Bush to send troops to border by rklenseth

I read about this on DailyKos. It's part of King George's plan to vault back into the magical land of 30%+ approval. At 29% he feels a little too unpopular I guess. BTW, he nixed plans to send 10,000 extra Border Patrol agents to patrol the California to South Texas region earlier this year due to the expense of the plan. Now that his approval ratings have set new personal lows (and are approaching Nixon's ratings before he resigned) he's decided to send those Guardsmen to the border with Mexico for PR opportunities and also to fire up the Republican (racist, xenophobic) base before this November's midterm elections. Josh Bolten actually called this the "Guns and Badges" strategy to minimize expected losses in November.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2006 8:54 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Fairly simple distraction policy to turn peoples attention away from real issues. Just like Tony Blair signing a petition against Animal extremists in U.K. to distract people from the fact that his government is coming apart.
Bush is looking for a domestic issue to get peoples backs up and Illegals is his best shot.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2006 9:28 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Bush is looking for a domestic issue to get peoples backs up and Illegals is his best shot.

Right, but does that mean that this isn't a real issue? Just because Bush says it's important doesn't mean that it's not important. While I fully understand why people are cynical about the timing of this, it's something that needs to be addressed (and should have been a long time ago).

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 14, 2006 10:09 PM

Immigration does need to be addressed, primarily with the guest worker to citizenship program that Democrats, centrist Republicans and even Bush backed until the crazy right wing of the Republican Party shut that plan down in Congress. Now that Bush is desperate he's pulling PR stunts like this to shore up his base. In the end this will cost him even more Mexican American support (and shore up the Democrats standing in the Mexican American community) and won't bring new voters into the Republican Party. There are also massive logistical and financial problems associated with an operation of this size with the National Guard. We have all seen how well this administration has managed large scale operations in the past, so I'm not confident that "Operation Save Bush's Ass" will even work as intended.

At least Nixon had the decency to resign. What's up Bush?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 2:10 AM

ZISKER

It's like he's trying to kill the National Guard. They're already pulling more than their fair share of duty in Iraq and now they're going to be rotated down to the border as well? And we think we're having retention and recruiting problems now - where is the money and manpower for this coming from?

One day.
One plan.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://www.serenityday.org/
http://forum.serenityday.org/

Little or no free time, but want to help?
Help Spread the Signal: http://www.geocities.com/browncoatsignalcorps

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 3:12 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Zisker:
It's like he's trying to kill the National Guard. They're already pulling more than their fair share of duty in Iraq and now they're going to be rotated down to the border as well? And we think we're having retention and recruiting problems now - where is the money and manpower for this coming from?

There are 400,000 National Guard. He's talking about using less then 3%. I did wonder if that included those already deployed by some of the border states.

Also, at least they all have experiance at desert operations. I also suggest the such operational deployments in the US are easier on the troops then deployments to Iraq, both because the climate is better and because fewer people are trying to kill them.

I'm for a temporary closing of the border till we figure this all out. Close the border, train new border guards, create a guest worker program (along with criminal penalties for hiring or renting housing to illegals...to encourage compliance with the program), and then reopen with more control. Mexico may not like it, but controling the border is our soveriegn right.

I note for the record the Mexico treats illegals far harsher then we do and that Mexico can also control its side of the border and has chosen not to.

H

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 5:13 AM

ZISKER

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

There are 400,000 National Guard. He's talking about using less then 3%. I did wonder if that included those already deployed by some of the border states.

Also, at least they all have experiance at desert operations. I also suggest the such operational deployments in the US are easier on the troops then deployments to Iraq, both because the climate is better and because fewer people are trying to kill them.

Having run this sentiment past a few of my buddies who have served in Iraq and done 'home' deployments just guarding NYC mass transit hubs (which would be less of a hassle than sitting on the border), the unanimous consensus is along the lines of "A deployment is a deployment away from your friends, family and job and it sucks". The National Guard is already being abused by the administration and further strain is not going to be appreciated by the already over-taxed soldiers - and spare me the "you knew what you were signing up for" spiel. In this case, many didn't. They're going to respond by 'voting with their feet', as it were.

Unless Bush is planning to use the one NG Brigade in the SW that was declared Combat Ineffective (and do we really want that kind of unit out there?), this is definately going to rile a number of soldiers. The 3% statistic isn't going to matter for the people you're effecting: long-term, if enough soldiers are unhappy and leave, the Guard - which has already undergone reorganizations recently - will be forced to do so again at least in that region.

Sadly, this is what the Guard was designed and intended to do, but Bush's use of them as his personal toy soldiers has tossed a wrench in the system.

One day.
One plan.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://www.serenityday.org/
http://forum.serenityday.org/

Little or no free time, but want to help?
Help Spread the Signal: http://www.geocities.com/browncoatsignalcorps

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 5:34 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"fire up the Republican (racist, xenophobic) base"

Is it at all possible that someone might want to place controls on unlimited immigration without being racist or xenophobic? Is it possible that someone might be Republican without being racist or xenophobic?

Just checking.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 5:48 AM

JMB9039

Having controls on immigration is fine - but I think we have to be practical too. You can't just wave a magic wand and say "poof" all the illegals are gone and now we have people to partol the borders. It costs money, man-power, training, etc. I think the guest worker program is pragmatic and necessary and tightening the borders is necessary. It isn't the idea, but the execution that is troubling.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 6:52 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

The execution seems to be immediately allocating available manpower to the problem of border security.

I think what you're upset about isn't the execution, but rather the perceived political goals behind the execution.

But, you know, I've been advocating national guard use for border patrol. If Bush's approval has to be in the toilet before he does it? Well, ain't it all just surprising that if we don't approve of the job he's doing... he does something different?

Shocking.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 7:06 AM

JMB9039

I don't think you should attempt to read my mind.

I do think this is poor execution because I think the NG is being stretched too thin. The Guard is in Iraq fighting a war. They are in Florida helping fight fires. They were in the Gulf Coast helping with Katrina. I just think we need to find other solutions rather than military.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 8:59 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Oh the irony.

A little bit of historical perspective here...

Firstly, our country was never intended to have a standing army loyal to the FedGov alone, it was seen as opening the door to tyranny, and that dolt Madison, in The Federalist Papers, stated that no protection against such a thing would necessary because no one would ever dare stoop so low as to do such a thing, and if they did the people would not tolerate it (he was arguing against the need for the 2nd amendment, mind you) - and so, we eventally wound up with one.

The armed forces of our nation, constitutionally, have ONE primary function, and that is to defend our borders, in truth - so any screeching about it from any political angle has little to no value, and posse comitatus doesn't apply to what is, again, their primary function and constitutional reason for existance.

Historically it's always been a bad idea for any leader to have a fully mobilized standing army at their disposal, because when you have such a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail.

In all honesty this would be a better use of their time than sinking faster into the quagmire that is Iraq, we have enough problems HERE without getting all involved in everyone elses, ole George Washington himself warned the people about foreign entanglements on his way out of office, and history has shown the wisdom of that course because most of our overseas meddling winds up coming back on us like a spiked iron boomerang.

There's a merit to leaving the hell alone, and with our nation coming apart at the seams, we need to worry about our butts first - sorry middle east, we gotta take care of the home front first, you want freedom ? start kickin enough butt to take it, simple.

So yeah, pull em out, put them on the border and start rotating them in *short* tours, enough to give them necessary training and experience, and give them enough time off to remember what they're fighting for, this will help morale a great deal, reduce logistical and transport costs significantly, and likely solve a lot of other problems too.

Sure it means abandoning Iraq, but really, what the hell do we hope to accomplish there that we stand any realistic chance of doing ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 10:20 AM

Is no one else bothered by the thought of armed guards patrolling the borders of this country. How sad that it comes to this.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 10:23 AM

CITIZEN

It's far from an ideal solution, but if I were given the choice between vigilantes and soldiers...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 10:26 AM

How about just an immigration policy that works? I think back to the happy days of seeing those hundreds of people standing in line outside the US embassy in London. Small children waiting for hours and hours in the hot sun, ok, so it was England and the sun wasn't THAT hot- but there was rain! and Kamikazee taxi drivers - I digress - and as I would stroll by those teeming masses waiting for hours on end to be told to come back yet another day - I would think to myself "SELF" I said "YES THIS is DEMOCRACY in action!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 12:05 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

Why penalize people who rent housing to illegals, Hero?

That's keeping money in the country right? I'm going to take a wild guess that people aren't crossing the border so that they can pay rent in America. I don't understand why you'd bother with that angle.

I agree with penalizing ocmpanies who hire illegals though...

that and granting a path towards citizenship to those who are already here, so that they can start to demand higher wages, which will hopefully improve our standard of living.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 12:30 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
"I do think this is poor execution because I think the NG is being stretched too thin. The Guard is in Iraq fighting a war. They are in Florida helping fight fires. They were in the Gulf Coast helping with Katrina. I just think we need to find other solutions rather than military."

So rather than re-allocate existing resources, you advocate... What? Do nothing? Create something new from nothing? Instantly double the size of the existing border patrol by... Waving a magic wand? What is our other, non-military solution?

Quote:
"Is no one else bothered by the thought of armed guards patrolling the borders of this country. How sad that it comes to this."

We already have armed guards patrolling the borders of this country. We have always had armed guards patrolling the borders of this country. The problem is that we do not have enough armed guards patrolling the borders of this country.

Quote:
"How about just an immigration policy that works? I think back to the happy days of seeing those hundreds of people standing in line outside the US embassy in London. Small children waiting for hours and hours in the hot sun, ok, so it was England and the sun wasn't THAT hot- but there was rain! and Kamikazee taxi drivers - I digress - and as I would stroll by those teeming masses waiting for hours on end to be told to come back yet another day - I would think to myself "SELF" I said "YES THIS is DEMOCRACY in action!""

There are only two immigration policies that would prevent people from trying to illegally cross our borders.
1) Let anyone who wants to come here, come here.
2) Make sure our nation is crappier than every other nation, so no one wants to come here.

Other than those two options, people will try to come here illegally. And the only way to stop them is with... Armed guards patrolling the borders of this country.

Quote:
"that and granting a path towards citizenship to those who are already here, so that they can start to demand higher wages, which will hopefully improve our standard of living."

I agree that rounding up and exporting millions of illegal immigrants is impractical. Amnesty and citizenship for those already here. Then lock down the border tight, and control your population. Once population increase is predictable, and all residents have legal rights, then an appropriate economic plan can be developed to supply your citizenry with necessary goods and services. The price of work can also be stabilized at a livable wage.

We don't need a sub-class of illegal working poor in this country. We don't need unchecked and unlimited immigration. We do need armed guards, and we don't have anywhere else to get them in a hurry BUT from the military.

For my part, it will be nice to have more of our boys doing security work within the 50 states.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 2:58 PM

Is it at all possible that someone might want to place controls on unlimited immigration without being racist or xenophobic? Is it possible that someone might be Republican without being racist or xenophobic?

Just checking.

--Anthony

The answer is yes, it is possible, but not in this case. I can copy Josh Bolten's statement regarding the Guns and Badges strategy for the midterms if you'd like. Clearly this is a political play aimed at firing up racists and xenophobes. There is no other explanation given Bolten's statement. The solution is to add many more Border Patrol agents since that agency is designed specifically to deal with illegal immigration. As I mentioned before, the original plan was to allocate money to put 10,000 additional BP agents into the border with Mexico, but that was deemed too expensive by Congress (the Republican Congress of course) and the 10,000 was trimmed down to 310. The reason Bush is using National Guard troops rather than training BP agents is simply the difference in publicity. It would take time for him to get Congress to authorize a spending bill for the additional BP agents, and more time to hire and train them. Although he would be able to announce the bill prior to this year's midterm elections, the agents would not actually be deployed in time for a photo op for Bush before the midterms. On the other hand there are 10,000 Guard troops ready to go now, in plenty of time for lots of photo ops leading up to the election. This is all about politics, period. The problem with using Guard troops is that they aren't trained for this sort of operation, and frankly they didn't sign on for this. Recruitment numbers will drop drastically because of this. The US-Mexico border is 99% barren, inhospitable land, not exactly the kind of duty that will get young men and women to want to sign up for Guard duty. I was born in El Paso and I've travelled along stretches of the Border in Arizona, New Mexico, and California, as well as Texas. There isn't an uglier, hotter region in the US, and Guard troops will not want to be there indefinitely. So you will have a situation in which untrained personnel (untrained for this operation) will be deployed indefinitely, stretching the already thin Guard resources that much more, when the logical solution is to actually fund the increase in Border Patrol agents as many members of Congress from both parties and the White House had wanted. This is typical of the Bush Administration, putting party ahead of country, playing politics with the military, and doing absolutely anything for a good photo op to fire up their knuckle dragging base. At the same time, also typical of this administration, the program won't work as well as intended, and it will lead to to multiple problems with both the National Guard and the Border Patrol Agency. If you want to get the job done, give the professionals in the Border Patrol the money and resources they need to do the job, don't turn guarding the border over to a bunch of unprepared, untrained, part time soldiers, many of whom won't want the job.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 3:58 PM

Load of BS Anthony. There is a VAST difference between a border patrol agent and the National Guard.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 4:19 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
"If you want to get the job done, give the professionals in the Border Patrol the money and resources they need to do the job, don't turn guarding the border over to a bunch of unprepared, untrained, part time soldiers, many of whom won't want the job."

I couldn't disagree more.

Quote:
"On the other hand there are 10,000 Guard troops ready to go now"

It would take at least a year and probably three to get the Border Patrol in the shape it needs to be in, assuming funding was available right now. (And it's not.) So your solution to simply give the Border Patrol money and resources isn't a good one by itself. The Border Patrol DOES need money and resources, but the gap between now and later needs to be filled with something. That something is our National Guard: created specifically to Guard our Nation.

As for the National Guard being unprepared and untrained for this, I disagree with that, too. Securing a perimiter is one of those things the military teaches its people fairly early on.

Oh, and then this:

"There isn't an uglier, hotter region in the US"

I've been around the Arizona desert, and I find it quite beautiful. But even if you think it's ugly, I can promise you that our National Guard has unfortunately become accustomed to spending lots of time in foreign hot deserts. Their training and deployments have frequently been in foreign hot deserts. I think you can safely say that foreign hot deserts has been the primary focus of the military since the first Gulf War. I do believe that spending time in Native hot deserts is going to be preferable. I think the average National Guardsman would rather spend time in our hot deserts than their hot deserts.

Finally, there's this:

"The answer is yes, it is possible, but not in this case."

I'm not xenophobic and I'm not racist. I'm not even politist. I don't hate Democrats or Republicans. Been registered Independent since graduating from High School. My parents are Cuban. From Cuba. My grandparents brought them over when Batista was in power, and they went through hoops to become residents and then citizens. My dad was sworn in as a citizen the day Kennedy was assasinated. He thought the announcement at the swearing-in ceremony was a loyalty test.

But you know what? Immigration does need to be controlled. And the borders need to be watched. Starting right away. I don't know that Bush or the current party is filled with racists. I don't know what is in the hearts or minds of these men. I do know that finally, at long last, something is being done about an old problem. Are they doing it for political reasons? Yeah? Good. That's what our vote is supposed to do. It's supposed to put pressure on the leadership to do the things we want. So now they are addressing an old problem.

That makes me glad.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 15, 2006 5:22 PM

It would take less than a year to get the necessary BP agents into place. There is no crisis facing the nation that requires the deployment of a large number of Guard troops immediately. Our border with Mexico isn't unguarded in the first place, lots of people are detained and sent back after trying to cross. More BP agents would be good, but the idea of sending 10,000 troops to the border as if we're facing some kind of a crisis is absurd. These immigrants aren't trying to invade the nation, they're looking for work and a better life. Frankly the illegal immigrants contribute greatly to the economies of the border states by taking jobs for lower than legal pay that US citizens aren't taking. If you've eaten in a restaurant in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California, you have had food cooked for you by illegal immigrants, and your table was bussed and cleaned by an illegal immigrant at some point. Landscaping services, construction companies, agricultural companies, clothing manufacturers and many other types of companies rely on labor from illegal immigrants, which is why corporate America opposes punitive measures for dealing with illegal immigrants. when politicians attempt to solve complex problems like this during an election year the result is usually negative. There is time to deal with this problem appropriately, no need for grandstanding like this pr stunt by Bush. I noticed that you disagree with having the professional BP handle the problem. I can then assume that you want non-professionals to do the job. Brilliant.

You say you've been to the Arizona desert and you liked it. Exactly where did you travel in Arizona? I've been all over the state and I can tell you that there is a huge difference between the area around the border with Mexico and the touristy areas to the North. There is no infrastructure along or close to the border, and the area is very hot and very unpleasant most of the year. Guard troops do train in desert climates, but not for long periods of time and they don't train for immigration control at all because that isn't what the Guard is for. The National Guard exists to defend against INVASION of our borders and for helping out in areas hit by natural disaster, not for handling immigration problems. They are also not generally used for long term deployment since Guardsmen have regular lives. This explains why enlistment in the Guard has been down recently. As far as whether Guardsmen would prefer being in our deserts or in Iraq, I don't want them in either desert. It's also an asinine comparison since troops won't be called back from Iraq to serve on the Mexico border. The ones sent to patrol the border won't have experience in Iraq, so they will have at most a few weekends of training for desert combat, which has nothing to do with trolling for illegals crossing over.

Please don't compare/confuse Cubans coming over to the US in the 50's and 60's to Mexicans coming over now. The circumstances are completely different today. I will say that you and your family are lucky that the racist wing of the Republican party wasn't in control of the nation at that time because if they had been deciding immigration issues then, you and your family would not be living in the US now. It's always heartwarming to see descendants of recent immigrants complaining about current immigrants though. Makes the old heartstrings tingle.

One more thing, and I say this to all of the proud, fearsome, armchair warriors who are "supporting" the war in Iraq. SIGN UP! If you feel so strongly and your patriotic fervor has been aroused, then volunteer for duty on the border! You'll love it down there, the 100 degree heat (in the shade), the tent you'll sleep in (no motels on the border), the crap you'll eat (no fancy eatin places on the border either), and of course the insects, dehydration, and near constant boredom. I'm certain you're of prime age for enlistment, so go on, don't just talk about it, put your body where your mouth is and enlist in your National Guard and ask to be sent to guard the US-Mexico border. You'll make us all proud!

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 6:14 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
"It would take less than a year to get the necessary BP agents into place."

I sincerely doubt the ability to find, hire, train, and place 10k border patrol agents in less than a year. But maybe their training isn't that extensive, after all? I wouldn't know. I assumed they were trained along the same lines as police officers.

Quote:
"There is no crisis facing the nation that requires the deployment of a large number of Guard troops immediately."

So finally, at long last, someone is doing something about a problem which has existed for years. Your response? "What's your hurry?" Brilliant.

Quote:
Our border with Mexico isn't unguarded in the first place, lots of people are detained and sent back after trying to cross. More BP agents would be good, but the idea of sending 10,000 troops to the border as if we're facing some kind of a crisis is absurd."

No, it's great. Because the President will send his National Guard troops to the border. And the border will be more secure. But people like you will complain about those troops. And Bush will say, "Well, we could move the troops, but then we'll be leaving the country unguarded." And then congress, the same congress that refused funding before, will be forced to fund new border patrol agents so that they aren't responsible for leaving the border unguarded. Then the National Guard troops will be withdrawn after the Border Patrol are in place. And that will take 1-3 years. After which, presto, we have a sufficient Border Patrol. This is EXACTLY what we need.

Quote:
"These immigrants aren't trying to invade the nation, they're looking for work and a better life. Frankly the illegal immigrants contribute greatly to the economies of the border states by taking jobs for lower than legal pay that US citizens aren't taking. If you've eaten in a restaurant in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, or California, you have had food cooked for you by illegal immigrants, and your table was bussed and cleaned by an illegal immigrant at some point. Landscaping services, construction companies, agricultural companies, clothing manufacturers and many other types of companies rely on labor from illegal immigrants."

Now this sounds an awful lot like an argument for why we need illegal immigrants, and how the entire country couldn't operate without them. It sounds like you strongly advocate a class of working sub-poor who have no benefits and no rights. It also sounds like you believe that Americans in Butternut, Wisconsin have a real crisis of finding enough people to do their Landscaping, Construction, Farming, Waitressing, Cooking, and Toilet Cleaning. I've been to Wisconsin. I even went to Cuba, Wisconsin (which was a hoot, I tell you. Every street has a sign with a silhouette of the president it's named after.) You know what's shocking? Most of the people doing these jobs in that state are American Citizens. Amazingly willing to do the work for legal pay, because there was a shortage of people doing it for illegal pay. And the local economy didn't shatter.

Quote:
There is time to deal with this problem appropriately, no need for grandstanding like this pr stunt by Bush. I noticed that you disagree with having the professional BP handle the problem. I can then assume that you want non-professionals to do the job. Brilliant.

Perhaps you missed the part where I thought it would be good to increase funding, supply, and manpower to the Border Patrol. In case you did, I'll say it again. Make the Border Patrol effective. In the meantime, plug the leak. It's not complicated. You don't wait to get the ship into drydock before you address the hole in the hull.

Quote:
You say you've been to the Arizona desert and you liked it. Exactly where did you travel in Arizona? I've been all over the state and I can tell you that there is a huge difference between the area around the border with Mexico and the touristy areas to the North.

My favorite places have been the open desert outside of Table Mesa (which is a different place from Mesa) where my friends and I often go shooting or set off Tannerite. (Can't do that anywhere near civilization.) And the Superstition Mountains. (Someday I'll find that Dutchman's Spanish gold. ;-)

Quote:
There is no infrastructure along or close to the border, and the area is very hot and very unpleasant most of the year. Guard troops do train in desert climates, but not for long periods of time and they don't train for immigration control at all because that isn't what the Guard is for.

Well, the National Guard already knows how to watch a perimiter, detain people, give emergency assistance... what are the critical skills they are missing, exactly?

Quote:
Please don't compare/confuse Cubans coming over to the US in the 50's and 60's to Mexicans coming over now. The circumstances are completely different today.

Actually, Cuba under Batista might be accurately compared to Mexico now. My grandfathers had to do the following things to immigrate with their families.

1) They had to express a basic understanding of the English language.
2) They had to have 1,000 dollars in a bank account.
3) They had to have a job waiting for them.

Are the immigration laws much more strict now, then? Or is Mexico a much more horrible place than Cuba was under Batista?

Quote:
It's always heartwarming to see descendants of recent immigrants complaining about current immigrants though. Makes the old heartstrings tingle.

It ought to. Since my family and I know from whence we speak, you ought to be paying attention. But maybe you are an advocate of unlimited immigration. Maybe you are an advocate of unwatched borders (and if you have been to the border, you know it's largely unwatched.) If so, just say so.

Say that you support unlimited immigration.

Say that you support a sub-class of working poor without rights, because they help our border-state economies by providing indentured servants for next-to-nothing, and clean your toilets and do your landscaping right cheap.

Say that the country, and the economy, wouldn't benefit from controls on immigration.

Because you've been saying it indirectly, so it's time to say it directly. Show us what's really on your mind.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 6:21 AM

"Since my family and I know from whence we speak, you ought to be paying attention."

'Splain please Anthony - cause this sounds a lot like BECAUSE I SAID SO!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 6:44 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
"Since my family and I know from whence we speak, you ought to be paying attention."

'Splain please Anthony - cause this sounds a lot like BECAUSE I SAID SO!

He implied that it was horrible to hear immigrants and the children of immigrants (me) speak against illegal immigration.

That's a, "Shame on you."

I explained, quite correctly I think, that a family which went through the long and difficult process of LEGAL immigration might have the right perspective.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 6:51 AM

The illegal immigration problem will never be solved as long as we have what is in effect a 3rd world country on our doorstep.

And as a second generation American. I have no problem with people doing what they need to do to survive.

These people are working- HARD and many of them are paying taxes and they are contributing to the cultural and economic growth of this country.

So instead of arming the borders and invading countries that neither want or need our help - we should be extending our hand an our resources to helping Mexico grow its own economy and standard of living. Because when that happens - we all win.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:16 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
"So instead of arming the borders and invading countries that neither want or need our help - we should be extending our hand an our resources to helping Mexico grow its own economy and standard of living. Because when that happens - we all win."

Well, I am in agreement that we need to stop 'liberating' countries.

However, I do not think we should be lending resources to Mexico. In fact, I think we should leave Mexico alone. I think we should leave Africa alone, too. I think most 3rd world or developing nations would benefit from a healthy dose of being left alone.

Here's an interesting tidbit:

"Kenyan economist James Shikwati of the Inter Region Economic Network ( www.irenkenya.org), interviewed by the German magazine Der Spiegel just before July’s G8 conference, sent this urgent plea to the west regarding foreign aid: “For God’s sake, please just stop.”

Shikwati believes that development aid has been one of Africa’s main problems. The vast army of apparatchiks in charge of aid agencies such as the UN’s World Food Program have a vested interest in never achieving their goals. If hunger were eliminated in Africa, their jobs would evaporate too. One German aid worker admitted to Der Spiegel, “When I started this job I was brimming with idealism. But after I had saved enough money within a few years to buy a house, the relationship I had to my job changed.”

Meanwhile, Shikwati says that if the west stopped sending aid, “…normal Africans wouldn’t even notice. Only the functionaries would be hit hard, which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.”

When food gets sent from Europe or America, Shikwati says, “local farmers might as well put down their hoes right away. No one can compete with the UN’s World Food Program.” Local agriculture is thus destroyed, and more food aid is needed again the following year.

The same thing happens when container loads of donated used clothing arrive. Local tailors and seamstresses can no longer find customers. As low as wages are in Africa, no-one can be cost-efficient enough to compete with goods that are available for free.

For at least 40 years, the west has poured aid into Africa. The current flow is about $26 billion per year. In some countries, aid has constituted 80 to 95 percent of their GNP. Yet the countries that have received the most remain among the poorest.

The crying shame is that it doesn’t need to be this way. The economic principles that govern wealth creation are well established and simple to understand. People can claw their way out of the most desperate poverty if they are given the freedom to work and to keep what they earn. History has demonstrated this over and over again.

Natural resources and wide open spaces are not pre-requisites (although Africa is not lacking in either). Resource-starved, population-dense Hong Kong rose rapidly to prosperity when its laws allowed people to start businesses without hindrance, accumulate capital without confiscatory taxation and make contracts free of stifling regulation. Sound money, the rule of law, and free trade (not “fair” trade) all play a role.

The one thing the west could usefully export to Africa is knowledge—knowledge of how to structure a nation’s laws to secure freedom and prosperity for its people. Alas, among those in the west who make African aid their avocation, this knowledge appears to be a commodity that is sorely lacking."

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:23 AM

Development aid is not the problem in Africa.

No roads, corruption, civil war are the problem in Africa. You can not continue to feed a country or a continent and not give them the infrastructure, the technology, the tools to feed themselves.

Not help our neighbors? So if the guy next door is beating his wife and children - do you look away or get involved?

If the child down the street eats sugar sandwiches for all meals and has no shoes in the rain - do you ignore it or do you buy her some shoes and groceries?

We no longer live in a country that is far removed from all the others. These are our neighbors and whether you like it or not, what happens there (any of the "there's) affects us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:13 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"We no longer live in a country that is far removed from all the others. These are our neighbors and whether you like it or not, what happens there (any of the "there's) affects us."

Of course what happens to our neighbors affects us. I just think that we historically do more harm than good when we try to help our neighbors. Our help isn't typically very helpful. Most of our 'aid' comes in the form of 'feed the man, don't teach him to fish.' Or, 'Lend the man some money he can't pay back.'

But you seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

"instead of arming the borders and invading countries that neither want or need our help -"

You asked if my neighbor was beating his wife and kids, would I interfere? Yes, I would. But I probably wouldn't go to Scottsdale to stop a guy there from beating his wife and kids. Unless, you know, I was some kind of police official with jurisdiction there. I probably wouldn't do something like invade a country because I didn't like the way their citizens were being treated. Not because I don't care, but rather because history has shown me that doesn't work out very well.

What about you? On the one hand you say that we need to stop invading countries, and on the other hand we need to stop our neighbors from mistreating their people. I'm a bit confused by this stance.

You asked if I saw the kid down the street eating sugar sandwiches, would I interfere? Maybe. I might invite the family over (if he has one) to dinner and recommend to the parents that they buy something other than sugar sandwiches as food. I might recommend places they can apply for a better job, if that's the problem. If the kid has no family, I'd be sure the government snatched him up. If that wasn't an option, I'd recommend that he get a paper route, and see if anyone wanted to adopt a son.

But what are you advocating? Should we send food and money to Mexico? To Africa? Is that helping? For how long?

Maybe you think we should build roads in Africa, so they can move goods about. Sounds like it could be helpful. Who will maintain the roads? Who will guard the roads to ensure that free travel is allowed on the roads? Maybe we should tell them that they need roads, but I think they already know that. Maybe we could tell them how to build roads. I'm pretty sure they already know how.

Maybe we should tell them how to farm? That's not a bad idea. But we better be sure we don't send them free food. Maybe we can tell them how to make clothes? That's okay, as long as we don't send them any clothes. Should we tell them how democracy works? Sure. But we can't make them listen.

Maybe to make sure they use our aid thoughtfully, we should take over the country. Or maybe we should install a puppet government that we know will rule the country well. *cough, gag*

Maybe we should simply import all these people to our country and make them Americans. We could send boats and planes to pick them up and bring them over. Anyone who wants to come. But what, then, will happen to OUR country? Can we absorb them all?

In the end, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. We need to leave people alone. It's the best help we can give them. Free Lunch is ruining a lot of lives. Free Lunch costs too much.

Revolution and Self-directed Change take a long time and cost a lot of lives. But it's still cheaper than Free Lunch.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:19 AM

(a) um speaking from the front of my mouth - (b) One does not have to invade ones neighbors house to stop the beating, and we don't have to invade other countries either.

Holy Crap! I just saw this next little gem!

"You asked if I saw the kid down the street eating sugar sandwiches, would I interfere? Maybe. I might invite the family over (if he has one) to dinner and recommend to the parents that they buy something other than sugar sandwiches as food. I might recommend places they can apply for a better job, if that's the problem. If the kid has no family, I'd be sure the government snatched him up. If that wasn't an option, I'd recommend that he get a paper route, and see if anyone wanted to adopt a son."

WTF? What country no what PLANET do you live on? Do you honestly think that the issue of poverty in this country or any other would be solved by a dinner at your house and a suggestion of where they might get another job? You recommend a paper route?

OK, I can no longer have this discussion with you, because your realm of existence is wholly and completely in LALA land.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:22 AM

I like your quote "Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity"

Not sure you understand it. So here is the definition

NOUN:
pl. hu·man·i·ties
Humans considered as a group; the human race.
The condition or quality of being human.
The quality of being humane; benevolence.
A humane characteristic, attribute, or act.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:28 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Future Mrs. Fillion...

What would you do, then?

Feed the kid forever? Feed his family forever?

You wouldn't recommend to them where they could find a job?

Do you patrol your city dispensing Justice?

Just how, exactly, are you more connected than me?

What is your solution to these problems?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:32 AM

I withdraw AntonyT. Not because you have "won". Not because I don't have an answer, but because I choose NOT to discuss this issue with someone that suggests a paper route.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:37 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

If...

The kid has no family... (My first suggestion was to recommend to the family where they could find a job.)

And if...

The government won't take the kid... (My second suggestion was to place the kid in the government's custody.)

Then my options are to

A) Adopt the kid myself and support him indefinitely,

Or

B) Suggest to the kid some way he can earn money to survive.

Now, maybe you have a great alternative that you refuse to share with me because you don't like my opinions. I'll never know.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:30 PM

The ignorance displayed in Anthony's response to me is so staggering that I'm a little shocked and not completely sure where to begin. First, I suggest that you should register as a Republican. Get it over with, you aren't an independent and the Democratic Party is too rational for you.

I do not advocate a sub class of dirt poor illegal immigrants. What I advocate is guest worker status for the illegal immigrants already here, and a means for Mexicans who want to come to Te US and work to do so legally. I have no idea why you would mention Wisconsin, one look at a map should tell you that Wisconsin does not have a Mexican immigration problem. Oh wait, maybe you thought you were being clever. You failed in that regard.

I grew up in El Paso and have lived in Texas my entire life so I'm well aware that illegal immigration is not a threat to our national security or to our economy. Although I don't approve of paying illegal immigrants sub minimum wage rates, it is widely done as has actually benefited the economies of the border states. So, these people aren't a military threat to us, they aren't damaging our economy, where is this great threat that requires a deployment of 10,000 soldiers? There is only one reason to overreact this way, and that is for political gain. The only people who believe this is a crisis are politicians trying to scare up votes, paranoid fools who think our security is at risk, and racist xenophobes ( which group do you fall into?). The reason this hasn't been an issue nationwide until recently is because it isn't a real issue, it's a fake issue designed to get people of a certain mindset to vote Republican. Illegal immigration has been going on in large numbers since long before you or I were born, now it's suddenly a national crisis worthy of a Presidential address and a Guard deployment. Give me a break, it's a cheap play for votes.

The way illegal immigration on the border works is (assuming the immigrants get across) they live with family or friends already here, get some kind of crap job, stick around as long as they can, and hope to become legal someday. Sometimes the immigrants become legal, sometimes they are caught and deported, and sometimes they go back on their own. Bottom line, they don't cause trouble and have provided a low cost workforce for border states for decades (not that I condone the wages they're paid, just pointing out what they've contributed) and it's time that people who are fortunate enough to be US citizens (yourself included, spare me the whiny Cuban American immigrant bs, you were born a citizen) acknowledge what these immigrants have gone through and put up with just to have a chance at a better life. That doesn't mean treating the border like a war zone or criminalizing illegals already here or people who employ or rent housing to them. It means giving them guest worker status and letting them earn citizenship.

On a personal note, it isn't uncommon for members of minority groups to resent each other. There are plenty of blacks who don't like blacks and lots of Hispanics who don''t like other Hispanic groups. My guess is that you resent illegal immigrants because, though they come from totally different backgrounds as you, they look like you more or less, especially to Anglos. It's common in El Paso for middle and upper class Mexican Americans to dislike and even discriminate against poor Mexican Americans, and especially illegal immigrants. The well of Mexican Americans hate that, when it comes down to it, they look about the same as the poor Mexicans, just with better clothes. Maybe you actually think illegal immigration on the border with Mexico is a crisis ( if so you're only misinformed)worthy of troop deployment, but given your posting I think it's more likely that you resent the illegal immigrants personally.

As to your belief that the BP agents would take 1-3 years to deploy, it would take a year, and they would be trained specifically for this job, unlike Guard troops. Here's what current FEMA Chief Michael Chertoff said about using troops to shut down the border on The O'Reilly Factor last December:

In December of 2005, Fox News talking head Bill O'Reilly floated an unlikely -- even brash -- idea to the Homeland Security secretary to seal off the porous southwest border.

"Why don't you put the National Guard on the border to back up the border patrol and stop the bleeding, and then start to increase the Border Patrol, the high-tech and all of that?" O'Reilly asked.

Michael Chertoff, in those relatively calmer days before mass pro-immigration rallies, heated immigration reform politics in the Senate and cellar-dwelling opinion polls for President Bush, dismissed the idea out of hand.

"Well, the National Guard is really, first of all, not trained for that mission," Chertoff told O'Reilly. "I mean, the fact of the matter is the border is a special place. There are special challenges that are faced there."

Chertoff added that that it would take a huge amount of National Guard troops, that they would need new training. But couldn't the National Guard pull it off, O'Reilly asked?

"I think it would be a horribly over-expensive and very difficult way to manage this problem," Chertoff said. "Unless you would be prepared to leave those people in the National Guard day and night for month after month after month, you would eventually have to come to grips with the challenge in a more comprehensive way."

That was before Mr 29% decided he needed a boost in the polls and an issue for his party to run on in November. So there you go, whether it's the Guard of additional BP agents, the new people on the border will have to be trained for the job. It would make sense (something Republicans have little of) to actually train permanent personnel (BP) rather than temporary personnel (Guard) and save the taxpayers some money. recruit and train the additional BP agents and get it over with. In the meantime there is no crisis on the border. The border with Mexico has survived this long, a little longer without massive manpower won't lead to the fall of the Southwestern states.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:12 PM

OK, I was gonna marry Dayve. But now I have to marry Brian!

I love you man!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:35 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
"The ignorance displayed in Anthony's response to me is so staggering that I'm a little shocked and not completely sure where to begin. First, I suggest that you should register as a Republican. Get it over with, you aren't an independent and the Democratic Party is too rational for you."

I suppose you have the right to call me ignorant. It's one of those constitutional rights I agree with, along with the separation of church and state. That's why I'm not Republican. But I believe in the right to own firearms, and that's why I'm not a Democrat. Sorry, but I don't fit into a neat little box. I advocate ideas that make sense to me, not the ideas of a single party. It is rather amusing to note that you think Republicans are irrational. I suppose they feel the same way about you.

Quote:
I do not advocate a sub class of dirt poor illegal immigrants. What I advocate is guest worker status for the illegal immigrants already here, and a means for Mexicans who want to come to Te US and work to do so legally. I have no idea why you would mention Wisconsin, one look at a map should tell you that Wisconsin does not have a Mexican immigration problem. Oh wait, maybe you thought you were being clever. You failed in that regard.

I picked Wisconsin precisely because they do not have an illegal immigrant problem. But they do have toilets and busboys and landscaping. Their businesses haven't ground to a halt just because they were forced to hire legal workers for a legal wage.

You were also too busy wallowing in your Democratic logic to read my previous posts and realize I advocate amnesty and citizenship programs for the illegals already here. There is also already a program in place for foreigners to work jobs in the United States. It's part of the legal immigration program.

Quote:
I grew up in El Paso and have lived in Texas my entire life so I'm well aware that illegal immigration is not a threat to our national security or to our economy. Although I don't approve of paying illegal immigrants sub minimum wage rates, it is widely done as has actually benefited the economies of the border states.

I'm sure many companies have benefitted from the ability to hire people for substandard wages, but I'm not convinced that equates to a better economy.

Quote:
So, these people aren't a military threat to us, they aren't damaging our economy, where is this great threat that requires a deployment of 10,000 soldiers?

Well, let me lay out for you how this hinders the economy.

1) People being paid substandard wages 'under the table' are not appropriately paying taxes.
2) People being paid substandard wages 'under the table' are not eligible for benefits, but still get sick and need things like health care. Health care which is provided regardless of ability to pay. Health care paid for by taxes.
3) People being paid substandard wages 'under the table' are doing a job no one else wants to do... For substandard wages. If they are performing a service that needs to be done, then they are artificially lowering the payscale for that job by being available for substandard wages. Why should I pay Jake 5 bucks an hour to do something that Joe will do for 4? Plus I don't need to provide benefits for Joe? Score!
4) People being paid substandard wages 'under the table' are doing so in a desperate attempt to support themselves and their children... Who attend schools. Schools which receive federal funding. From taxes. Taxes not collected from people being paid substandard wages 'under the table.'

There are undoubtably some illegals who obtain illegal identification so that they can obtain better jobs. These illegals may pay taxes and earn benefits. There is no way to quantify this element, or to claim that they are a majority.

Quote:
There is only one reason to overreact this way, and that is for political gain.

I'm glad you think that there's only one reason to do anything. Even so, let me point out that there would be no political gain if people did not agree that illegal immigration was a problem.

Quote:
The only people who believe this is a crisis are politicians trying to scare up votes, paranoid fools who think our security is at risk, and racist xenophobes ( which group do you fall into?).

Well, I'm not a politician, so I guess I'm a paranoid fool who thinks our security is at risk... No wait, I don't think our security is at risk. That leaves racist xenophobe! Woohoo! (Did I call you names?)

Quote:
The reason this hasn't been an issue nationwide until recently is because it isn't a real issue, it's a fake issue designed to get people of a certain mindset to vote Republican. Illegal immigration has been going on in large numbers since long before you or I were born, now it's suddenly a national crisis worthy of a Presidential address and a Guard deployment. Give me a break, it's a cheap play for votes.

It's been an issue all my life that I can remember. It's an issue that has continued, and continued. And now someone is going to address it. Again I tell you, if it's going to win votes, then a lot of people think it's a problem. Which means... You know... Maybe it is.

Quote:
Bottom line, they don't cause trouble and have provided a low cost workforce for border states for decades

You keep saying how great this low cost workforce is. I might think you condone these substandard wages and lack of benefits. But no worries. Even though it seems that's exactly the case, you'll prove me wrong:

Quote:
(not that I condone the wages they're paid

Thank God you put that in there. Else I might get the wrong idea.

Quote:
and it's time that people who are fortunate enough to be US citizens (yourself included, spare me the whiny Cuban American immigrant bs, you were born a citizen) acknowledge what these immigrants have gone through and put up with just to have a chance at a better life. That doesn't mean treating the border like a war zone or criminalizing illegals already here or people who employ or rent housing to them. It means giving them guest worker status and letting them earn citizenship.

Again, you seem to be arguing as much with the idea of what you THINK I represent as with me, myself, and I. I have said it before, and I guess because of you I'll be saying it again and again. I advocate amnesty and citizenship for those already here. What I do NOT advocate is unlimited immigration, and the only way to stop people from physically crossing the border is to have people to physically stop them. And as much as you think that's a very difficult process to learn, I think our National Guard already has many of the skills needed to perform that function. If it only takes a year to bring the Border Patrol up to speed? Great! The National Guard can have a blessedly short deployment.

Quote:
On a personal note,

Since this is a personal note, I can hope that you are about to talk about yourself...

Quote:
it isn't uncommon for members of minority groups to resent each other.

Nope! You're about to call me a xenophobic racist again! Weee! Twice in one post!

Quote:
There are plenty of blacks who don't like blacks and lots of Hispanics who don''t like other Hispanic groups. My guess is that you resent illegal immigrants because, though they come from totally different backgrounds as you, they look like you more or less, especially to Anglos. It's common in El Paso for middle and upper class Mexican Americans to dislike and even discriminate against poor Mexican Americans, and especially illegal immigrants. The well of Mexican Americans hate that, when it comes down to it, they look about the same as the poor Mexicans, just with better clothes.

I'm sure there are these people you talk about. There's pretty much every type of person under the sun. But I'm not one of them. It's not fair to people in this country that wages are artificially reduced. It's not fair to people in this country that services are provided to people who aren't paying the taxes that provide those services. It's not fair to legal immigrants, who go through the proper process, that illegal immigrants can skirt that process. The only people that benefit from an unstemmed tide of illegal immigrants are

A) People who don't want to pay what a service is worth
And
B) Illegal Immigrants

Quote:
Maybe you actually think illegal immigration on the border with Mexico is a crisis ( if so you're only misinformed)

It's not a crisis yet. Our country isn't on the verge of collapse. But it is a problem. It's a problem that needs to be addressed. And it's being addressed. That's a good thing.

Quote:
given your posting I think it's more likely that you resent the illegal immigrants personally.

I suppose no matter how many good and logical reasons there are to control illegal immigration, the easiest counterargument will always be to call the other guy a racist.

Quote:
"I think it would be a horribly over-expensive and very difficult way to manage this problem," Chertoff said. "Unless you would be prepared to leave those people in the National Guard day and night for month after month after month, you would eventually have to come to grips with the challenge in a more comprehensive way."

I agree entirely that you will eventually have to come to grips with the challenge in a more comprehensive way. I don't agree that the solution for the in-between time is to do nothing. There is currently an impetus to solve a problem that has existed for a long time. We need to be glad for that momentum, and ride it forward. Else we'll get a lot of nothing done in the years ahead.

Quote:
That was before Mr 29% decided he needed a boost in the polls and an issue for his party to run on in November. So there you go, whether it's the Guard of additional BP agents, the new people on the border will have to be trained for the job. It would make sense (something Republicans have little of) to actually train permanent personnel (BP) rather than temporary personnel (Guard) and save the taxpayers some money. recruit and train the additional BP agents and get it over with. In the meantime there is no crisis on the border. The border with Mexico has survived this long, a little longer without massive manpower won't lead to the fall of the Southwestern states.

Sorry. If this isn't treated as a crisis, it won't be treated at all. That's why we should all be glad that a lot of people are in a huff over this right now. It's the only time anything ever gets done.

You know, we have an educational problem in this country. But we can survive for decades just as we are. Still, if someone shouted 'education crisis' and suddenly people were willing to address the problem, I think you'd be right on board. And you know what? This xenophobic, racist, pseudo Republican asshat would be right beside you.

If you judged me less, you might find me to be a reasoning human being, just like you. I don't like being dehumanized because I have a dissenting opinion. I would very much like to believe that you did that in the heat of the argument. I would like to believe that's not the kind of person you usually are.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:43 PM

AthonyT
"But I believe in the right to own firearms, and that's why I'm not a Democrat"

You mean the right that was set out for the people to bear arms without the Kings approval so that they could protect themselves from invading forces?

Go to school - Study English history. Learn about the fact that you couldn't have an army without the Kings permission and how you couldn't arm the army without the Kings permission (lest you use it against him) and then come back and tell me that you SERIOUSLY believe the intent of this "Right" was for the guy down the street to have a boat load of guns that can only be used to kill other people. This is a right to arm a militia. Not the right for Joe Schmoe down the street to own an AK47 or 357.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:46 PM

Um you forgot the other people benefitting from the illegal aliens doing crap jobs for crap pay - the Rich, and often Republicans, making a profit off the cheap labor.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:07 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
"You mean the right that was set out for the people to bear arms without the Kings approval so that they could protect themselves from invading forces?

Go to school - Study English history. Learn about the fact that you couldn't have an army without the Kings permission and how you couldn't arm the army without the Kings permission (lest you use it against him) and then come back and tell me that you SERIOUSLY believe the intent of this "Right" was for the guy down the street to have a boat load of guns that can only be used to kill other people. This is a right to arm a militia. Not the right for Joe Schmoe down the street to own an AK47 or 357."

You seem to have a lot of animosity towards me, Mrs. Fillion. Check out my recent post in this forum where I said that the 2nd ammendment grants us a right to bear arms only by an accident of wording, and that I dread the day when a supreme court decision overturns that right.

In the same post, I reveal that while the right to bear arms was spelled out for militia purposes, the framers of the constitution probably never envisioned a day when a person couldn't carry weapons for hunting or defense.

Quote:
Um you forgot the other people benefitting from the illegal aliens doing crap jobs for crap pay - the Rich, and often Republicans, making a profit off the cheap labor.

Okay, I get it. You don't hate me. You hate Republicans. And since you think I'm a Republican, you hate me by proxy.

These rich folks you speak of are some of the folks who don't want to pay what a service is worth. Don't call them rich. Call them greedy.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:12 PM

You see, this is the thing. Someone disagrees with you and they must hate you. How egotistical is that?

I don't hate you. I don't even know you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:17 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

My apologies, Mrs. Fillion. It's nice to know you don't hate me.

Edited to add: It's also nice to hear you say you don't know me.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:23 PM

I also support the Second Amendment and oppose gun control. I did think it was a good idea to screen before selling firearms, but that was where I wanted gun regulation to stop. Many Democrats (especially in the South and West) are also opposed to gun control and the national party is moving away from advocating additional gun control measures. If that's the primary reason you aren't a Democrat the party is changing it's views on that issue.

Maybe I misjudged you and took you for a reactionary. Generally in the immigration debate there are hardcore racists on the other side, and hardcore partisans on both sides. There are some thoughtful people who simply want to address the issue, it seems you're one of those people so I apologize for lumping you in with the reactionaries.

I really don't approve of paying illegal immigrants sub standard wages, I bring this (their pay) up to show that these immigrants are so desperate to live here that they will put up with with all of the crap they deal with. They do make up a crucial part of the border economy, for better or worse, and businesses will have to adjust to paying legal wages in the future. It would be better for the economy if illegal immigrants were put in a guest worker program. The problem with what Bush is doing is that he is not going forward with a worker program, or any real solution to the millions of illegal immigrants already here. He is only grandstanding to appeal to the Sensenbrenner/Tancredo reactionary wing of his party. Sending National Guard soldiers to attempt to close the border won't succeed as he intends (really he doesn't intend anything except motivating his base) because even 10,000 won't close the vast border. One thing people who don't live near the border don't seem to understand about Mexico is that the dirt poor Mexicans frequently can't or don't deal with government red tape. Our INS department is one giant ball of red tape so the process for legal immigration needs to be streamlined and access to INS offices needs to be expanded before an increase in legal immigration, and a decrease in illegal immigration can be expected. People who really want to get over here from Mexico will get over here. That much has been established over time. The goal should be to get them over here legally.

The reason this issue has been around for years but hasn't been addressed often or seriously is because it isn't a major problem for our country. In non-election years members of both parties will admit to that. It's a localized problem that affects only the border states, and illegal immigrants are either absorbed into the population as legal citizens (or as green carders) or go back to Mexico, voluntarily or not. Your economic concerns are flawed. First, if these illegals were legally working here they wouldn't have benefits because the kinds of jobs they work don't come with benefits for anyone. They would still go to the emergency room for treatment and would still be a drain on tax dollars. As resident aliens they would not pay US income taxes, they would pay taxes in their home country. They would likely not buy houses so they wouldn't contribute to the school tax base, and by the way, their children generally don't attend our schools, they don't have the necessary documentation to do so. Their only contribution to the tax base would be paying sales tax on purchases, which they already do. They reduce the pay scale for jobs that legal citizens don't want, so the people hurt by that are other illegal immigrants, not generally US citizens. Once again, I mention these facts not because I approve of the way US businesses treat the immigrants, but to show that they are not as harmful to the nation as some people think. Certainly it would better to make them legal immigrants, and I hope that progress will be made on issue in the future, but that will be after the 2008 elections because Bush will not risk angering the right wing of his party. For now the only change in immigration policy will be punitive, if any change occurs at all. I'm treating border control as a separate issue here, and that's the only issue that will definitely be addressed since Bush controls the Guard. My point is that immigration has to be dealt with as not one, but multiple issues with solutions on multiple fronts. It would be best if these issues were addressed at the same time. The border isn't a large enough problem to warrant calling out the National Guard, which is at best a stopgap measure, assuming it would work. It would be best to fund the Border Patrol Agency as was proposed earlier this year, work on comprehensive legislation dealing with all problems. We seem to agree on some parts of this debate, we just disagree on how urgent closing the border is.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 4:53 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

First of all Dallas Firefly... Thank you.

It's ironic that I also supported gun control at one time. The assault weapons ban convinced me that was a bad idea. (Guns were prohibited as much based on appearance as for any logical reason.) The idea that people can get firearms without having to show the same level of competance that they would have to show to drive a car scares me. But I feel (based on past evidence) that when gun control laws are enacted, they are done with the ultimate agenda to make all gun ownership illegal, instead of making gun ownership safe and responsible.

If the Democrats are really changing their stance on gun ownership, I may indeed have to look at them more closely. The Republicans seem to have an unnusual position of wanting to preserve rights they deem 'traditional' and stepping on the others. One of the frustrating things about being an Independent is that I don't get to influence the primaries.

I don't agree with you on half of your immigration stance, and that's okay. My current hope is that with the current urgency, rapid decisions will be made. Those decisions will be imperfect, and addressing those imperfections will result in a more perfect solution in 6 months or a year. Solutions like a well funded and staffed border patrol. We've needed one for a long time.

We do also need to address the problem of illegals already here, and rounding them up just isn't an option. They are here, and we should live with them. I strongly support any legislation that grants them amnesty and works to make them legal. I'm hoping we haven't seen the last of such proposals.

Once we've done all that, and we've stabilized the citizenship issue, I think we can then work on tinkering the immigration policy to make it as easy or as hard to become an American citizen as is logical at any given time. I have no doubt that sometimes we will want to expand immigration and sometimes we will want to curtail it. All things have a season, so the song goes.

--Anthony

P.S. As an aside to Mrs. Fillion, who became so exasperated with me earlier that she refused to respond to me futher (for a while) I'd like to say that I am not capricious, cruel, or uncaring. I have in fact given food to the poor, even though in my heart I felt that it was a hopeless gesture. I have in fact, literally, sought to intervene when a woman was having the tar kicked out of her in the hotel room next to me. But that, too, I knew in my heart to be a hopeless gesture.

In the end, it's not that I want to do nothing. It's that of all the options before me, doing nothing seems the most practical. My father told me a story once when I was young. It's stayed with me my whole life. I don't know if it's true, but it's a good story. He told me that when native americans see their children putting their hand into a flame, they do nothing to prevent it. I told him that was cruel and uncaring. He told me that the child, after being burned, would know absolutely and forever that fire was hot. They would know it in a way that can't be adequately conveyed in words, admonishments, or punishments designed to avert the behavior. They would avoid getting burned again.

Doing nothing to help people seems very cruel. But sometimes, I honestly believe it's the best policy.

Unless the world is ready to support him, that sugar-eating kid needs to do what it takes to survive. That victim of domestic violence needs to leave, and they need to make that choice themselves. I can't do it for them. Not for all of them. And if I try to do it for them, it might not help at all.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 6:32 PM

(Quote)It's ironic that I also supported gun control at one time. The assault weapons ban convinced me that was a bad idea. (Guns were prohibited as much based on appearance as for any logical reason.) The idea that people can get firearms without having to show the same level of competence that they would have to show to drive a car scares me. But I feel (based on past evidence) that when gun control laws are enacted, they are done with the ultimate agenda to make all gun ownership illegal, instead of making gun ownership safe and responsible.(Quote)

Yes, the assault weapons ban was a farce. it had more to do with giving an advantage to US firearms companies than gun control. The chip away strategy is used by groups who attack the First Amendment also so I don't support any further gun control. If one Amendment goes down all Amendments become more vulnerable so I don't approve of attacks on any Amendment. It's a shame that the people who support the first two Amendments are usually on opposite sides of the political spectrum because they would be better off pooling their resources and working to defend the Bill Of Rights together.

As to immigration, only time will tell now. I hope that Congress outdoes itself and actually passes some well considered, meaningful legislation to deal with the problem.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:59 PM

Sorry for the double post, but this is a pretty good take on the issue from a centrist Democrat. It's from DailyKos:

The Holes in Bush's Border Proposal
by francislholland
Tue May 16, 2006 at 06:05:03 AM PDT
Last night, after six years in office, President Bush addressed the nation and outlined his plan to deal with the "urgent" problems of unlawful immigration and the unlawful presence of immigrants in the United States.

His plan for the border is essentially the same as his military plan for Iraq: The National Guard presence as trainers will be temporary, he says, because `as Border Patrol agents stand up, the National Guard will stand down.' It seems predictable that the Border Control will never achieve a level of interception that conservatives deem sufficient, and so the National Guard troops will end up "staying the course" at least until this Administration is over.

francislholland's diary :: ::
As with the troop deployments to Iraq, the theory is that these Guard troops on the border will mostly be trainers, with others doing the real work. But as in Iraq, who will train the trainers? Does the National Guard presently have any experience or training in this novel role of guarding the border, or will they "learn on the job" even as they are responsible for training the Border Patrol? This part of the plan makes little practical sense, even if there is a political constituency for it.

Bush says, "the number of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online." Instead, it should be obvious that a computerized system to guard a 2000-mile border cannot be implemented in just two years, any more than the FBI can automate its systems after two decades of trying. The new electronic fingerprint program proposal is an expensive budgetary earmark for Republican campaign contributors in the technology industry. What inevitably will happen is the same contractors who have received no-bid contracts for systems that don't work in Iraq will now be engaged to install outrageously expensive systems that don't work in Texas and New Mexico. Unlike the Iraq War and New border control efforts, the Republican spoils system is well-served by this plan, and the well-connected booty contractors are already getting in line.

Meanwhile, what will happen if there is another devastating hurricane that requires urgent action by the National Guard? Will the President again ignore the victims, or will he redeploy the Guard, effectively announcing a "red-light special" during which the southern border becomes exceptionally easier to cross because of the Guard's absence? Logically, if illegal immigration is such a problem, would massive illegal immigration to border states before and during a hurricane be a bigger problem still?

Hillary has expressed support for this deployment of the National Guard, in spite of acknowledging that the Republican House immigration plan would "criminalize Jesus himself" when churches provide help and solace to immigrants. This is yet another example of the sort of politically-motivated pandering that got George Bush and Bill Clinton elected, and that will be an absolute necessity if the Democrats are to retake the presidency in 2008. Hillary is to be lauded for holding her nose and assuming responsibility for a triangulation so complicated and unpleasant and yet so politically necessary.

Just as Karl Rove perceives the political necessity to mollify both conservative and immigrant voters on the immigration issue, Hillary knows she must try to satisfy both potential Republican voters and committed Democrats, many of whom support border controls. We should not attack a Democratic politician who accepts the messy role of dividing one pie among many pie eaters. Nonetheless, expect the left to hammer Hillary over this, because to them ideological purity and rhetorical reassurance of the base is more important than electoral success.

The President, it must also be noted in all reluctant fairness, laudably argued last night for a "rational middle ground" between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant" (which no immigration advocate believes is achievable), versus "a program of mass deportation" (which Bush's Republican House of Representatives proposed in December, and which still is on the table to be resolved in discussions with the US Senate).

It is perhaps a tribute to the increasing number of immigrant voters that Bush said, "we must honor the great American tradition of the melting pot, which has made us one nation out of many peoples. The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans." In this speech, Bush finally delivers the lip-service he promised to immigrants during the 2000 Presidential election campaigns.

The obvious question is, after six years of doing nothing or cutting funding from programs to address these issues, what has changed to make this issue so urgent for Bush right now?" Bush said he was acting in response to demonstrations in the streets and violations of the southern border. "Tonight," he said "I will make it clear where I stand, and where I want to lead our country on this vital issue."

It is very unusual for a President to act in direct response to demonstrations, and the border incursions have continued since his term in office began, although recently they have slowed considerably. After resisting previously resisting calls for increased border staffing, http://www.nytimes.com/... it seems apparent that the reason for his action now is fear of the 2006 Congressional elections. His base demands a response to unlawful immigration to encourage them to vote in November, but he also wants to allay the concerns of Latino immigrants and others over the outrageous anti-immigrant Republican House plan so that immigrants don't energetically vote Democratic in the fall.

But, why would Bush now take on such a contentious issue on which even his own party is so divided?" Bush simply has nothing to lose. He is polling at 29, with only remaining supports largely consisting of his own family and distant relatives. At this point, they are unlikely to abandon him over an ill-conceived, hastily-conceived and poorly-conceived immigration program.

As a retired immigration lawyer, I have to support the President's compromise if it offers a guest worker program for some and a path to citizenship for others while not imposing draconian punishments upon the rest. This depends on negotiations between the rabid House and the relatively controlled Senate.

As a practical matter, guest workers will simply "disappear" from law enforcement when their lawful stays are over rather than returning to Mexico and other countries, and that will help them continue to work and support families in the US and in their native countries. Any path to citizenship for those already here is better than leaving them in an interminable lurch. Meanwhile, the new border vigilance effort will be an expensive and spectacular failure (like the war in Iraq), but it won't hurt many immigrants. The only real dangers are to the exploding deficit and the states left unprotected during increasingly violent hurricanes.

So what would a constructive approach look like? I suggest that we open the Mexican border to any Latin American immigrant with valid identification. In time, all those with an interest in immigrating or visiting will do so, thereby spurring US economic growth while increasing tourism. Eventually, new immigrants' influence on the US government might lead to changed policies and improvements in their countries of origin. We might face new challenges, but we will have largely solved the problem of "illegal" immigration. If birds migrate to better conditions, why should people be any different?

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:14 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

What could possibly be the reason for Bush to take up immigration now? Getting out of trouble by opening a new war is a Pavlovian reflex.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 10:26 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
In the same post, I reveal that while the right to bear arms was spelled out for militia purposes, the framers of the constitution probably never envisioned a day when a person couldn't carry weapons for hunting or defense.

Guns are illegal over here, Farmers still have rifles and shotguns. It's just you have to have a legitimate reason for having the weapon.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:15 AM