Presidential Address on Immigration

[sterlingice]

Any thoughts?

SI

[IwasHere]

I am not hearing anything about how we are going to punish the people who employ these illegals.

EDIT: 3rd Not a god damn thing about Punishment for Employers...Did you catch that?

[kruseman]

He is talking about it right now....

[st.cronin]

I have not seen the text yet (probably won't until after coffee tomorrow) but I not expecting anything remotely interesting.

[amdaily]

So bascially, 'I voted for Amnesty before I voted against it'. Un-fucking real. Can't beelive I even voted in 2004.

[sterlingice]

At first blush, this solution is a pretty good one: get in line behind true immigrant applicants, learn English, pay taxes, and show demonstrated work here. That said, I'm curious about implementation.

SI

[Joe]

how am I doing?

[chinaski]

how am I doing?

dinken flicka.

[sterlingice]

Argh. I hate when he always try to drag a weepy story into his speeches. I can't remember the last Bush address that didn't have some sort of "And I remember meeting so and so".

SI

[IwasHere]

3rd. So he want to punish the Employers by requiring workers to have better paperwork to prove their status.

Just how does this punish employers? I was hoping for Fines, penalties, jail time. Not better paperwork. What a joke.

[Joe]

dinken flicka.


Word, fleece it out my brotha. Fleece it out.

[IwasHere]

LOL... Did you notice that the first thing Lou Dobbs talked about was the Employers?

[lungs]

Just get a friggin guest worker program going please.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Jesus was a cool guy.

[MrBigglesworth]

Overall, I don't think the Bush plan is that bad. I think sending National Guard troops to the border is just a stunt. There is no way that the problem is that pressing all of a sudden that the already stretched too thin NG needs to get involved.

Bush is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side is his base, who are starting to call for impeachment if he doesn't take care of the immigrants Nazi style, and on the other side are the business people that pay for his campaigns and the hispanics who will eventually be the second largest or largest voting bloc. With 29% approval, I don't envy his position.

[CamEdwards]

Overall, I don't think the Bush plan is that bad. I think sending National Guard troops to the border is just a stunt. There is no way that the problem is that pressing all of a sudden that the already stretched too thin NG needs to get involved.

Bush is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side is his base, who are starting to call for impeachment if he doesn't take care of the immigrants Nazi style, and on the other side are the business people that pay for his campaigns and the hispanics who will eventually be the second largest or largest voting bloc. With 29% approval, I don't envy his position.

Keep talking like this and you might actually get me to vote in November.

[Dutch]

Keep talking like this and you might actually get me to vote in November.

You don't see me wanting him to stop. ;)

[NoMyths]

Keep talking like this and you might actually get me to vote in November.
Threadjacking, but anyway: I've been seeing this kind of comment several times lately from conservatives. It's interesting to me for a couple of reasons, not the least of which being that it suggests a great deal about the kind of personality type that gravitates towards that political philosophy. Would it be fair to suggest that these kind of conservatives are willing to abstain from voting for a position they are unwilling to officially justify, unless they decide to work against themselves out of a sense of spite? Because that seems like a fairly shaky philosophical stance to take.

[Buccaneer]

[weekly libertarian rant]

It is funny and sad to see so many praising or attacking or acting ambivilant towards a federal initiative as if it's going to make a difference (besides costing more money). Can you name any number of federal initiatives from the past 40 years (esp. coming from the Oval Office) that actually paid off? It appears the basis for most of the political arguments here (from both sides) are arguing on something looks good (or bad) on paper or in theory. That's what they want you to keep believing so you'll vote for this guy/gal or that guy/gal.

Here's a solution: Instead of getting in a pissing match about something that only works in theory or in the deulsional world of good intentions, how spending the effort to clamor to your congressperson (or radio talk show host) about not doing anything and not spending any more money? The results in the end will be the same.

[biological warrior]

So if I heard it correctly these 6,000 troops will be rotated in 2 week rotation right? Sounds like a glorified AT to me. Why not have each brigade be deployed for 6 mos rotations?

[MrBigglesworth]

Can you name any number of federal initiatives from the past 40 years (esp. coming from the Oval Office) that actually paid off?
Um...the Internet?

[MrBigglesworth]

Keep talking like this and you might actually get me to vote in November.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50198
Dear Jorge plans to address the nation tonight, a speech wherein he will almost surely attempt to deceive citizens into believing that he does not wish the mass migration from Mexico to continue unabated. He will likely offer some negligible resources for law enforcement and border security – resources which will never materialize – in return for an amnesty program that will grant American citizenship to the Mexican nationals who have helped lower America's wage rates by 16 percent over the last 32 years.

And he will be lying, again, just as he lied when he said: "Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic – it's just not going to work."

Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society.
That's not even a blog, that's from World Net Daily, a very highly trafficked conservative news site. Don't yell at me, I didn't write or publish it.

[Flasch186]

with a very narrow span of time to acually analyze the pros and cons, I think Bush may have hit the compromise im looking for.

[Dutch]

with a very narrow span of time to acually analyze the pros and cons, I think Bush may have hit the compromise im looking for.

Well, I am surprised he's doing anything at all. It's a start, albeit half-assed. What I don't understand is what the national guard will do with people they detain. Will they simply release them back to Mexico so they can try again the next night?

[Flasch186]

well he said the NG wont detain anyone, the border patrol will with 6000 more helpers <shrug> regardless, catch them and drop them off on the southern border of mexico and make them hike the length of the country if they want to try again?

[Glengoyne]

Um...the Internet?

Yeah like that is going to work. Silicon Snake Oil I say!



On another note, I do agree completely that the Reserve troops are a stunt to satisfy the Whacko "secure the borders" crowd. I'm hoping the whole thing can be implemented. The Guest worker program allowing for a legal avenue for at least temporary immigration. The path for legitimate permanent immigration/citizenhip put in place. The increased document "security" making the employment of illegal workers MUCH more difficult. I don't know yet how that is going to work, but I have hopes. I would like to see penalties for employers knowingly circumventing these laws. As for the increased border enforcement. Well that really never has worked, so I don't have much hope for that. Pretty much none at all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Would it be fair to suggest that these kind of conservatives are willing to abstain from voting for a position they are unwilling to officially justify, unless they decide to work against themselves out of a sense of spite? Because that seems like a fairly shaky philosophical stance to take.

Since I'm someone who has made at least a couple of comments along that line, I'll comment just for the heck of it.

First, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking in the snippet above. But what it boils down to is that I'm approaching the point where I'm not happy enough to want to vote for anybody. But there's still the possibility that I could be unhappy enough about one of the possibilities to vote against somebody.

Honestly NM, I'm closer than I've ever been in my life to believing that we're basically FUBAR regardless of who is in the Oval Office or on Capitol Hill. Or in the state Capitol and state legislature. I can literally count on one hand with fingers left over the number of candidates at any level that I'm actually enthusiastic about voting for right now ... and I'm actually moving out of the district of that one person. By comparison, I can think of several people that I have every intention of voting/campaigning/contributing against.

While this isn't a new situation, it seems to be the worst ratio that I can recall and it's definitely the first time in 21 years that I've seriously considering casting no vote at all in the majority of races that'll be on my November ballot. Simply put, I'm screwed either way so what's the friggin' point?

Dunno if that answers the question you were asking but I tried.

[NoMyths]

That certainly gets at it, and I appreciate the thoughtful response. I've certainly abstained from voting for candidates because of similar reasons (here in South Carolina, your choices are sometimes limited, as you might imagine). At the same time, there seems to be an element of cutting one's own nose off to spite his face at work in such comments. Seems there may be more productive ways of dealing with ones frustration at the system than entrenching the problem more deeply because of irritation at the opposition.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Seems there may be more productive ways of dealing with ones frustration at the system than entrenching the problem more deeply because of irritation at the opposition.

That's probably where I would disagree with you, with the possible exception of working extra hard in the primary rounds if a more appealing candidate happened to exist there. (Granted, that seems to happen few & far between, but it's at least possible on occasion).

Take the Governor's race in Georgia as an example.

-- Hell will freeze over before I vote for Sonny Perdue again. Screw that backstabbing sonuvabitch.

-- He does have primary opposition, albeit from an almost entirely token candidate. Token or not though, I'd be more than willing to cast at least a protest vote for Ray McBerry ... except that he's made criminalizing abortion a key plank in his platform & that really doesn't fly with me at all. Still, considering the Marlins have a better chance of winning the World Series than McBerry does of winning the nomination, I might cast that protest vote anyway if I end up voting in the primary.

So, realistically, it'll be Perdue vs one of two Dems in November.
-- There's Roy Barnes former Lt. Gov Mark Taylor. Talk about hell freezing over, if you ever see me cast a vote for that fat ass coke-sniffing anti-Southern piece of garbage you will officially know that I've crossed the line into insanity with no hope of return. I'd vote for OBL before I'd back that cocksucker. And that's brutal honesty, not random hyperbole.
-- Then there's current Sec. of State Cathy Cox. She's about as liberal as Taylor but carries less baggage AFAIC. She's been a decent SOS here IMO and given my distaste & distrust for Sonny, I'm likely to hold my nose & vote for her if she can get the nomination (which is a toss-up at best).

I'm still voting "against" rather than "for", but at least I find it to be an "against" that I think I could manage to stomach, in no small part because I'm not sure she's capable of railroading too much through the legislature at this point in her career. She's playing in the biggest game of her life right now & I don't believe she's quite ready for it, meaning the amount of harm she could do is (theoretically) limited.

So, I'm looking at a 50-50 chance of voting or not voting in that race come November. There's only three realistically possible candidates on the ballot by that point, only one of which I'd even be willing to piss on if they spontaneously combusted before my eyes, the other two I'd offer to buy a tank full of Premium Unleaded for. Really tough to get motivated to vote in a case like that, but damned if I see any way to fix the situation.

[Pumpy Tudors]

While this isn't a new situation, it seems to be the worst ratio that I can recall and it's definitely the first time in 21 years that I've seriously considering casting no vote at all in the majority of races that'll be on my November ballot. Simply put, I'm screwed either way so what's the friggin' point?
What amazes me is that it has taken people so long to start thinking this way. Call me a cynical youngster, but I kinda hit this point before I was even old enough to vote.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What amazes me is that it has taken people so long to start thinking this way. Call me a cynical youngster, but I kinda hit this point before I was even old enough to vote.

Difference is, I haven't always felt so screwed.

[lungs]

Well, I've called a meeting tomorrow with my Latino employees to discuss the President's speech so they know what is going on. I've already spoken to one of my most valued employees and he would welcome the change and wants to go back to Mexico to see the family he hasn't seen in five years and be able to come back through legal channels.

It's a start. A lot of people want to go back and see their families and if something can go through where they could go back and come back as legal guest workers, I feel it'd be a win-win situation for all involved.

Just keep the Mexican government out of it, please.

[Ksyrup]

I haven't read this thread and don't mean for this to be a statement one way or the other, just a funny (perhaps subliminal) reading of an article. When I read the below passage, I substituted "white" for "while" and didn't realize it until the next line where it didn't make sense as a sentence:

"Thinly veiled attempts to promote amnesty cannot be tolerated,' said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga. "While America is a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws, and rewarding those who break our laws not only dishonors the hard work of those who came here legally but does nothing to fix our current situation."

[gstelmack]

Argh. I hate when he always try to drag a weepy story into his speeches. I can't remember the last Bush address that didn't have some sort of "And I remember meeting so and so".

Yeah, I hate the fact that he's stolen that page from Clinton, 'cause I hated it when he did it, too.

[ice4277]

Yeah, I hate the fact that he's stolen that page from Clinton, 'cause I hated it when he did it, too.

Doesn't every politician do this?

[Warhammer]

Doesn't every politician do this?

No, not everyone, only the one's that are too damn political.

[IwasHere]

I would like to see penalties for employers knowingly circumventing these laws.
Why is this such a difficult concept for people to understand. No Jobs, no illegals. We need to start going after the Dealers, not the addicts. I hope to start reading about raids on US companies who employ these people.


As far as the National Guard goes, I think they are just going to be doing all the construction work down there. For 2 weeks a year, you are going to be in the middle of a desert building a fence, or installing a new monitoring system. All the shit work that no one else wants to do.

[Klinglerware]

As far as the National Guard goes, I think they are just going to be doing all the construction work down there. For 2 weeks a year, you are going to be in the middle of a desert building a fence, or installing a new monitoring system. All the shit work that no one else wants to do.

I wonder if it would be cheaper to have day laborers do it :D

[flere-imsaho]

Any thoughts?

The bit that stands out for me is the plan to militarize the border and send 6,000 National Guard troops there, in the name of "National Security".

Remind me, how many of the 9/11 hijackers came over the Mexican border?

It would be better to send 6,000 National Guard troops to various U.S. ports so that greater than 5% of all containers coming into the United States are inspected. Before, you know, Al Qaeda set off a dirty bomb in New York harbor.

[Glengoyne]

The bit that stands out for me is the plan to militarize the border and send 6,000 National Guard troops there, in the name of "National Security".

Remind me, how many of the 9/11 hijackers came over the Mexican border?

It would be better to send 6,000 National Guard troops to various U.S. ports so that greater than 5% of all containers coming into the United States are inspected. Before, you know, Al Qaeda set off a dirty bomb in New York harbor.

Just curious, and not a serious post in any way shape or form, but your post begs the question.

"How many of the 9/11 hijackers got into the country in shipping containers?"

[Glengoyne]

I wonder if it would be cheaper to have day laborers do it :D

Priceless....Well, at least very well played.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The bit that stands out for me is the plan to militarize the border and send 6,000 National Guard troops there, in the name of "National Security".

Perhaps the "National Security" interest isn't entirely about foreign nationals?
Perhaps it has finally dawned on the President that if something isn't done about the fucking leaky border he may find himself facing some very unpleasant citizens at his own gates?

[MrBigglesworth]

Perhaps the "National Security" interest isn't entirely about foreign nationals?
Perhaps it has finally dawned on the President that if something isn't done about the fucking leaky border he may find himself facing some very unpleasant citizens at his own gates?
Yes, it's a political stunt. Maybe they'll even be able to arrange photo ops of Bush riding along the border in a Hummer.

[MrBigglesworth]

Why is this such a difficult concept for people to understand. No Jobs, no illegals. We need to start going after the Dealers, not the addicts. I hope to start reading about raids on US companies who employ these people.
I think people understand it, they just don't want to do it.

[SunDevil]

Oops...

http://public.cq.com/public/20060515_homeland_15nationalguard.html

DHS Does About-Face In Backing Use of National Guard to Seal Border
By Patrick Yoest, CQ Staff

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.”

But it appears that O’Reilly’s battle cry, and that of much of the anti-immigration lobby that has influenced the immigration reform debate in Congress, has had an effect on the Bush administration. Despite plans for a substantial technology and equipment procurement — SBInet — and proposed increases in Border Patrol personnel, President Bush has announced plans to supplement Border Patrol agents with National Guard personnel as part of a $1.9 billion border security upgrade.

The National Guard troops, which will stand at up 6,000 strong for the next year, will absorb surveillance and infrastructure work from the overburdened Border Patrol. President Bush also proposed a huge swell in the Border Patrol — a total of 6,000 new agents — by the end of 2008. Additionally, 1,000 Border Patrol agents currently in clerical positions will be shifted to new assignments in detention and apprehension of illegal aliens.

But the new placement of the National Guard troops marks a radical departure from the Department of Homeland Security’s previous pronouncement on border security. As Chertoff mentioned, the troops will stand alongside trained, experienced Border Patrol agents. Can they do it?

DHS spokesman Jarrod Agen distanced the new policy from Chertoff’s earlier comments, saying by phone Monday that the National Guard troops would easily assimilate into the border protection apparatus.

“What we’re using them for are things they have been trained to do, and have used them for in other circumstances,” Agen said.

The military has had a role in border security in recent years, but on a very small scale. Joint Task Force North, a military unit affiliated with U.S. Northern Command, has lent its resources to the Border Patrol’s efforts. State governors in Arizona and Texas have dispatched National Guard units from their states to the border as well.

“As a stop-gap measure it’s fine, just like you send National Guard in during disasters,” James Jay Carafano, a homeland defense expert at the Heritage Foundation said by phone. But in the long-term, Carafano does not think the strategy of using National Guard supports is sustainable.

“There’s better uses for these resources, and there are also better ways for dealing with the problem in the long term,” he said, suggesting the augmentation of Border Patrol assets to address gaps on the United States’ 2,700-mile border with Mexico.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter T. King, R-N.Y., also called the use of National Guard into question.

“It’s not just enough to say we’ll use the National Guard. We want to see how many there are going to be, how well trained they’re going to be for this. I mean, they’re very, very well trained as soldiers. They’re very well trained, even, for natural disasters like earthquakes and forest fires,” he said Monday on Fox News. “But, again, as far as how they are going to be coordinated and adapted into working with the Border Patrol, the president is going to have to lay that out, or he’s going to have to lay out some kind of a timeline” (See related story, CQ Homeland Security, 4/11/06).

The SBInet procurement, which could result in a contract award by the end of the summer, could address some of what would be the National Guard’s role.

Contractors have said they expect that private firms will supply manpower as a part of the procurement, and detention and removal operations are often cited as an area in which the private sector could fortify a weak link by helping to transport deported aliens back to their home countries.

But, as the White House indicated Monday, the National Guard troops may also take on surveillance responsibilities for the Border Patrol. With that area comes another risk: the exhaustion of National Guard troops with surveillance and intelligence expertise.

“When you look at the types of activities that the guard will be doing, those are skill sets that already in high-demand overseas,” Christine E. Wormuth, a Center for Strategic and International Studies defense analyst said, pointing to National Guard deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. “It’s not like any Tom, Dick or Harry National Guard soldier could do that.”

The National Guard stands at roughly 350,000 troops — far above the number of troops that would be deployed on the border. But Wormuth suggested that, with multiple deployments, the roughly 6,000 slated troops could be multiplied two-fold or even four-fold. That could begin to take a toll on National Guard recruitment.

“Politically, I would think there wouldn’t be a desire to go back to the well of people that have served [overseas],” she said, citing the “stressing” effect of multiple deployments. “What does this do for retention? It’s already a very challenging recruiting environment.”

The troops would have greater flexibility if they were deployed by state governors, rather than the president, under Title 32 of the U.S. Code. Legal scholars believe that provision circumvents the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, a law limiting the use of military personnel for law enforcement.

Even so, the American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement Monday invoking “the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act.”

“Our government and people have long recognized that federal law enforcement officers are the best equipped and trained to deal with these kinds of civilian law enforcement needs,” Anthony D. Romero, ACLU’s executive director, said. “Soldiers are trained to kill the enemy, and they lack the training to conduct proper law enforcement.”

Agen said the troops would be deployed “with the cooperation of state governors,” but declined to elaborate further on who would directly deploy them.

[SunDevil]

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000665.php

Is Border Plan Solid? Just Ask The Officials
By Justin Rood - May 16, 2006, 3:10 PM

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and a clutch of top officials gave a press briefing today on President Bush's new National Guard-infused border security program. Hilarity ensues:

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, if I've understood everything I've heard, you don't yet know what missions the 6,000 National Guardsmen will do, you don't know who is going to pay for them, you don't know what the rules of engagement will be for them, you don't know what size units there will be or how long -- whether they'll be two-week or six-month deployments, and you don't really know exactly which equipment they're going to have. So my question is, how long have you been working on this?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I guess that's what they call a loaded question. And I guess you haven't understood what we've said, so I'm going to try to make it really clear. . .

That's a nice strong opener for his response. But it's downhill from there:

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: [I]t is true that, sitting here right now, I do not have in my head every single mission set. . .

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense Paul McHale jumps in to help:

ASSISTANT SECRETARY McHALE: . . . We don't know how many helicopters we're going to put up, but we know to a near certainty that we'll have helicopters. . . We don't know where we will place censors to detect illegal movement, but it's almost a certainty that we will have censors. . . We don't know how many barriers or roads we're going to build, but clearly, we will be putting new barriers in place, and clearly, we will be building new roads . . . So your question, sir, is a fair one.

The reporter tries again:

QUESTION: What I'm really trying to understand, is this a well-thought-out plan, or is it something that's just been --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY McHALE: Yes, sir, it is.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: in quite exquisite detail. . .

GENERAL BLUM: This is clearly a well-thought-out plan[.]

Indeed.

[BrianD]

Of course this is a well-thought-out plan. They just haven't come to any actual decisions yet. :D

[sterlingice]

I wonder if it would be cheaper to have day laborers do it :D

Like Glen said, nicely played :D

SI