MY OBLIGATORY RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDENT’S IMMIGRATION SPEECH
I didn’t really feel like writing about the President’s speech because, quite simply, I didn’t feel that I had anything useful to add to either side of the debate. The President struck all the right notes but he did it in a desultory manner, as if ticking off items from a shopping list. I thought his stressing the rule of law was diminished by his throwing up his hands and saying that we can’t throw 11 million people out of the country. I agree. But there are ways that we can enforce the law without rewarding the lawbreaking.
The very good aspects of the speech include a halt to the “catch and release” of illegals (that Malkin rightly points out should be followed everywhere, not just along the southern border), the building of additional fencing, and a slightly more nationalistic tone when talking about the flag, the English language, and assimilation in general.
The bad parts of the speech…well, actions speak louder than words and Bush has a long way to go to get even part of his conservative base to rally around him on this issue. I agree with Ed Morrissey that we were probably expecting too much, that Bush has been a centrist on this issue from the get go. And AJ Strata has a good point about rallying behind a policy once it has been announced.
This is well and good and important to remember. But something else much more fundamental is at work here. Perhaps its the final realization that after more than 5 years in office, Bush will never be what we wanted him to be - a Reagan conservative.
Dan Riehl fleshes out this point in an excellent post on the possible Republican downfall:
Sure to be a tremendous disappointment to the majority of center right and conservative Americans, they could easily come to see themselves as leaderless on domestic issues for the next two years. And perhaps they are.
Over-riding the timely struggle over immigration, conservative Republicans and Reagan Democrats also have to contend with a Republican majority in the Senate which seems just as out of touch.
Without an overwhelming majority of Republicans in the Senate, and many of those now appearing to be far from conservative, it is quite possible that Democrats will be able to hide from any responsibility for our current government’s failures, saddling Republicans with most of the blame, possibly leading to electoral victory for the Democrats in the Fall. It’s unclear if even political pressure will be able to effect anything like a genuine solution on immigration this year. Certainly the President offered nothing in terms of a serious solution. And the details behind the Senate version of an immigration bill only serve to make it worse.
That Senate version, thankfully, is probably DOA once the immigration bill goes to conference. If what the Heritage Foundation says about it is true - that it will allow 100 million new immigrants in the next 20 years - House Republicans better plant their feet in concrete and not allow such a bill to see the light of day. If they do, we may be looking at revolution and not just dissatisfaction. The probability of a third party would skyrocket and President Bush would be presiding over the destruction of the modern Republican party.
Personally, I wouldn’t leave the party over immigration. There are, after all, much more important issues. For instance, what good would it do to build a fence to keep people out of a country that has been destroyed by a terrorist attack? And for my money, until the liberals show that they are serious about protecting this country (much less, as AJ points out in this jaw dropping post, that we are at war in the first place), what good does it do to switch parties? Or start a new one for that matter?
For some reason, when trying to analyze what is going on with this immigration debate, I keep hearkening back to the Civil War and the way Lincoln governed the last 2 years of his Administration.
Beset by Copperhead Democrats on the left and weak-kneed Republican moderates who were faltering in their support for the kind of brutal war that Lincoln was finally beginning to fight by 1863, the Great Emancipator turned to his hard-core base of support in the Abolitionist movement. Support for war policies that led to the rivers of blood being spilled by the spring of 1864 didn’t necessarily require all Republicans marching in lockstep as much as Lincoln being able to rely on the 1/3 of House and Senate members who were “hard war” men - people who wanted to take the war to the South and make them suffer for starting it.
Lincoln was not so much a “hard war” man as much as he was a “quick as possible end to the war” man. In this, he knew that the South must be subdued, not just defeated on the battlefield. Using the passion and energy of the hard war crowd, Lincoln was able to sustain the one commander who thought as he did; Ulysses Grant. In so doing, Lincoln assured a northern victory. What his alliance with the bitter old men meant to reconstruction didn’t concern him as much as winning the war first. He believed (even though he never got the chance) that he could control the reconstruction debate by marginalizing the hard war men and dictating a kind of peace that all Americans could live with.
Couldn’t Bush have done something similar? He has so underutilized the conservative base for 5 years, only calling on them during the election of 2004. For the rest of the time, there have been deficits, the Prescription Drug Plan, big spending initiatives, K Street shenanigans, and a host of disappointments that may have caused people to just tune him out on immigration even though some of what he says should be pleasing to the right. By trying to govern by pleasing all, he pleases none. And it has cost him much goodwill and support.
Finally, Andrew McCarthy pointed out that one of the problems is that there actually is no “Big Fix” to be had on immigration, that the best we can hope for a graded steps on the road to sanity. I think there is a lot of truth in that notion - one that conservatives should take to heart when looking at the President’s immigrations proposals. Not perfect by any means. But a pretty good place to start.
Let me throw my .02 US in here….
Do we need to form a 3rd party over this? Not really, espically if, somehow, it makes the left stronger and the right weaker. In summation, i can live with what the prez laid out in his speach.
Do i want a better “fence”? Sure, an actual physical wall, fence, whatever. Or a invisible fence, ie Guardies at the border, Predator drones, more Border Patrol agents, ramp it up. We alos need to make the “legal line” shorter. I don’t think anyone has touched on how long it takes to get even a green card; if it’s YEARS for a law-abiding, hard working immigrant, that’s unacceptable. And then there’s the guest worker program. You can call it whatever you want, i’ll go along with it if it’s real purpose crawl up the @$$ of immigrants with a microscope and make sure they aren’t drug dealers or terrorists. What about the illegals already here? Their beneifts should be few; i’ll let your kids go to school here and i’ll pay to have you see a doctor, maybe, and *maybe* i’ll let you have a drivers licence, provided you can read the road signs (aside: learn some english!). Other than that, nothing, especally the right to vote unless you become a citizen and pay your taxes, sorry. As far as sending them back, ooooo, thats kinda tricky. I really don’t want to throw grandma and grandpa and little kids across the fence. Immigrants who are “set up”, ie a place to live, kids in school, a job, even if it’s “under the radar”, should be sent to the back of the legal line. People less well entrenched could be sent back. But bear in mind all it takes is one INS agent manhandling one little old lady on video tape and wel’ll have Hillary and Co frothing at the mouth
Comment by Hurricane567 — 5/16/2006 @ 12:58 pm
[...] From Rick Moran of Rightwing Nuthouse, in his essay on the president’s address to the nation last night: This is well and good and important to remember. But something else much more fundamental is at work here. Perhaps its the final realization that after more than 5 years in office, Bush will never be what we wanted him to be – a Reagan conservative. [...]
Pingback by A CERTAIN SLANT OF LIGHT » RICK MORAN DISTILLS IT DOWN TO ONE TRENCHANT OBSERVATION — 5/16/2006 @ 1:05 pm
What I find interesting is the reference to the Senate bill allowing 100m new legal immigrants in the coming decades, and how this is viewed as the ultimate “bad thing”, that will lead to (dammit) revolution.
I think this gives lie to the claim that the core problem is with the lack of control over the border, or the underclass of people living outside the law, or rewarding those who have come illegally etc. It seems that the ultimate outrage, for most on the right, will be stoked by a system that might well control the border, eliminate the outside-the-law underclass, and punish past law-breaking. Because the ultimate outrage is that there will be new immigrants of any kind (well, of the brown kind), even if legal.
There is a very deep and dark well of nativism that is open to exploitation in the soul of most people. The xenophoibic instincts of many on the right, stoked by the constant use of fear as a motivator for support of foreign adventures, seem ripe for futher exploitation on the immigration issue.
Overnight polls show the American people viewing Bush’s speech favorably - 79%, and their view of his handling of immigration jumping up 25%. That gives me the comfort to take pleasure in the self-immolation of the hard right that is on display these days, without much fear that their ugliness will find traction with the general public.
Comment by Tano — 5/16/2006 @ 1:17 pm
Tano:
You’ve left some pretty ignorant comments in the past at this site but this one takes the prize; full blown idiocy.
The problem with 100 million immigrants over the next 20 years is our ability to absorb and assimilate them - a problem you conveniently ignore in favor of calling people who are concerned about it a racist. That tactic of the left meant to delegitmize rather than engage debate is typical but doesn’t work here. Rather all it does is reveal your own shortcomings in analysis as well as a casual attitude toward the facts.
The nativist element is much smaller than it ever has been both statistically and in decibel levels. This debate on the right (there is no debate on the left - there never is among the lockstep loons who always seem to be able to ascribe evil motives to their adversaries) is about security and the rule of law vs. economic necessity. It’s the main street Republicans vs. the ultra-capitalists who you have pointed out on more than one occasion are pretty chummy with Bush.
And those poll numbers are likely to plummet the more people realize what is really in that Senate bill - a recipe for disaster. Read the Heritage piece and come back here and be as sanguine as you appear to be. It simply is not possible for the United States to absorb and assimilate that many people in so short a time. It’s about doing what is possible and in accordance with the law and our own national security interests.
Comment by Rick Moran — 5/16/2006 @ 1:30 pm
First of all Bush is out-and-out lying about the guard going to the border, it’s not going to happen, it was a bone thrown to appease the outraged right. As for adding new border guards, the National Intelligence Reform Act included
the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006, but Bush only allowed funding for 210 new border agents, yes you read that right 210 new agents. He does not want the border secure, he has waited 51/2 years and only now does he realize our border is out of control. And then he says deporting the 11 million to 20 million illegal aliens already here is simply impossible, but then brags in his address 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?
Comment by Radical Centrist — 5/16/2006 @ 3:06 pm
Rick,
Why is that those who make a daily habit of ascribing evil motives to their adversaries (that be you, and seemingly everyone on the right) takes such offense when the same is offered back to you?
You conclude your response to me with an assertion that “its about doing what is possible and in accordance with the law”. My whole point was to point out that the legality issue is NOT primary - the opposition from the right is to a proposal that would allow LEGAL immigration - in fact the opposition is even more heated to that proposal than it is to the notion of doing nothing (i.e. leaving the illegals illegal).
As to what is possible to assimilate, I find your attitude, and the attitude of the right in general to be completely disingenuous. You guys are the ones who are usually the loudest defenders of the notion of free markets. So, what happens to your belief in the magic of markets?
The REAL underlying issue that has led to the current situation is one of government regulation vs. the workings of the labor market. The economy needs labor. There is market for labor. Sometimes there is a big need, sometimes less of a need. Any rational immigration policy would enact some mechanism by which legal immigration quotas would be sensitive to the needs of the economy for labor - not just labor in general, but the different types of labor. But we dont have that. We have a dynamic economy, and we have a political process, not a rational process, for determining immigration quotas. There is rarely any incenctive, at the district level, for a politician to advocate for raising quotas. And so, in classic form, the market finds ways around the irrationalities imposed upon it. The economy needs workers - no legal path exists for the need to be fulfilled - paths will be found outside the law.
People come here for work. We should WANT them to come, to the extent that work is available. Unemployment is at 4.7% - only slightly above “effective full employment”. If you care about the health of the economy, the prosperity of the country, then the only rational conclusion to make is that the level of immigration that has happened to date is just about the perfect level that should have happened. If these illegals had not come, or even if some significant percentage had not come, the country would be poorer, and display less economic vitality than it does. There simply are not enough unemployed Americans that could have filled in any gap.
Hence, the market for labor has worked, depite the irrationalites of government imposed, absurdly low quotas. To the extent that the Senate bill allows legal immigration, that immigration will take at a level that approximates the needs of the economy (at least it will do so to an infinitly more sensitve extent than the current system). If workers come here some day in the future, and find no work, then they will not bother leaving their families. They will not be able to simply collect welfare here - you know perfectly well that that is not how welfare works in this country.
Anyway, bottom line. The rational, conservative approach to immigration would be to put our own self-interest, the needs of our economy as the primary criterion by which to set immigration levels. I see NONE of that on the right today - only appeals to nativism, and the existential fear of the brown wave. I’m sorry if you find that harsh, but you havent given me any reason to believe that this is not the driving, if unacknowledged, concern.
Comment by Tano — 5/16/2006 @ 3:16 pm
If what the Heritage Foundation says about it is true – that it will allow 100 million new immigrants in the next 20 years
I still question their numbers. IF it’s true, indeed.
Re Bush not being a “Reagan conservative,” I can’t say I agree with that. Both are (were) pragmatists, with a long-range vision. Both are/were willing to give a little to the center on certain issues in order to achieve the most important goals–Reagan with the Cold War, Bush with the WoT. Bush’s critics on the right want everything they want NOW! and exactly THEIR WAY! when there are other things involved that they simply don’t understand or care to take into account. One example is the issue of politics on the other side of the border–it’s become trendy among certain people to throw around “El Presidente” and slag him for trying to work with Vicente Fox, but they are either not aware or apathetic about the very real possibility Mexicans may elect a Hugo Chavez clone this year, one who is using the “existential fear of the brown wave” as a campaign tactic. It’s working, in fact. We’re going to have a REAL problem with illegal immigration if that happens, and it won’t be farm/construction workers crossing the border that are the threat. It only took 19 people to kill 3000 people, and we’ve got millions crossing the border now. Imagine how it’ll be with a real enemy running Mexico.
And why isn’t anyone addressing the porous border with Canada? I’m more worried about the kind of illegals that go that route than the guy sneaking through to do manual labor.
Tano,
I hope you don’t think your impression of the right’s arguments are representative of ALL the right. I agree with you, there is an undercurrent of xenophobia–eh, screw it, racism–beneath some people’s “arguments.” It’s not the view of most conservatives at all, but those that do show their @sses as such seem to get an inordinate amount of attention.
Radical Centrist:
First of all Bush is out-and-out lying about the guard going to the border, it’s not going to happen, it was a bone thrown to appease the outraged right.
Bullsh-t. Lying? You know this? Do you know anything about the guard? So you mean to tell me that Sgt Joe Schmo who goes on his annual training will go to Base X to do his time, fill the square, and NOT go where he’s needed? Do you have any idea how many people there are in the National Guard, and what they actually do? They don’t even have to touch the people who aren’t already activated for the WoT!
And do you ACTUALLY believe that we can round up and deport all the illegals? Ha! Don’t you think that if the gubmint knew who and where all the illegals were, they would have been deported? Good grief.
Basically, my view is that this problem is a lot more complicated and difficult than people realize. They’re thinking abstractly, as in “illegals bad, make them stop.” While I wholeheartedly agree that illegal immigration is bad and I want the problem to stop, I’m not a fool. This is going to take a lot of work, and a lot of money (then watch people howl about spending!), and there are many, many factors that aren’t even being considered by the vast majority of Americans (not just conservatives). The easy thing to do would be to say “it’s too big to tame this beast” (see also: Social Security–thanks, Congress, for nothing)–the hard thing is to actually have a workable plan. You can’t plan for something like this in the abstract. Will the Border-Deranged Syndrome victims be willing to spend billions and wait years for an actual fence to be completed? I seriously, seriously doubt it. I’d wait and I’d accept the expense, but then I’m not one of the ones going ape5hit about the whole thing either.
And frankly, I’m tired of my allies on the right acting like a bunch of spoiled brats. They keep calling themselves “the base,” but “the base” does not mean “the stubborn extremists” or “the far right.” “The base” is the people who are loyal, like me. That doesn’t mean I don’t have expectations, but it does mean I won’t take my marbles and go home every time I don’t get my way. I don’t get what’s so hard to f’n understand with these people about Democrats not giving them ANYTHING they want. How, HOW could people be so jaw-droppingly stupid? Peggy Noonan, even? There are no words to describe the level of amazement at their utter naivete and just plain stupidity. So I say FINE, if they want to bail, good. That means the GOP will be flushed of the stupid. And I won’t forget it, either–I’m STILL pissed about 1992. Stupid single-issue ideologues.
Comment by Beth — 5/16/2006 @ 4:40 pm
Beth:
What on earth are you talking about. Bush didn’t even consult the governors of the particular states he was going to draw the NG from. Shwatzenegger is against it, Napolitano is against and Richardson is against it, I haven’t heard any comments from the Gov. of Texas. Bush can’t just randomly take guards from other states and put them in Cali, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, and he needs the consent of the Governors of those states to deploy the troops. And again he’s only now after 5 1/2 years realizing their is a problem on the border. Also to the larger point, he has had authorization to hire 10,000 new border patrol agents and has only funded an additional 210 new border agents.
And sure people come here to work, it’s not America’s fault that Mexico and most of Latin America is a swirling cesspool of misery. People come here to work, they also commit crimes. It is estimated that illegal aliens make up
1/3 of the US prison population, in LA county,a full 85% of oustanding warrents for rape, robbery and murder are for illegal aliens. Also the stresses they have put on our educational system, medical sytem and penal system in some states is rising to the breaking point. Illegal immigrants also depress wages for the American worker. The University of Maryland did a study of how illegal immigrants depress wages; In Wisconsin in the early 80’s the average meat-packer earned $18 dollars an hour with benefits and the breakdown of the workforce was overwhelmingly native born whites and blacks, flash foward to today, and the average wage is $9 dollars an hour with very little benefits. And it wasn’t that Americans no longer wanted to do the jobs, it was because of the availability of cheap immigrant labor that supplanted the more expensive Native born labor force. The over-arching point is this, we have had many so-called immigration reforms since 1965 with the promise that we would start enforcing immigration laws, no such thing occured. We are now contemplating creating new laws that congress and the President have no intention of enforcing. They haven’t enforced the old laws why should we believe they will enforce the new laws. And this is the reason that base is up in arms, as the Who rightly said, we won’t be fooled again!!!
Comment by Radical Centrist — 5/16/2006 @ 5:22 pm
Beth,
I certainly never assumed that nativism drives the entire right, but the more I look for rationality, the less I find,,,so I begin to wonder.
Even you, who seems to want to disassociate yourself from the nastiness, turns around and starts ranting about the coming apocalypse if Obrador wins the election - and I really gotta start wondering whats going on here.
If anything, having a Mexican leader that is more focussed on uplifting the poor, rather than trickling down to them, may well help to lessen the economic disparity between our countries, and thus lessen the incentive to migrate (probably marginal lessening, granted). Fox is completely tapped into the RW corporate mentality that sees Mexican workers as part of the Greater American Economic Structure. Obrador would probably be more inclined to build a Mexican based economy, rather than see Mexico as appendage to the US. For immigration issues, that may be more to your liking.
Comment by Tano — 5/16/2006 @ 5:27 pm
Beth:
You’re right in saying both Bush and Reagan were pragmatists. I would have to say however that Reagan felt the pulse of conservatives a lot better and was able to finesse their disappointment.
We all remember the James Watt plea “Let Reagan be Reagan” - as if he could be anything else! What Watt was really saying was let Reagan’s rhetoric match his actions. The conservatives during Reagan’s terms were mad at James Baker, Don Regan, and David Gergen because they thought that those guys and other moderates were holding back Reagan from doing some really whacky stuff. Reagan ended up doing what was possible while still making it look like a victory for conservatives.
Bush as President with his own majority in Congress isn’t given that same benefit of the doubt. These “full loaf or nothing” Republicans don’t look to Bush’s aides for the answer to thier frustration, they blame the President himself. In a very important way, Bush has been his own worse enemy on this and it’s probably too late to change.
Comment by Rick Moran — 5/16/2006 @ 6:47 pm
No, Tano.
The economy does not need workers in the least. It has tons of unemployed or underemployed workers. They are called minorities and teenagers.
That is an unqualified lie.
What employers want is simply to pay Third World wages for easily exploited cheap labor. To ascribe racist motives to the Black, White, Asian, and Hispanic working Americans who are fighting to protect their families from the future of net downwards social mobility you have mapped out for them is a filthy slur and lie.
Comment by Charles Warren — 5/16/2006 @ 7:01 pm
All the fury going around in the righty blogs reminded me of the Harriet Myers episode. There seemed to be alot of scorn and contempt directed towards Bush and Myers then. Today I saw President Bush referred to as “El Presidente”. I find that hateful and hurtful. He may show (obviously way too much for some) an abundance of compassion and mercy towards the immigrants here illegally, but I believe his first priority is to protect America. He has never given us any reason to believe otherwise and on many occasions he has been villified for the efforts he made in that goal. All the energy directed at President Bush should probably be directed towards your LOCAL representatives on both sides of the issue.
Comment by Mitzi — 5/16/2006 @ 7:42 pm
Tano,
Even though Rick says your first post on this thread as idiocy, you make good points. I am glad you didn’t start off flinging insults. I have to agree with Rick on a couple points. The issue is assimilation. I hear people touting the “Scandanavian Utopians” as the liberal ideals, but how many of those so called European nations have an immigration policy anywhere near as liberal (both definitions) as ours? There is a reason why they don’t let anyone that wants to come enter the US. Another issue is that it is hypocritical to those who want to enter the US through legal channels. My father came from India legally in 1969(yes that makes me brown). He had to be one of the best in his industry to even have chance to come to America. I admit many ignorant right-wingers stamp their feet and scream, “Dey took r jerbs!!!!!”, but it isn’t just white people that are against illegal immigrants. As horrible as it sounds but many inner city African Americans hate the idea that Mexicans can come in and do the same job for less. While it is true capitalists like myself do believe that we need the cheap labor, we also realize they are breaking the law. On this issue, it is hard to make everyone happy. Many do not realize this but people sometimes misuse the term capitalism. Not all Republicans are capitalists. Many of them are actually merchantilists. They have to follow that economic philosophy if they want to be re-elected. One example is the tariff that Republicans placed on cheaper foreign steel. It was designed to protect industry not overrall commerce. Ironically, Bush wants to institute a guest worker program. It is capitalist in nature, but at the same time he stole a page from the French. It appears to you that there is less sanity on the right because it would go against your principles if they appeared reasonable. Both political extremes tend to find flaws quicker on the other side. Irrationality and absurdity is a multipartisan issue. For instance look what Howard Dean said at the CBN. Gay and Lesbian Democrat supporters said it wasn’t the first time he made that “slip up”. Is he stupid? No, he was pandering to garner more votes. That is where the absurdity exists.
Beth,
Those 19 people that killed 3000 didn’t cross the Mexican border.
Comment by Svenghouli — 5/16/2006 @ 10:36 pm
Tano,
It’s not that Obrador is a socialist/communist, it’s that he DOES hate America. If there’s one thing we do not need, it’s someone who would be happy to let terrorists in the border. I’m not even talking about Mexican workers, in that case, although you can be sure he wouldn’t do anything to help that situation.
I don’t know what your opinion of Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro is, but if you think they’re OK then I guess Obrador is your man. I can’t imagine why any American would advocate an enemy on the border, though. I don’t care if he talks about “uplifting the poor.” I put our interests first. To be sure, the Mexican economy plays a huge part in the immigration issue, but if you don’t think Mexican workers are a problem…well, there’s a disconnect.
Look, I’m as frustrated as anyone with the rhetoric being thrown around. I’ve been attacked myself for calling things as I see them–there is racist rhetoric to be found in blog comments at some of the fever swamps, and some of the more hardcore immigration fanatics have either ignored such rhetoric because the yahoos support their basic points, or they’ve egged it on. All I’m saying is that those yahoos really don’t represent us, and I regularly call out those who don’t nip it in the bud. How they manage to operate a computer to excrete their crap is a mystery to me.
Radical:
Bush can’t just randomly take guards from other states and put them in Cali, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, and he needs the consent of the Governors of those states to deploy the troops.
WRONG. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Every single member of the National Guard is required to perform annual training. They don’t necessarily–or even USUALLY–perform that training close to home/in their home state. Sgt Schmo in Chicago may have his AT in Florida or Kansas or whatever. If they’re going to do AT anyway, what’s the problem with putting them to work in TX/NM/AZ/CA? I was in the military; I do know. And I’ll tell you what else: the AT they do isn’t something that they can’t change to a different location or function, either. It simply is NOT a big deal.
he’s only now after 5 1/2 years realizing their is a problem on the border.
Wrong again. Bush has had immigration plans for YEARS; it’s only been in recent months that suddenly the PUBLIC decided it was an issue. Look it up.
Furthermore “the base is up in arms?” Wrong. I’m not “up in arms.” I am the base. I don’t sit out elections like the assholes in 1992 to “teach Republicans a lesson.” Fat lot of good that got them. It’s single-issue spoiled toddlers who “won’t get fooled again,” not the base.
I have no patience at all for that nonsense. I’m not interested in your “estimates,” either. Do you advocate deporting blacks too? After all, they make up the majority of the prison population. And while we’re at it, how about deporting all MEN? They’re responsible for the VAST, overwhelming majority of crime.
I’m not for “amnesty” or soft on illegal immigration, either. The difference is, my opinion is not based on ignorance and hysterical fear.
Mitzi:
Today I saw President Bush referred to as “El Presidenteâ€
Heh. Probably a hundred times, and they’ll say there’s nothing objectionable about saying that. How’s “wetbacks” strike you? I actually had some idiot trying to DEFEND the use of the word “wetback” in comments at my site! These fools have no clue. The more crap they fling like that, the more people they turn away from their point of view. Bunch of f’n amateurs.
Comment by Beth — 5/16/2006 @ 11:51 pm
Svenghouli:
Beth,
Those 19 people that killed 3000 didn’t cross the Mexican border.
You meant that for me? Hell, that’s what I’ve been saying all along. Nobody bothers talking about the illegals that come from anywhere BUT the Mexican border. My only point was that someone like Obrador may not mind having people like that slip through his country to come here. If not Islamic terrorists, then certainly there are plenty of others from our own hemisphere who bear ill will towards us. And how about the flow of drugs into the country, if nothing else? Obrador definitely won’t be working with us in that regard.
Comment by Beth — 5/16/2006 @ 11:57 pm
One of the problems here is that the very far right has lost sight of who the real bad guy here is. It’s not Juan the leafblower or Maria the maid. They are just here because the US is great compared to the $#!+hole Mexico is. Note to V Fox, i have a mop for you to clean up your country with. Either tell me where to mail it or i’m going to stick it someplace you won’t like. The drooling left isn’t the villain, either, just ignore them for now. The real enemy are guys like Zacarias Moussaoui and Mohamed Atta who seek to exploit the same gaps Juan and Maria did not to have a better life but to destroy the United States. So what do we do? Let’s make Juan and Maria the heroes here. Quit laughing! Here’s my idea. If Juan and Maria step into the light, stand in line, fill out the paperwork, get legal, and show others, both the ones here and ones still in Mexico, how easy it is, that’s less resources needed to chase them down (and deport them)and more to find the aforementioned terrorists and maybe stop another 9-11 in its tracks. But we gotta tell Juan and Maria this, so how about scraping together some cash and buying a little tv time on every station from Beaumont TX to L.A. to pitch my “get legal, stop terrorism” idea to the masses? Good idea? Bad idea? Why?
Comment by Hurricane567 — 5/17/2006 @ 2:13 am
Beth:
Thank you for clarifying. I do agree that Obrador will cause major problems for the United States. I am not so much worried about him allowing terrorists enter into the US as I am worried about him trying to start a revolution. With all the talk of “Reconquista” already floating around, it will be just a matter of time when members of the Communist Latin Community in California show their faces on a grand scale. One problem with socialism is that it only kindof works in nations of educated people. The reason why is that with the government controlling everything; there is a greater chance for mischief.Many anti-liberals (left-wingers) claim that socialism does work, because it works in Norway. Norway receives a lot money from oil. It also has a very, very, strict immigration policy. If oil is deemed obselete, that nation is SOL, no more progressive socialist paradise. Good old Chavez has ruined Venezuela’s oil industry already. I have an issue with many people on the US left supporting Chavez. Hugo openly supports Iran, Syria, and Libya. He was the only foreign leader of note to visit Iraq while Saddam was in power. He has had advisors who have denyed the existence of the Holocaust and blasts the “Jewish Financial Institutions”(Norberto Ceresole). The Jewish community has experienced persecution in Venezuela. The Jewish population has been cut in about half since Chavez has been in power. Many progressives still view him as a hero because he is in opposition to Bush. I guess in their eyes anyone really is better than Bush, even if the leader believes in National Socialism and hates Jews.
Hurricane567:
For legal immigrants, it can take many years to enter the
US. Illegal aliens want to enter the US now. Based on current immigration law, these aliens would not be allowed in legally.
Comment by Svenghouli — 5/17/2006 @ 10:56 am
WOW ! A BILL TO BE ENFORCED WOULD HAVE TO BE ONE OF THE “AMERICAN WAY” First all must register to pay taxes on all incomed earned. 2) one must be in the U.S. FOR TEN YEARS working, paying taxes, and with no excessive criminal record. 3) One must a 10 years and one day pay “a fee” of $5,000 for staying in this country for the ten years. 4) upon being within the U.S. for twenty years you now become a U.S. citizen! Why the harshness? Well I believe if you want to be here so bad, and have so much to give to this country then the 20 years is fair? Fair? yes.. because now your not getting a free ride, working and paying no taxes, milking the system, and now you want to drive back into your country, and not hop the wall into it!! Now its time to pay the piper while you are here, and make something of yourself.. maybe its time to live as a family of 4 in a home vs: a family of 10.”America lov it or leave it” !!
Comment by finely tuned and polished — 6/29/2007 @ 2:17 pm