Posted on 05/17/2006 7:47:58 AM PDT by Pukin Dog
Edited on 05/17/2006 8:30:59 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
Same here. I had almost stopped surfing FR entirely....until it occurred to me that the obnoxious, mindless, narrow-minded thread hijackers and sleeper trolls want exactly that.
This forum is about opinion and debate. Some alleged conservatived have effectively stopped us from airing opinions and debating.
"I will support our President till my last breath."
I am at a loss for words other than I couldn't say it better myself!
Which means all the yelling at the border security folks that they want the Dems to win is absurd
This point could stand to be made a few more times, for the benefit of the hard-of-thinking.
How you doin'?
Good point, which I'll have to accept. Like the wise man said, facts are stubborn things! Having said that, this is still only one issue, and the Democrats oppose him on so many others in which is correct--- most importantly, the most important issue of our time--- the WOT.
That is the problem with this thread and maybe the county. I can see someone supporting the Constitution or their country or family with their last breath, but the President? I think some would support the Republican party over anything including the nation's best interest. I have not been able to vote very long but it has been 100% Republican so far, but I would vote for the right person over the party every single time.
This thread started with no other intention but to attack the Conservative members of FR. The fact that the attackers are in the minority according to everything I have seen would never be apparent if one were to only read this.
Ping for later
Exactly. Bush couldn't pass the Senate's McCain-Kennedy immigration proposal without strong support from the Democrats. The recent Senate votes prove that. Instead of backing the passage of HR4437, Bush wants to grant amnesty and offer a path to citizenship to 15 million criminal border crossers and millions of their kinfolk.
>>>>Which means all the yelling at the border security folks that they want the Dems to win is absurd - because the man they are backing on this issue, President Bush, is allied WITH THE DEMS.
Right. Bush is allied with the Democrats on this issue and his supporters are backing a highly liberal immigration policy.
The historic record is quite clear. After PresReagan signed the IRCA amnesty of 1986 into law, Ted Kennedy proceeded to underfund the employer sanction provisions, followed by 20 years of Bush41, Clinton and Bush43 NOT enforcing the law of the land.
Here we go again.
There is nothing in the original post or subsequent posts by PD that bear this out. PD in a border-hawk (at least a convert). His post, and many by myself and others, take issue with the STYLE that many border-hawks use to argue. It pains me to admit I agree with some of 'em.
I agree entirely. What is absolutely crazy about Bush's immigration stance is that it represents a real threat to the GOP's continued hold on the House - so in his zeal to circumvent the House GOP to get his guest worker program, Bush could well trigger events that lead to Dem control of the House - and his subsequent possible impeachment. That is what is so bizzare about this situation, IMO - what in the hell is so important about a guest worker program that Bush is willing to stake the GOP House on getting it through.
I actually have the answer to that question.
Over the past few years, I have participated in this debate, I have supported the presidents proposals in the face of severe criticism from most on this forum.
Time and time again, they bring up the '86 reforms and how the same promises of a fix were made then and the plan failed. They use the porosity of the border as if it were the only reason the '86 reforms failed, and that entire premise is faulty in a number of ways.
First, we had increased border security since 1986, on several occasions. each of those efforts ended with more and more illegals who crossed and then became essentially trapped on the American side of the border for fear of getting caught coming back in after a Xmas visit during the off season, and subsequently screwing up their application for a Green card, so the rational thing was to stay, even though the harvest season was over, and this is how social service began to feel the pinch of the increased number.
This is just one of the unintended consequences of increasing border security without addressing the underlying problems.
The '86 reforms failed largely due to failure to regulate the business environment. The increased border security and various tweaks in the code to ramp up penalties for illegal entry caused a new industry of fake documentation, coyote human traffickers, and all the nuances in between. it caused a large segment of employment for illegals to move underground where the Fed has no visibility, and no way to interdict the human trafficking or detect it.
The courts also extended rights to the illegal and the system broke down under the numerical strain. This happened with far fewer illegals then we have today and has continued.
So........It seems obvious to me, that border security alone was indicated long ago as being a failure, and doing the same thing again, hoping for a different result is foolhardy logic.
We have to address it all, and at the same time, shifting resources where needed, and setting of the logistics in a big way to deal with a big problem.
The pressures on the border must be relieved, so that border protection does not take all the resources we have. We must address business regulation, the courts, the banking industries and at the same time, refrain from damaging the delicate local and state economies, or nobody in these affected areas will participate in the reforms, in fact they will fight them and it will be all for nothing again.
This problem is indeed complicated in nature, and requires some comprehensive solutions that can be easily explained and managed.
A huge and very difficult task lies ahead, and we must succeed or we will end up with a huge and damaging unassimilated sub-culture that could upset our entire way of life here and cause repercussions in every area of the economic, political and social structures. It all has to be addressed simultaneously and collectively for anything to work.
It was at least 90% positive, and has some very good, practical suggestions as to things we can do to help solve the problem.
Take a look, Clancy. You may be pleasantly surprised. Freepers CAN be civil to each others........people with different views participated, and I think some real good came out of it.
It looks like an initial 870 miles of fence to me, at a cost of around nine hundred million, that's 900 million dollars. Also $900,000,000. That's dollars not nickles.
Nope, hang the man for managing to get ANY further on a fence HE'S BEEN TRYING TO BUILD SINCE 2001, WITHOUT "CONSERVATIVE" SUPPORT.
In answer to your question, my mother.
She's a Democrat and it would be hard to find someone with more conservative values then her.
"Now those same people who didn't vote for the re-election of the first President Bush want to give our troops another Clinton.
How shameful!"
Actually, this behavior is classic left wing mole behavior on the conservative sites. We have seen this deceit for over a decade, with liberal electronic brownshirt trolling moles on conservative sites, some sites were destroyed by this behavior. Only God knows how many good people were driven away by these lying spinning left wing brownshirt moles doing their trolling in the name of "real conservatives".
You're unveiling yourself with each post.
You post unsolicited drive-by insults, but don't have anything to say about HOW to bring winning, conservative principles back into the GOP.
Sightings, but no substance. A Foo Fighter. Look it up if you want to understand the reference.
Everyone, including Bush, understands that 6K troops will not seal the border. A 100,000 strong force would not be enough! They will simply go around it.
This is why the interior and ways of reducing the pressures are required to take some of the pressure off the border so that we need not put all our resourses in that endeavor and we have some left to deal with the implementation of screening and documentation for those who are here already.
We have finite resources to apply to this, and it must be done quickly and effectively.
It's like dealing with a fire ant problem. If the neighbors don't treat their property, the fire ants simply relocate. We have to deal with this along a broad spectrum of individual problems. All of it together will defeat anything we put on the border if we don't address it all.
Worse than that, the States and localities will refuse to participate, if they perceive they are being hurt by the Fed actions. Everyone has to participate or it all goes down the drain, as in 1986.
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.