Bush to send troops to border
POSTED BY: rklenseth
UPDATED: Friday, May 19, 2006 00:56
VIEWED: 8734
PAGE 5 of 8
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 c
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
(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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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."
The difference between the common belief system in Great Britain, and my personal belief, is this:
I not only have the right to hunt and make sport with firearms. I also have the right to defend myself with them. I consider Defense of my person a legitimate reason to have a weapon.
In Great Britain, the banning of weapons has become so thorough that one can not even carry a knife or blunt instrument in defense of their person without being brought up on criminal charges.
This of course does not prevent criminals from using a knife or blunt instrument to accost the citizens of Great Britain. Criminals are, after all, already criminals, and don't care much about the law.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If a burglar knows they're likely to be confronted with a gun they're going to carry one and be far more likely to use it.
Guns don't make you safer, they make you feel safer.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME