Posted on 05/15/2006 7:56:22 AM PDT by kellynla
President Bush is continuing the homeland security dog-and-pony charade in his quest to deliver a massive "guest worker"/amnesty plan to the open-borders lobby. A few weeks ago, Bush's Department of Homeland Security put on a bogus performance of Get Tough Theater with a series of politically timed immigration raids...which, as I predicted, simply resulted in more catch and release of illegal aliens nationwide.
This new last-minute stunt to sprinkle National Guard troops on the border--temporarily, of course, to appease Mexican President Vicente Fox--is more transparent than the Scotch tape used to hold together our dilapidated border fences. (That's only a slight exaggeration.)
For all the new tough talk, these additional troops will be barred from actually doing what needs to be done: guarding the border. President Bush is already bowing and scraping to Mexico over the plan before he's even officially announced it. More details via WaPo:
Officials suggested their mission would be to play a supporting role by providing intelligence, training, transportation, construction and other functions, while leaving the actual guarding of the 2,000-mile line separating the United States and Mexico to the Border Patrol. The National Guard would be a stopgap force until the federal government could hire civilian contractors to take over administrative and support functions from the Border Patrol, freeing more agents to actually hunt for immigrants slipping into the country. Hold up. It's been nearly five years since the Sept. 11 attacks. It's taken the Bush administration this long to acknowledge the need to hire more civilian contractors to relieve the Border Patrol of administrative and support functions?
Only now, on the day the Senate revisits his favored, faltering pet proposals for mass amnesty, does he find it important enough to send a show of military non-force down to the border--
(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...
I merely said you were incorrect, but it was the wrong thread. Something about that you didn't understand I guess.
"Not Amnesty" Amnesty....classic in her VENT video.
"...Pancho Villa and Pershing..."
The illegals are not crossing the border and shooting up Texas towns. Sending Pershing-esque missions is not called for, though sending the NG to shore up and free up the BP is a start.
As for the temporary posting of that NG mission, the idea stated in the media is to do so until another group can take over their mission on a permenent basis. Either you take the media story or you don't - cherry picking bits of it like this before the speech is actually given doesn't really help.
"Unfortunately, the prez has had the ability to shut down the borders (or at least make significant improvements in security at the borders) since he was elected, reinforced by 9/11, magnified by recent events (< 2 months).
He's been remarkable only by his absence."
I agree somewhat. He hasn't been ahead of this at all, and he should listen more, but he isn't sitting on his butt either. I say we let him actually let him tell us tonight what is in the cards, before engaging in a trendy little El Jorge pinata party.
Me too.
I sick of the White House and their temporary stop gap crap.
Do it right and do it permanently.
Right after you point me to the dozens of years of examples of Malkin calling herself an entertainer.
I hope people realize that you've got many years invested in pushing an antiimmigration agenda, Spiff-so you're hardly a recent convert to such causes, and neither is Malkin.
You and she finally got lucky.
On the other hand, failure to respond to repeated demogoguery (sp?), endorsement/acceptance of profligate spending (see No Child... and Medicare Drug for direct personal responsibility), failure to adequately(successfully) go after SS/IRS reform, and explosive growth of central government...so much for "compassionate conservatism."
At some point, serious conservatives will become disenchanted. Some sooner than others. What action they take will determine whether they believe in "enabling" or tough love. I'm definitely of the latter persuasion and getting there, faster and faster.
Only someone brain dead can't understand that and accept it.
She was.
"Let 2006 crash and burn and try to rebuild the real Republican Party for 2008."
Ideally, and there is still time, the republicans will get it together and do what needs to be done on the border issue:
- Close the border, make it dangerous, (no, don't shoot them), to try to cross. Punish those that try with jail time.
- Punish those who knowingly employ illegals. Stiff fines, and jail time for repeat offenders.
Deportation on an as found basis. It's impossible to deport 11 million people. It's possible to deport those who are discovered.
- Limit access to infrastructure for illegals. Without welfare, schools, driver's licenses, free healthcare, the incentive to be an illegal is less. Deport those who try to use such systems.
- Eliminate the anchor baby loophole.
- Amnesty for long time residents, (over 5 years). Others may apply for immigration but will go to the back of the line.
- Make English the national language. Require English only for all transactions involving the government.
If the republicans would do this before October '06, they'll win, and win big. If they don't, they'll continue to be the other party with no ideas and will get crushed as a punitive measure.
Ok. I don't remember hearing that. Source, please.
"What action they take will determine whether they believe in "enabling" or tough love."
What do you mean by that? It's up to us to teach the Pubbies a lesson?
And she supported Bush back then, correct?
The results will be the same: putting Democrats in charge of Congress. I guess it depends on whether or not you think that's a bad thing.
Frank, apparently you missed the point of my mentioning Pancho and BJP. You claimed no prez had ever sent any military to reinforce the border. I did not attempt to draw any parallel beyond the fact that we not only have reinforced the border militarily, we have taken the offensive across the border to ensure it, so I fear my postion stands, correctly.
I misunderstood, true enough.
When Republicans stopped being "Conservative", I stopped referring to my self as a "Republican".
The party left "Conservatism" years ago.
"What do you mean by that? It's up to us to teach the Pubbies a lesson?"
If not us, who?
It is not the States' job to protect our international borders.
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.