think it's a good idea to militarize it. We are not at war with Mexico and I would not recommend putting killing machines down there. I think it is an economic problem and therefore the long term solution is going to have to involve economic resources: capital, trade and labor, etc.
George Bush:
Upbeat on Iraq
Defeatist on our borders.
Nice and sunny and optimistic but will never happen. Mexico will never get any better. It's probably peaked since the maquiladoras are moving to China/Asia for cheaper labor. And many maquiladoras will never get built in the first place. They are built in China.
Also, many schools are having a very difficult time. Here, in rural America, we may not have as many illegal workers as does California...but we we also have a much smaller tax base. The issue has definitely been a very hot topic on local talk radio, lately. I take it as a good sign that people are willing to talk about it...and state their true opinions. Too many people have been silent for too long.
I heard the replay of O'Reilly on FOX News a little while ago and the last thing Bush said on the issue is (paraphrasing) we need to beef up the border and we need to give the border patrol the resources they need to do the job.
Putting the military on our borders seems hypocritical when we're trying to discourage that sort of activity elsewhere in the world. Letting the BP do their job and revamping the system would do wonders as opposed to our borders looking like Checkpoint Charlie.
We need to persuade Mexico that keeping their poor home is a better deal than shipping them north. Whether this at the point of a gun or otherwise is our decision, but we'd better do something and soon. NAFTA was a good faith start on our part,(and some of us disagreed with it long and loudly), but the whole world got into the act...jobs went overseas, outsourcing, yada, yada, yada. Time to invent ourselves all over again. Cell phones and digital tv aren't enough.
Build a wall.
I agree. We'll have to suffer a terrorist attack out west, or with traceable origins...south of the Rio Grande before there's enough hue and cry to slam the door shut. Even then, enough illegals may yell, NO! that we debate ourselves into a stalemate...until another attack. Then some illegals will decide Mexico isn't so bad, and they'll go back.
Jim, that's what Bush has been saying since he took office. Since he took office the flow has increased from roughly 1 million per year to 3.5 million per year. O'Reilly used that figure with Bush, and Bush agreed to it.
Jim, that's 35 million people in ten years. That is unacceptable to me.
When an INS crew of a dozen or so spent several days in the inland several months ago, it arrest 450 people for deportation. Asa Hutchinson send a directive to the local INS office, demanding they cease and desist.
I have listened to Asa defend this action several times. It was perhaps one of the most insulting interviews I have ever witnessed, supposedly from my side of the isle. He was dismisive, lied, spun and just made a complete fool of himself. The radio hosts called him on around three to five absolute falsehoods, that I was aware of before they did so.
David Drier has defended Hutchinson's actions. Both say that inland border apprehensions continue, but insiders say that they have been directed to patrol empty ravines, places known not to be used by illegals. The spins just keeps on coming.
Dana Roerbacher rejected the idea that the federal government should foot the bill for California's illegal immigrant outlays.
Jim, I have been an ardent supporter of Hutchinson and Roerbacher in the past, and had a generally favorable opinion of Drier before this. It would be hard to imagine what could make me more disgusted with these three. Bush's comments tonight on the subject were an embarassment.
This simply cannot continue the way it is going.
If you look back on this forum you will see promises of strengthening the border patrol as far back as this forum's files go. As I mentioned to Jim, the flow has trippled during that time. Wouldn't you say six or seven years of these promises and the resulting increase in flow pretty well lays waist to the promise of shoring up the border patrol as a solution to his.
I don't believe that many people are coming across. At that rate, there wouldn't be anyone left in Mexico.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.