Fox: Troops Would "Militarize the Border"--So What?

As President Bush prepares to address the nation this evening about his plan to augment border security in the Southwest, it is widely expected that he will announce a National Guard presence of between 5,000 and 10,000 troops to be stationed along the border in what White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett says will be a supporting role.

According to news reports, people along both sides of the border are worried about National Guard troops being present along the border. Mexican President Vicente Fox is worried that the troops will "militarize the border." So here is the crux of the matter, should the United States be able to guard its borders, with armed troops if necessary? Clearly the answer is yes.

As a soverirgn nation, the United States is permitted, by international law, to protect its soveriegn and geographic integrity, with armed force if necessary. Hundreds of other nations do so, why not the U.S.? Obviously this is a case of the old double standard, because the U.S. is the biggest, most powerful nation on Earth, it cannot be seen to be a bully or do things other nations do. Hogwash!!!

Simply because the Mexican President doesn't want a foreign military force near his country, that it would add a military element to a tense law enforcement situation, is surely no reason not to protect our borders. American foreign and domestic policy is not set by Vicente Fox or any other international leader. In fact, if Fox wants to complain about the militarization of the U.S.-Mexican border, I suppose, he should do a better job making sure his nation's army stays on their side of the border. As reported in the Washington Times earlier this year:

Two-term Republican Rep. Rick Renzi, in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said reports of Mexican military units providing armed escorts to drug and alien smuggling operations represent "narco-terrorism in its purest form."

"Our borders are under attack by sophisticated organizations that have no qualms about firing on our Border Patrol units," Mr. Renzi said. "As we get tougher and more committed, so do the organizations committed to smuggling death and terror across our borders."

A State Department official yesterday said the department is "in touch with the Mexican government when incidents occur," adding that "they are usually resolved at that time at the local level." The official did not know whether Mr. Renzi's letter had been received.

Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff yesterday told reporters at Defense Today magazine that Mexican military incursions average about 20 a year, but were declining.

He called concern over the issue "overblown" and "scare tactics."

But the actions of the Mexican military aside (but not ingnored), the fact that we have a flood of illegal immigrants entering this country is an invasion, an economic invasion. Illegal immigrants, while adding in some respects to the American economy is a severe drain in other areas, such as public eductiaon and health care. Illegal immigrants sap our nation's ability to provide for our own citizens. The outside stimuli of illegal immigration has affected our nation's ability to focus on other policy areas. Just because the invaders don't wear body armor, drive tanks, fly helicopters or carry assault rifles (well some do apparently), doesn't make them any less an unwelcome instrusion into our nation, an instrusion we should and must stop.

As a matter of national security and national soveriegnty, President Bush has not only the authority, but the constitutional obligation to protect our borders, by force if necessary. I for one, applaud the move, despite the fact that it comes far too late in the immigration war. If Mexico wants to put its troops along the border, I have no problem with that move. But "militarizing the border" is simply not a reason not to secure our borders.

Posted by Matt Johnston at May 15, 2006 9:22 AM
Comments
Comment #148274

I am not sure that the constitution meant for the President to use the military to protect our borders from migrant workers, but that’s not important right now. WHY is Fox posturing? Here’s my vote for Reason #1:

Fox is terrified that he is going to lose his biggest source of foreign income. The only thing that could hurt him more would be for First Data Corporation (Western Union) to prohibit money transfers from the US to Mexico. That would pretty much kill that industry for Fox.

Posted by: Bruce at May 15, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #148276

The question is not “can we?”
The question is “should we?”
Migrant workers are not a threat to national security. This is an economic question, pure and simple. Since no military enforcement effort is cost effective, my vote is “no military interdiction of migrant workers”

To me, this is just a further militarization of our nation. I’m just waiting for Bushie to say he can ignore Amendment XXII, like he’s doing to the rest of the constitution, and use the army to enforce it this time.

Posted by: Dave at May 15, 2006 10:19 AM
Comment #148279

How can so many people ignore reality?

Dave! HEY DAVE!! DAAAAAAAVVVVVEEE!!!

1. Not all illegal aliens are “migrant workers.” Some illegal aliens smuggle drugs across the border. Other illegal aliens cross the border to take advantage of our medical and welfare systems. Still other illegal aliens cross the border to rob whatever they can. How else do you explain that 1/3 our our national prison population is composed of illegal aliens?

2. No one is saying that “migrant workers” cannot continue working in the U.S., AS LONG AS THEY ENTER LEGALLY. Just check in at the border. Is that really too much to ask?

-chris

Posted by: Chris Rowan at May 15, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #148281

talk about seperation from reality…

Posted by: Dave at May 15, 2006 10:38 AM
Comment #148282

I agree. For me, the question is “do we save money by doing this?” At the least, before we do it, I want to know what it costs. I want, please, to at least believe some planning and forethought went into the decision. Is that too much to ask? Will Republicans bother to even lay out the basic costs and reasoning that would help put much of this country at ease?

Republicans,

Where is your outcry that Texas should pay for this, and that it’s none of the government’s responsibility? Personally I see this as a national problem, but I think it’s interesting that I haven’t seen this knee-jerk response like we all did after Katrina.

Posted by: Max at May 15, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #148285

Hmm, I guess the letter of the law is sacred when it comes to protecting child molestors but not so when it comes to protecting our borders.

I love how the left has adopted calling all illegal immigrants “migrant workers”.

Posted by: Craig at May 15, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #148289

Craig,


Over here, these are apples,……………..and over here we find oranges.

Please feel free to compare the two.

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #148291

We must protect our border… I like most people period.. but we are looking like a 3rd world nation in many areas because the people coming here are not trying to become americans… not that all “american citizens” are steller individuals.. but we must all speak english or we will never comunicate . speaking different languages is devisive to start with.. but first CLOSE the border…

Posted by: gin at May 15, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #148292
Simply because the Mexican President doesn’t want a foreign military force near his country, that it would add a military element to a tense law enforcement situation, is surely no reason not to protect our borders.

I guess that depends on who we’re protecting them from. If we’re staving off the Mexican Army, then by all means militarize the border.

Here’s what I don’t get. Republicans are ready to spend billions to deploy the National Guard to the border, but they won’t spend the money to hire more border patrol agents.

Why do Republicans think we should deploy part-time soldiers to do work that should be done by full-time border patrol agents?

Posted by: American Pundit at May 15, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #148293

they pay for groceries with food stamps and send cash home to mexico via Western Union the same visit to the store. My sister works as a checker and witnesses it all the time.

pay to stay or go away!

Posted by: lm at May 15, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #148295

Max,

“Where is your outcry that Texas should pay for this, and that it’s none of the government’s responsibility? Personally I see this as a national problem, but I think it’s interesting that I haven’t seen this knee-jerk response like we all did after Katrina.”

The reason you don’t see this “knee-jerk” reaction is because it is the federal government’s responsibility to protect the borders of the nation; that’s why we pay taxes so that the government ensures our rights. Rebuilding in a state after a natural disaster is the state’s responsibility. I know you don’t agree with this definition regarding the proper role of government; I’m just clarifying the position.

To all,

It may cost more to put the National Guard troops at the border, but hey, why are they called the “National Guard”? I think it’s a good idea and a necessary one albeit a little late. The Federal government is actually doing something it’s supposed to be doing.

Posted by: Tyler at May 15, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #148296

Fox had the opportunity to halt the problem from his side of the border - he made not a single move in that direction. Now, I say, Fox don’t hunt in the U.S.

I applaud the President’s temporary move to put troops on the border. That said: Since border security and illegal immigration have been just as huge a problem in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, one has to ask if the President’s move is nothing more than a political ploy to shore up Republican’s still falling support? Why weren’t our borders secured after 9/11 Mr. President? Were you hoping for more attacks to bolster your poll numbers as happened after 9/11?

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 15, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #148299

Rocky, care to explain to the group when it’s ok to put on your legalistic veil and when it’s not? Actually, I think we all just assume “when it’s convenient” - so no answer necessary.

Posted by: Craig at May 15, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #148301

Craig,

We have all had this discussion before.

Yes, they are all illegal.
Most are migrants.

Out of the 12.4+ million, how any are we actually arresting?
When will we enforce the laws that are already on the books?
When will we start jailing the employers?

Until you can answer those questions, any comparison to what the ACLU does is moot.

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #148303

Dear V Fox:

If you felt that way, why did your armed troops cross the border on numerous instances providing cover for drug runners. Graft and corruption infests your country and is spilling into ours, like sewage runoff from TJ into the river that flows into the US.

And as far as militarizing the border, look south to your border with Honduras. Your police and military conducts a criminal enterprise in the murder and rape central americans that enter Mexico. It truly is unbelievable. The disengenuous thoughts that spew from your mouth. It is so transparent, yet no one has the guts to say that El Presidente is wearing no clothes.

Sincerely,
Su Amigo
Let them eat cake

Posted by: letthemeatcake at May 15, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #148309

If bad guys, killers, can get into the US in a “legal manner” and murder 3,000 on 9/11 - with visa’s missed by intelligence foul ups, security being lax at Logan international etc., how much more should we be worried about people we don’t ever see on videos or check at the airport? Survival is a basic instinct and since, as the left has intoned, we are all evolved from apes and the law of the jungle is survival of the fittest, whats their argument? We’re the fittest, so do what we gotta do to insure we survive! Question to those on the left or right that are pushing for “open borders”, are you leaving your front door open at night? Will you do so and leave your address online? You may have some money I could use, will you turn your head will I go through your wallet? Got any med’s in the medicine cabinet? Will you look away as I take a look? What’s in your cupboard? Your ‘fridge? How about your wife? Got a daughter? Listen, take a couple days vacation and let me have my way around your house, no problems I swear, I’m just trying to do right by my family after all! I can’t afford your lifestyle, your groceries, your medicines so come on, just leave the door open, I’ll be right over!!!

Posted by: JR at May 15, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #148310
2. No one is saying that “migrant workers” cannot continue working in the U.S., AS LONG AS THEY ENTER LEGALLY. Just check in at the border. Is that really too much to ask?

Check in at the border? Legal immigration is just about impossible for those without special skills.

Posted by: Schwamp at May 15, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #148311

I just hope that this isn’t spun as a whole “national security” thing. If we were really concerned we’d also block the northern border and our ports. If he wants America to have a militarized border with Mexico then fine, just don’t come back and tell me it’s for national security. It’s for one thing and one thing only, keeping mexicans out.

Posted by: chantico at May 15, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #148312

Rocky, you should answer your own questions. Where is the outcry from the left to begin enforcing the law and deport the illegal migrants? Arrest the employers for breaking the law too for all I care; I mow my own lawn.

You stand by the ACLU for trying to protect a criminal’s civil liberties according to the law. So then, what about protecting our borders accordingly?

Posted by: Craig at May 15, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #148313

While illegal immigration has been the primary focus of the ongoing debate, it’s important to note that this is merely a consequence of the root problem: the attack on our national sovereignty.
Historically, a nation’s sovereignty has been directly tied to the integrity of its borders. Yet, the perception today, both domestically and internationally, is that America’s borders are malleable at best and nonexistent at worst. Nevertheless, Mexico is not to blame for our current predicament; our government has been ignoring this problem for decades, now. Unless concrete steps are taken to remedy this ailment, America would be better off opening its borders altogether. This, of course, is not an action that I would support. It would, however, indicate to the rest of the world that we are still in control of our borders, and control we must have.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 15, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #148314

chantico

“keeping mexicans out”? What about Hondurans? Salvadorans? Venezuelans? What? Do we only hate Mexicans? I don’t give a good flat frog what nationality you or anyone else is! I don’t like people who break the law, take advantage of the country whose laws they break and then protest because they are being asked to obey the law. What is Fox doing on his southern border? Can any of the above named countries send their populations, unchecked, into Grand ol’ Mexico? Nope! Immigration is a lawful entry into a sovereign nation. Sneaking across a border in the dead of night, under cover, hidden in containers is ILLEGAL!!! Ask Presidente Fox, he’ll tell ya.

Posted by: JR at May 15, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #148315

Craig,

What does protecting the borders have with American “civil” liberties?

I have always been for enforcement of the laws on the books.

The employers should be arrested and punished first. If there were no jobs there would be increasingly fewer immigrants.

As for the cry from the left, I will admit that I am politically left of Attila the Hun or Hitler or Mussolini.
You seem to assume that anyone to the left of Pat Robertson is the dreaded “Liberal”.
It just ain’t so.

You know, instead of demonizing the left, you might want to put you’re own house in order.

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #148323

I asked an honest question, and you finally answered it here:

I have always been for enforcement of the laws on the books.

The employers should be arrested and punished first. If there were no jobs there would be increasingly fewer immigrants.

Then I get:

You know, instead of demonizing the left, you might want to put you’re own house in order.

What is that about Rocky? Almost everyone here makes some generalization mostly in the interest of time and worthwhile/interesting debate. Grow up bud.

Posted by: Craig at May 15, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #148324

When President Bush says deploying the Guard to the border is a temporary measure, does that mean they’ll be there just until November?

Posted by: American Pundit at May 15, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #148326
The reason you don’t see this “knee-jerk” reaction is because it is the federal government’s responsibility to protect the borders of the nation; that’s why we pay taxes so that the government ensures our rights. Rebuilding in a state after a natural disaster is the state’s responsibility. I know you don’t agree with this definition regarding the proper role of government; I’m just clarifying the position.

It may cost more to put the National Guard troops at the border, but hey, why are they called the “National Guard”? I think it’s a good idea and a necessary one albeit a little late. The Federal government is actually doing something it’s supposed to be doing.

After Katrina, a lot of Republicans posted after the fact that it was New Orleans responsibility to prevent the disaster in the first place, absolving Bush of any responsibility. To me, it was a moot point, since disaster prevention was supposed to be a part of his expected job and he didn’t do his job as expected - period.

However, now I note that no one is saying “Why does TEXAS do such a lousy job of protecting the borders? What about all the time Bush was governer? Not saying I don’t think the Government should be involved, but I just wanted to point out the blantant hypocrisy.

Another interesting thing to me is none of the Republicans here are questioning how much this will cost. Surely, if border patrol agents are cheaper than Federal troops we should use border patrol agents? It would be nice to see Bush put forward his proposal with an explanation of why it’s the most cost-effective one.

Also, how about estimated savings? I know you are all such experts about how Mexicans are robbing everyone and eating up valuable Federal money, but can I hear from the horse’s mouth that this will save us money and be in our best interest? Because Tony Snow, Bush’s Press Secretary disagrees and seems to think you all have “no common sense”, so you can’t blame me for being a little confused right?

Tony”>Tony”>http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2006/03/31/192005.html”>Tony Snow (Bush Press Secretary) opinion here.

It’s surreal that we need to lecture Republicans about spending. What happened to your party? I’m with Tony Snow. Whatever you’re going to do why don’t you take a deep breath and think for a minute or two about it first?

Posted by: Max at May 15, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #148330

Craig,

“What is that about Rocky? Almost everyone here makes some generalization mostly in the interest of time and worthwhile/interesting debate. Grow up bud.”

Well, la di freaking da.

Gee Craig, grow up?

I hope that isn’t the best you can do.

You criticize me for my “convenient legal veil”, and then tell me to grow up.
That really moves the debate into realm of maturity.

I have asked about enforcing the laws and your best response is that you mow your own lawn.

What exactly is the Republican MAJORITY going to do besides militarize the Mexican border?

Wasn’t it the Republicans that put off the border issue last December?

What does Mr. Bush, in his infinite wisdom, think will be acomplished by again pulling the National Guard away from their families, homes, and JOBS, to babysit the border patrol?

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #148331

like the good DR said ,it’s been decades in the making,our leaders should try to think of a real long term solution, instead of quick reacting to pressure from the public.the guard does not use non lethal rock salt! hey i am for sensible legal immigration, what’s this plan going to cost? 10,000 troops what’s that about 1 guard for every 5 miles of border?both sides could get shot, then what 50,000 troops along the border? what ever happened to common sense?

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 15, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #148333

It’s an absurd idea. I’m all for patrolling the borders. Use civilians, though. There are more of them, they can do it as a full-time job, and it doesn’t create any problems with Posse Comitatus (which discourages using the military as law enforcement).

What’s more, all it would take is one shooting incident to make an international incident of this.

The better idea is to crack down on the systemic corruption supporting this influx of illegal aliens. Make it easier to immigrate legally. Then we can rest easy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 15, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #148336

What the President of Mexico thinks about our border security should be the least of our concerns. He has helped to grow this problem, let him be upset.

Using National Guard troops should be a temporary solution until border security is enhanced. Is there an urgent reason to deploy them? Yes, because of the rhetoric, botched strategy, and hopes of amnesty, the numbers illegally entering will go sky high if we don’t do something fast. What matters is the next step.

We need to ensure a strategy that will endure. To be honest, with the record of the Bush administration on imigration, I doubt there is a real solution in the next two years. I’ll bet the Guard rotates until the next Presidential election and the new administration can inherit the problem.

The only real solution is to take away the incentive to come here illegally. I don’t think the President or Congress has the guts to go there…..

Posted by: Mark Fischer at May 15, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #148340

Mark Fischer, how do you take away terrorists incentive come here illegally. You are missing the other half of the border question. Security for Americans as they sleep at night or go to and from work and school.

Taking the employment incentive away from Mexicans and S. Americans does not one iota for securing our borders. Think wholistic, not piecemeal like Bush does.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 15, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #148343

““keeping mexicans out”? What about Hondurans? Salvadorans? Venezuelans? What? Do we only hate Mexicans? I don’t give a good flat frog what nationality you or anyone else is! I don’t like people who break the law, take advantage of the country whose laws they break and then protest because they are being asked to obey the law. What is Fox doing on his southern border? Can any of the above named countries send their populations, unchecked, into Grand ol’ Mexico? Nope! Immigration is a lawful entry into a sovereign nation. Sneaking across a border in the dead of night, under cover, hidden in containers is ILLEGAL!!! Ask Presidente Fox, he’ll tell ya.”

Really? Is that so? So I guess I missed your righteous indignation about the Canadian illegal immigrants that I know? hmm? Or how about the slew of European immigrants that just over stay their Visas. You must be steaming mad about our northern border, and our ports.

However, you’re right, I misspoke, I should’ve said “people of hispanic origin” instead. My bad.

Posted by: chantico at May 15, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #148344

Rocky, I’m not getting into a personal pissing contest with you. You tried to start one with your little “get your house in order” comment - I’m finishing it by saying again, grow up.

Posted by: Craig at May 15, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #148345

Craig,

Thank you for not answering any of my questions.

I think that this will ultimately show the maturity level on your side of the debate.

Posted by: Rocky at May 15, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #148349

The Guard on the border is a political stunt to shore up crumbling support from the xenophobic Right of his party.

“Why does TEXAS do such a lousy job of protecting the borders? What about all the time Bush was governer?”

Good point, Max.

“I’m all for patrolling the borders. Use civilians, though. There are more of them, they can do it as a full-time job, and it doesn’t create any problems with Posse Comitatus (which discourages using the military as law enforcement).”

Bingo! Stephen is correct, again.

Posted by: Tim Crow at May 15, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #148352

Tim,

Do we even need to pay them? Just give ‘em some beer. Why not use a bunch of biggoted drunk armed cowboys as a national line of defense…

Posted by: Dave at May 15, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #148353

Dave,

The drunk armed cowboys is a good idea, I just think it will result in too many false positives involving guns.

Posted by: SirisC at May 15, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #148358

I wonder if El Presidente Fox is worried about Mexico’s MILATIRIZED southern border?

Posted by: David C. at May 15, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #148359

chantico
You never answered the question about Mexico’s southern borders. Are they open to all comers?
How do we know the eastern europeans overstayed? Because they followed the law of the land, and got visas. That they overstayed is a problem that we can now address because we know they’re here. If you know illegals that came in from Canada you should report it, not aid and abet law breaking. Should our northern borders be more secure, ABSOLUTELY! We don’t as yet have 10,000 unidentified individuals a month streaming across that border - fight the biggest problems first. Our ports are understaffed but addressing this shortfall and investing in technology can help in securing the ports, we don’t have thousands of containers coming into the country that no one ever sees or knows about. Again, it has nothing to do with ethnicity, it has to do with common sense. I said it before, if the borders being closed really bothers you that much then you must be someone who leaves the doors to your home open for any and all who want to to wander in. After all you can’t lock anyone out! Let them take or break whatever they wish and then demand that you pay for any injuries they sustained in your house. Later, when they have stolen your money, eaten your food and perhaps raped your family, they’ll make you pay for their cab to the next house. Is this your home?

Posted by: JR at May 15, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #148364

It’s all smoke and mirrors.
No permanent solution will come of any of it.
It is a band-aid solution designed to only be slightly effective.
And, after November elections, it will all be forgotten, and voters will resume their usual habit of re-electing the very same irresponsible incumbents that ignore them.
It won’t be long before the inflow jumps from 1 million per year to 2 and 3 million per year.
Especially if they pass amnesty, which seems more likely than anything else.
And, like the last amnesty, in which 3 million quadrupled to 12 million, get ready for the next round to quadruple from 12 million to 48 million.

While nothing is likely to improve for U.S. citizens, caught between Democrats and Republicans that want votes and cheap labor, the arguments for illegal immigration are interesting …

  • Tradition: We are a nation of immigrants; we can not pull up the drawbridge now, unless we dismantle the Statue of Liberty. Otherwise, we are all hypocrites.
  • Economics: The U.S. will crumble without illegal aliens. We need immigrants to pay the Social Security of the Baby Boomers when they begin to retire. Immigrants do jobs Americans won’t do. Who would pick our produce? Who would make the beds and wash the dishes?
  • Humanitarianism: It is selfish to put the needs of poor Americans ahead of more desperate people in other nations by denying them entry into our country. The U.S. is obligated to share with others. Largescale immigration is a significant way for the U.S. to help the impoverished people of the world.
  • Diversity: Increasing diversity through immigration is necessary to be true to our civil rights principles. Opposition to illegal immigration is racist. We are obligated to accomodate millions of immigrants per year because our strength is our diversity; the diversity of immigrants made America great. And, Christopher Columbus was the first illegal alien, and we stole the land from the Indians.
  • Irredentism: We have no right to secure U.S. borders, because U.S. borders are illegitimate to start with. The U.S. really belongs to the Indians and other neighboring nations, to start with.
  • Cornucopianism: The free market and technology will save us. We need illegal aliens to grow out of our massive debt problems. They will become new tax payers, and we can grow our way out of debt.
  • Globalism: We live in a global economy now, requiring new global solutions. Securing the U.S. borders is futile, since it is inadequate to deal with globalization.
Posted by: d.a.n at May 15, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #148375

The term “migrant workers” keeps showing up on this blog. Uhh, it’s “Illegal” aliens that this issue is about; you guys try to alter the subject with these terms just like the MSM does. Good to see that you’re reiterating what they say. Keep up the good work. Ha!


Matt is absolutely correct in the fact that “Illegals” drain our health system, schools, criminal justice system and lower the wages for employeement. It’s time for our politicians to listen to us (for a change); over 2/3 of the people are for securing the border, having them learn our language, not letting them cut in line to get Citizenship and abide by the rules.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 15, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #148379

JR,
You must’ve missed the point of my initial post. I said nothing against militarizing the border. Just don’t sell it to me as a “national security” thing. If it really was national security thing it’d be all inclusive of our norther border and ports. Just because I think this is nothing more than a show of bravado to try and buy some simple minded votes doesn’t mean that I’m against closing the border. I mean we’re talking about an administration that decided not to fund border patrol growth to the desired 9k level just last year so forgive me if I’m a little cynical. Just call it what it is, a “keep the hispanics out” measure. You do more than that, I’ll give you the credit due.

Posted by: chantico at May 15, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #148386

All I know is Jesus is more powerful than the greatest nation’s army. So we just need to humble ourselves and pray and let God take care of the rest. Of course faith without action is useless, but still we need to have faith and pray.

That includes myself. (I had to pray before typing this) Here are some good references: James 4:10 “Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you.” and 2 Chronicles 7:14.

Posted by: Chris F at May 15, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #148393

Rodney Brown wrote “10,000 troops what’s that about 1 soldier for every five miles of border?”

10,000 troops x 5 miles = 50,000 mile border.

Mr. Brown,
Dubya hasn’t taken over the entire world yet, but even if he did, there still wouldn’t be a 50,000 mile border. In fact, the entire circumference of the planet at the equator is only about 25,000 miles. Ah college professors…

Posted by: Duano at May 15, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #148395

Actually, it’s more like one soldier for every 792 feet. Sounds like a plan to me. BTW I called for this idea a long time ago and I think Marysdude said there weren’t enough Guard because they’re all in Iraq. Now it costs too much. Costs too much? When have liberals ever let that stop them?

Posted by: Duano at May 15, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #148398

We should move our boot camp to the border then our military could have some practice. We already pay for boot camp.

Posted by: Chris F at May 15, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #148405

2 points:

1. It is illegal, according to the Constitution, to use the armed forces within the borders of the nation

2. Those of us with European ancestry don’t have a leg to stand on — they came here illegally with their guns and disease and murdered an entire culture.

If you support the troops on the border, then you must have a problem with the Constitution — which is TREASON!

Posted by: moksha at May 15, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #148426

Moksha,

Exactly what part of the constitution prohibits the use of armed forces within the borders of the nation?

and your second point goes for just about every country on the planet as there are very few countries left with present day borders that have not been invaded and taken over by some other foreign force.

Posted by: Jeff at May 15, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #148437

mksha

The National Guard is intended for internal use, nor foreign. I believe its domestic use requires martial law to be declared, however. But I’m sure Bushole wouldn’t mind subtracting further from our freedoms.

Posted by: Dave at May 15, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #148457

Karl Rove is a genius.

He has managed to turn an issue of corporations running an underground economy by outsourcing to slave labor states and importing illegals, who can be abused, into an invasion of Latinos issue. Mexico is invading us! Remember the Alamo!

I say remember Standard Oil, the RailRoad Trusts, US Steel.Peabody Coal. Remember Slavery.

Posted by: gergle at May 15, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #148458

Bush just outlined a plan to (actually) take a leadership role in this very complex issue. Yet, the Bush haters are in full force (trying to) discredit him on this issue. This border security issue should have been address a long, long time ago. This “comprehensive” plan will (certainly) address this issue head on and show some progress.


All you “nation of laws” advocates should back Bush on this one; yet, your hatred for him won’t allow you to, won’t it?! By the way, it is perfectly legal to deploy the “National” gaurd for this issue, b/c it’s a National security issue!! Duh!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 15, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #148483

Rah just said a mouthful. He said the border security should have been addressed a long long time ago. Actually, he said address a long long time ago but that’s normal. So Rah, you’re said the Chimp’s not doing a good job, no? Thought you’d come around sooner or later. Should have been ‘address’ right after 9/11, no? Duh!

Posted by: ray at May 15, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #148499

Dear d.a.n:
You make many points which, to an ignoramus, could be compelling:
“Tradition” The U.S. has been the beneficiary of LEGAL immigration…illegal immigration threatens our rule of law.
“Economics” Spoken like a true Bushbot…at best, our net economic gain from illegals is a wash, since they apply for American largesse—welfare, foodstamps, medical—and pay no income taxes. Non-taxpaying illegals are breaking our medical system.
“Humanitarianism” Charity must begin at home…let Mexico show an iota of love and consideration for its northern neighbor and the poor souls it allows “coyotes” to shuttle across the border—usually with drugs in stow.
“Diversity” Strong borders and a considered, rational immmigration policy will result in a precise American diversity, not determined by the Mexican government. We need real diversity, not the “Latinization” of America. At the risk of sounding racist, Latinos generally are not the highly skilled foreign workers which America needs in order to grow. Countless Latinos will only turn the U.S. into an emerging third world state.
“Cornucopianism” America can only overcome the current invasion by first securing its borders, then fining employers who hire illegals, fining the illegals and sending them back to Mexico, and having all foreign workers carry counterfeit-proof ID’s. Then America’s economic engine can enrich those who are playing by the rule of law.
“Globalism” There is still an America—a U.S.A.—which has a unique culture and history. It is currently the best place to live and do business, but it won’t be for long if liberal socialist multiculturalists are allowed to bring about their depressing version of the future. We will turn into another EU, where everyone except the rich and powerful are disenfranchised and hopeless.

Posted by: Metros at May 15, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #148506

George Orwell Bush has indeed laid out a plan. On Prime time no less. Amnesty for those here. Send the Soliders to the border to be “support staff” for the ICE. At least he got the right border. Do it just in time for the elections after sitting on it for years. And you wonder why we are less than impressed. Oh and when we get the bio cards start enforcing laws against hiring illegals.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 15, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #148526

Not everyone coming across our southern border is Mexican, though most are.They come from many countries. Some are simple peasants trying to earn a living for their families. Some are criminals or terrorists. Legal immigrants who want to come here and become Americans are welcome. The rest are not.
The criminals and terrorists should be stopped because they’re bad guys(duh!). The other illegals should be stopped because they don’t have a right to live in our house and make a mess of it. They should stay home and fix their own corrupt country. As long as they can come to America they will never do anything about the kleptocratic oligarchy running Mexico.
Mexico has never been an ally of the US. They sided with Germany in WWI and WWII. They are currently engaged in an invasion of America carrying out a policy of “reconquista” (reconquest) of “Aztlan” (the southwestern US).
Our government (both Dems and Reps) is preparing us for “hemispheric convergence” into the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) modeled on the EU. Remember that Clinton signed the first step-NAFTA. A socialist police state is on the way.
Militarizing the border is long overdue.
I expect to see unicorns in my yard long before anything other than a dog and pony show is done about it.

Posted by: traveller at May 15, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #148527

DUANO, you got me their. my mother told me not to stay out to late at night! i am glad i did not make your glasses this morning! thanks for the correction.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 15, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #148538

Duano, got ya !who is spending all the money now! take a look at the deficit my friend.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 16, 2006 12:05 AM
Comment #148549

For all concerned with crime and terrorism:
We need to eliminate the crime of GW who has blantantly violated the constitution. The threat to our nation is not on our borders, it’s in Washington DC. Our biggest threat of downfall in this country comes from the liar who pledged to uphold it. Hitler redirected attention from himself in this way. My grandfather who fought in WW II told me all about it. Wake UP!!! History is repeating itself.
As far as the illegal alien issue. Your absolutely right. The first illegal set foot in this country in 1492 and it has been a mess ever since.

Posted by: Daniel Hernandez at May 16, 2006 4:07 AM
Comment #148561

Daniel Hernandez,
The rape of the Constitution didn’t start with W. He is simply continuing to carry out the plan put in place in the Kennedy administration, as all presidents since have done.
The plan to submerge the US in a world government was formalized in 1962 with the publication of Lincoln Bloomfield’s “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations”. That blueprint has been formal US policy ever since.
By calling the first Europeans to set foot in the New World illegals you are ignoring history. The citizens of the US of all races are just as much “native Americans” as any Apache or Sioux. Invasion and conquest is common throughout history. America was made possible by the original inhabitants failure to defend their land. America is ours now. If we don’t defend it the same thing will happen to us.

Posted by: traveller at May 16, 2006 8:01 AM
Comment #148563

I don’t consider the freest, most prosperous, most advanced and most powerful nation in history to be a mess. We may be in a mess due to our own foolishness but the creation of America was not a mistake.

Posted by: traveller at May 16, 2006 8:10 AM
Comment #148575

THIS IS CRAZY, IF MEXICO DOESN’T WANT OUR BORDERS WITH MILITAY, THEN THEY CAN OPEN THERE BORDERS TOO!!! TRY CROSSING THE BORDER INTO MEXICO, THINK WOULD END UP IN JAIL FOREVER!!! THIS IS A SECURITY ISSUE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE RIGHT AFTER SEPT 11TH!!!

Posted by: JACKIE at May 16, 2006 9:25 AM
Comment #148591

it’s called ATZLAN
all of the territory north of the rio grande to the missisippi and west to california to the canadian border. the ‘mythical home land of the Aztecs and other ‘immigrates’ that came over the land bridge of Alaska….when the drunken armed cowboys fought Santa Ana and won the war with Mexico, and signed the treaty of Hildago in 1834-and PAID Mexico millions in reparations…we set the stage for the INVASION of the USA from the south. Ever since that day.,the LA RAZA,.has educated the Mexicans and other Latin American folks,,..the battle plan,,invade, invade,,,make babies..take what ever meager jobs offered, but get into the USA and STEAL it back…we are invaded by 12 to 20 million workers…they INEND on plugging up social services.roads.hospitals, ect,, their birth rates..their average age..the billions and billions they send back to finance more waves of Mexicans…their underlying hatred for “nortes”…they have invaded our country and Fox and all passed presidentes (dictators) have had us in the gun sights……wake up libbies and cons…this is war…we are being beaten from the inside…our really only weak place,….ATZLAN..the RECONQUEST of America..babies,drugs,low jobs for low pay.what ever it takes to INVADE…take it back..”Quote national sentiment of Mexicans—“the Nortes stole our roof” (SW and Western America”
Take it back-INVADE-Take it back..one front yard at a time..one head of lettuce at a time..one hospital at a time..one roll of food stamps at a time…the DEMs see these people as “undocumentd voters” and the cons as “outsourced labor that come to us”—WAKE UP STUPIDS—the battle for America from within is more dangerous than the Islamic terrorist…..hidden in plain site..they WILL NOT learn to speak English..that would betray their pride
They fly the Mexican flag all ready like they conqured us….it may be too late.. the National Guard on the border is like 100 years to late..but better late than never…….fire your gardeners, fire your cooks, fire your meat packers….fire your maids,,,send them all packing back to Mexico,..if you dont like that idea, then INVADE Mexico and make them the next new STATE….roll that up in your burrito and eat it…..Bueuno TARDES..we are late to the party…

Posted by: rangler at May 16, 2006 10:58 AM
Comment #148614
Rocky, you should answer your own questions. Where is the outcry from the left to begin enforcing the law and deport the illegal migrants? Arrest the employers for breaking the law too for all I care; I mow my own lawn.

We’ve been asking all along that Bush, who as head of the Executive branch of the federal government is mandated by that thing he calls “a goddamned piece of paper” to enforce the laws actually do so…where’s the crackdown on employers? No jobs, very, very few illegal “workers”…

Posted by: Lynne at May 16, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #148617
Not everyone coming across our southern border is Mexican, though most are.They come from many countries.

The latest figures in the local Tucson newspapers state that of those illegally crossing the US southern border with Mexico 57% are Mexicans and 43% are NOT Mexicans…43% is close to half not being Mexicans…many are from El Salvador and Guatemala and Nicaragua where the US waged a battle against the citizens and it is impossible for them to now go “home”…the US needs to at least take responsibility for those whom it has politically displaced.

Posted by: Lynne at May 16, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #148620
Metros wrote: Dear d.a.n: You make many points which, to an ignoramus, could be compelling:
Dear Metros, I am glad you found them compelling.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at May 16, 2006 12:02 PM
    Comment #148622

    Ooopsss….that came out wrong.
    I should say thank you.
    You remarks are right on.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 16, 2006 12:05 PM
    Comment #148623

    Metros,
    That was totally unintentional … no insult was intended. I agree with your remarks.

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 16, 2006 12:08 PM
    Comment #148646

    This is a humanitarian issue. Allowing people to enter our country under dangerous conditions that kill countless numbers of non violent migrant workers is morally wrong. Allowing them to stay in a country where they have few rights and limited access to our social welfare system is morrally wrong. They fear going to hospitals when they are sick and wait until the illness is in its worst form before seeking medical attention when it could have been prevented with regular visits. They fear calling the police if they are victims theft or violent criminal behavior. They work for criminally low wages for an obscene amount of hours in a black market labor pool that ammounts to corporate slavery based on todays labor laws. If they are injured they have no recourse. They are a criminal on the run when all they want is a better ife than what they left behind. The best thing this country could do for these people is prevent this situation from happening by controlling the border. The workforce demand will create the need for a fair migrant worker process that allows people to work under the same rights and laws as US citizens. It will protect them from being exploited while allowing them access to services that will prevent them from being a burden on society in later years. In addition, a strong border force may help reduce access to the united states by drug runners causing them to have to use higher risk methods which our agents may be able to stop. This is a national crisis. Everyone one is being hurt by the current situation in some way. It is trully a stain on our nations fabric. A fair leagal immigration process with protected borders is the only way to ensure the quality of life for those who chose to join our country.

    Posted by: gary mcfall at May 16, 2006 1:31 PM
    Comment #148649

    Question??? How many millions of illegals with guns before its an invasion???

    Posted by: Ed at May 16, 2006 1:45 PM
    Comment #148650

    The comparison between LA’s failure to properly prepare for Katrina and Texas’ “failure to protect the border” is ridiculous. Local agencies are responsible for dealing with natural disasters, etc. The border is not between Texas and Mexico, it’s between the US and Mexico. It is the US government’s job to regulate all international commerce and travel. Hence, US Customs, INS, etc. are federal agencies. Why is it OK for the US Military (US Coast Guard) to patrol our shores, but it must be civilians that protect the land borders?

    The “north vs. south” border comparison is equally flawed. If there were millions of people entering the US illegally from Canada, the response should be the same. It’s not an “anti-mexican” position.

    As far as Europeans coming to the “new world”, the USA was not a sovereign nation until 1776…probably several years later, actually. Trying to portray the Europeans as “illegal immigrants” is a desperate grasp to impose a guilt trip on those of us who support national sovereignty. Moksha seems to wants to accuse people of treason against a document that is the backbone of a government that he/she believes is illigitimate to begin with. Seems like M is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

    Am. Pundit: From what I heard and read, the NG is being deployed on a temporary basis until the additional 6000 Border Patrol Officers are hired, trained and “on the ground”.

    Stephen; Again, from what I’ve read, the NG will be assisting by manning surveillence posts and feeding info to the BP. They will not be actually apprehending anyone. Besides, if the NG is not supposed to be enforcing laws, why was there such a big dust-up about the lack of Guardsmen in the 3 days following Katrina? After all, it’s not their job to enforce laws and interact directly with civilians. What could they do?

    Stop with the double standards. We all should be in agreement that a more secure border is important and it is a federal issue. The fact that the southern border is the one that is in the national spotlight is because it’s the one that is being violated the most. The squeaky wheel get’s the oil. It’s been squeaking for a very long time.

    Posted by: Rich at May 16, 2006 1:50 PM
    Comment #148655

    gary mcfall,

    Do the rights of foreigners, that illegally trespass our borders, trump the rights of a sovereign nation to secure their own border?

    Does the U.S. have the right to secure its own borders? Yes.

    Is the U.S. for the public use of the rest of the world? No.

    Should the U.S. tax payers have to continue to pay the burden on education, welfare, healthcare, Medicaid, Medicare, Medicaid, law enforcement, insurance, voting, and prison systems? No.

    Must U.S. citizens allow people from all over the world to immigrate legally or illegally? No.

    Doesn’t any sovereign nation have the right to secure its own borders? Yes.

    Is the U.S. obligated to allow illegal aliens to continue to flood into the country (1 million per year)? No.

    Thus, the U.S. is justified to secure its own borders and ask (not force) that illegal aliens leave, and the U.S. should be practical and provide the financial means to do so (pre-paid travel and $500 per person to make the journey and get started back home). Is that not fair ?

    Now, some are going to say that is cruel.
    However, U.S. citizens are justified to also have compassion for their own citizens. For those U.S. citizens supporting amnesty and a repeat of the 1986 amnesty …

    • Where is the companssion for the victims of increased crime rates (Source: GAO-05-646R based on study group of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period; 29% of all incarcerated are illegal aliens)

    • Where is the compassion for U.S. citizens that go without healthcare and access to E.R.s because ERs and hospitals are over-flowing with illegal aliens (of which many don’t pay)? Is this fair to U.S. tax payers?

    • Where is the compassion for the truly needy U.S. citizens that can not get help because of limited resources and 32% of illegal aliens receiving welfare ?

    • Where is the compassion for the illegal aliens being lured here for sub-minimum wage jobs, creating an under-class (practically slavery) ?

    • Where is the outrage of the greedy employers of illegal aliens ?

    • Where is the compassion for the U.S. victims and survivors of crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens (29% of all prisoners are illegal aliens), and the crime rates are rising.

    • Where is the compassion for U.S. Americans who’s lives have been changed forever by illegal aliens that spread disease ? One illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”. Because illegal alien migration into the USA continues unabated for the past 20 years, we now have 16,000 new cases of incurable MDR tuberculosis in the past five years. We suffer 7,000 new cases of leprosy. We tolerate 100,000 new cases of hepatitis “A” in our society. Chagas Disease, which affects 14 million South Americans and kills 50,000 annually, streams across our borders as unchecked thousands enter our society illegally. If your child goes to public school, they could be exposed, as thousands already have been.

    • Where is the compassion for the U.S. tax payers that experience a net loss of about $70 billion per year due to all the numerous problems stemming from illegal aliens?

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 16, 2006 2:19 PM
    Comment #148662

    d.a.n,
    It is funny how we agree on what needs to be done and even why it must be done, and yet the method of our debate is so different. Yours is one of fear and anger. It has a sence of venom and betrail running through the sentences, an ager that almost borders on racisim and cultral fear. Read what I said again. We agree, the difference is in the tone and reasoning. A passionate argument may divide agreeeing people. A compassionate argument trys to sell its belief to one who disaggrees. Your arguments/facts/statistics are devisive and unnecesary. Conservatives aggree with your words already. Democrats will call it cultural disdain. You must try to make the argument appeal to the center. Again I am for the National guard assisting with border patrols, better walls and fences, etc… When we loose the house and the senate in the fall and the presidency in 08 it will be because of our own condecending arrogance, our inability to make any type of compassionate discorse to attract the middle. Just my two pesos.

    Posted by: gary mcfall at May 16, 2006 2:39 PM
    Comment #148670

    Ray,
    “Actually, he said address a long long time ago but that’s normal. So Rah, you’re said the Chimp’s not doing a good job, no? Thought you’d come around sooner or later. Should have been ‘address’ right after 9/11, no? Duh!”


    Alright, what’s with the “spell check” crap?! If everyone did that, on this blog, then we’d all be in trouble. If I wanted to do that to you, I could have corrected you for using the word “you’re said the chimp’s not doing a good job”, or for leaving out the comma in “long, long time ago”. So, let’s not go there with the spelling & grammar, ok?!


    By the way, I was referring to congress who were the ones that “weren’t doing a good job”, not the President. It takes the Prez to stand up and smack these worthless, lazy asses in the Senate around to get something done on this issue.

    Posted by: rahdigly at May 16, 2006 3:13 PM
    Comment #148686

    The troops are not being sent to militarize the border, they are being sent to gather the names of the next new power bloc in 2008 presidential elections. I love it when we can have a president who will campaign in Spanish,yet want a English official language.

    Posted by: jblym at May 16, 2006 3:51 PM
    Comment #148694

    Watch Blog Manager,please help me here, the point of this blog is to have a debate,to agree or disagree and to express our opinions, and to provide facts,as you can see i made a mistake on my math and Duano corrected me, and that’s fine, then i made a comment about the deficit.like chick hern said no harm no foul.the last month or so i have seen a lot of personal attacks on d.a.n. and they have crossed the line!of critique the message not the messenger!yes sometimes his posts are long, but he provides facts! and information,like it or not! why all the bitter and sour grapes? and in my opinion false accusations addressed towards d.a.n.?. i would say this for anyone on this blog. RED, BLUE OR GREEN, Thank you , Rodney Brown

    Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 16, 2006 4:44 PM
    Comment #148700

    What the hell is this Migrant workers crap?! Is that a PC term for illegal immigrants? Does the word ILLEGAL mean anything to anyone anymore? I think I smell BS…

    And how do we know they aren’t a threat? Were the 9/11 hijackers a threat before 9/11? or were they just pilots waiting for their day? Hmmmm….

    Posted by: Chris at May 16, 2006 5:06 PM
    Comment #148701

    Moksha,

    I wish I had read your comments before I entered mine above.I would have added this:

    You have an old arguement that doesn’t fly anyhow. Nations or peoples conquer others from the begining of time. The Idians fought back and they lost. If they had won then what would you say?

    Shouldn’t the US have the chance to fight, win or lose?

    Posted by: Chris at May 16, 2006 5:13 PM
    Comment #148709

    Rodney Brown,

    I corrected you and you agreed with me a little too soon. I didn’t think about the fact that 10,000 Guardsmen couldn’t patrol the borders 24/7. There would be three shifts of 3,333.3 Guardsmen, which would have to patrol about 1/2 mile each. All of this is moot since Dubya’s only sending 6,000 and only for logistical support. I should have known not to get my hopes up. Bush is in the pocket of big business and he’ll never do anything meaningful about the invasion from the South. Thanks for sticking up for everyone,especially d.a.n.. I’ve noticed the hatred directed at him as well.

    Posted by: Duano at May 16, 2006 5:42 PM
    Comment #148713

    Gary McFall,

    Posted by: gary mcfall at May 16, 2006 01:31 PM: This is a humanitarian issue. Allowing people to enter our country under dangerous conditions that kill countless numbers of non violent migrant workers is morally wrong.

    I dont’ understand that. How are we to blame for that?

    Gary McFall wrote: Allowing them to stay in a country where they have few rights and limited access to our social welfare system is morrally wrong.

    I dont’ understand that either. How are we to blame for that?

    Gary McFall wrote: They fear going to hospitals when they are sick and wait until the illness is in its worst form before seeking medical attention when it could have been prevented with regular visits.

    That is false. 2000 new anchor babies are born in Laredo,Texas every year, as illegal aliens run across the border just in time to give birth in the U.S., allowing the parents and family become automatic residents of the U.S.

    Hospitals are being over-run by illegal aliens. U.S. citizens wait, and die.

    84 hospitals are closed or closing in California alone, because they have been overrun by illegal aliens.

    Gary McFall wrote: They fear calling the police if they are victims theft or violent criminal behavior.

    False. In Los Angeles, thousands drive around in their cars, without drivers licenses or auto insurance with signs in the windows that say “F#^& YOU! THIS IS MEXICO! They didn’t look afraid while marching and demonstrating. In Dallas, where I live, illegal aliens stormed onto the train without paying, and then stormed the inside of City Hall, which has absolutely nothing to do with immigration.

    Gary McFall wrote: They work for criminally low wages for an obscene amount of hours in a black market labor pool that ammounts to corporate slavery based on todays labor laws.
    They don’t all work for sub-minimum wages. The advantage is that 50% of illegal aliens and their employers don’t have to pay any taxes. That is an unfair advantage that displaces 2.3 million Americans.
    Gary McFall wrote: If they are injured they have no recourse.
    False. They swamp our E.R.s, which is why so many E.R.s and hospitals are closing (84 in California alone).
    Gary McFall wrote: They are a criminal on the run …
    That is the own fault. But their only crime is not just illegal immigration. 29% all 2.2 million incarcerated in the U.S. are illegal aliens. On average, they are arrested 13 times each. They murder someone in the U.S. every 7 hours (a rate double the norm).
    Gary McFall wrote: … when all they want is a better ife than what they left behind.
    You bet! 32% of illegal aliens recieve welfare.

    So it appears that the American dream for illegal aliens is more than just a job. For many, it appears to be crime and welfare.

    Gary McFall wrote: The best thing this country could do for these people is prevent this situation from happening by controlling the border.
    I agree with that completely. That requires a secure border and elimination of all magnets.
    Gary McFall wrote: The workforce demand will create the need for a fair migrant worker process that allows people to work under the same rights and laws as US citizens.
    Actually, if greedy employers are forced to provide legal wages and benefits, the demand for illegal aliens will disappear.
    Gary McFall wrote: It will protect them from being exploited while allowing them access to services that will prevent them from being a burden on society in later years.
    That would be nice, since they are currently costing U.S. taxpayers a net loss of over $70 billion per year.

    But, those that came here illegally should not be given amnesty.
    They should not be rewarded by allowing them to cut to the front of the line.
    The problem quadrupled after amnesty was granted in 1986.
    Illegal aliens showed their gratitude by inviting their 20 closest relatives (i.e. more illegal aliens).

    Gary McFall wrote: In addition, a strong border force may help reduce access to the united states by drug runners causing them to have to use higher risk methods which our agents may be able to stop.
    Agreed.
    Gary McFall wrote: This is a national crisis. Everyone one is being hurt by the current situation in some way. It is trully a stain on our nations fabric.
    Agreed.
    Gary McFall wrote: A fair leagal immigration process with protected borders is the only way to ensure the quality of life for those who chose to join our country.
    Agreed. Those already here must not be able to cut to the front of the line. They should not be given amnesty.
    Gary McFall wrote: It is funny how we agree on what needs to be done and even why it must be done, and yet the method of our debate is so different. Yours is one of fear and anger.
    Not at all. Just the facts. If any of what I wrote were lies, your statement would be accurate.
    Gary McFall wrote: It has a sence of venom and betrail running through the sentences, an ager that almost borders on racisim and cultral fear.
    I was waiting for that. That’s always where the argument leads. It is indicative of a weak argument. And, as you say, we agree, then why am I a racist?
    Gary McFall wrote: Read what I said again. We agree, the difference is in the tone and reasoning.
    No, we don’t agree on most of what you wrote. Only toward the end in which you said:
    • In addition, a strong border force may help reduce access to the united states by drug runners …
    • This is a national crisis. Everyone one is being hurt by the current situation in some way. It is trully a stain on our nations fabric.
    • A fair leagal immigration process with protected borders is the only way to ensure the quality of life for those who chose to join our country.
    Gary McFall wrote: A passionate argument may divide agreeeing people. A compassionate argument trys to sell its belief to one who disaggrees.
    The truth is best, always. Just the facts.
    Gary McFall wrote: Your arguments/facts/statistics are devisive and unnecesary.
    False. The truth is always necessary. Just the facts. Based on some of your erroneous conclusions, you obviously were not aware of some of the facts, and that is OK. My goal is to get the facts out there, because there are a lot of myths and lies about this entire, controversial subject. Race, color, ethnicity, and nationality have no place in the discussion. That claim of racism is a red-herring, since illegal aliens are of many races from from all over the planet. The issue is merely illegal immigration.
    Gary McFall wrote: Conservatives aggree with your words already. Democrats will call it cultural disdain.
    Both want votes and cheap labor. The voters will continue to get used and continue to bear the $70+ billion per year burden, not to mention the massive costs of crime, doubled crime rates, over a thousand murders per year, disease, and job displacement cause by illegal aliens. It is not a race, color, ethnicity, or nationalitiy issue. Illegal aliens come from all over the planet. Massive, uncontrolled illegal immigration creates the problems we are now witnessing.
    Gary McFall wrote: You must try to make the argument appeal to the center.
    Most polls show that most Americans want secured borders and reject amnesty.
    Gary McFall wrote: Again I am for the National guard assisting with border patrols, better walls and fences, etc.
    Agreed.
    Gary McFall wrote: When we loose the house and the senate in the fall and the presidency in 08 it will be because of our own condecending arrogance, our inability to make any type of compassionate discorse to attract the middle. Just my two pesos.
    If Republicans want to save their butts, they should start doing what most Americans want. They want the borders secured, they are adamantly opposed to amnesty, and they want greedy employers of illegal aliens punished, and they want all the other magnets eliminated (fraudulent claims on our welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare systems), not to mention the many other burdens being forced upon U.S. tax payers (to the tune of net losses of over $70 billion per year). The Republicans (which I used to be for 28 years, until about 18 months ago) will lose both houses, and the executive branch too, because they have ignored this problem and so many other problems for so long, and they are the controlling party. Sadly, filling the houses and executive branch with Democrats will not resolve the problem. The problem is with all bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians of all parties. The bar is set so very low. The voters have not yet discovered that they are merely letting irresponsible incumbent politicians of both parties take turns. So, nothing changes, and our pressing problems continue to grow in number and severity.

    I do agree that some compassion is a good idea.
    No body would be forcibly deported.
    And, the solution I recommend would be to provide pre-paid transportation and $500 per person for all illegal aliens that volunteer to be deported.
    Otherwise, they may find jobs hard to find, and welfare hard to collect, as laws are finally enforced to prevent abuse by illegal aliens.
    _______________________________________
    Ron Brown,
    Thank you for that question.
    I truly appreciate that.
    I fear the WatchBlog Editors can’t catch everything.
    In the mean time, I’ve come close a few times to being banned for sinking to the same level by engaging in the same name-calling.

    I also have a question for the Managing Watchblog Manager:
    (1) What is the recommended policies for displaying graphs, charts, and pictures.
    Obviously, they should be as small as possible (e.g. typically 200K bytes or smaller). Or, would WatchBlog prefer bloggers not display graphics, and only display links to graphics?
    I’ve seen times when the graphics were appreciated, and some WatchBlog writers use graphics. Thanks!

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 16, 2006 5:52 PM
    Comment #148717

    duano, Thank you too!

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 16, 2006 5:56 PM
    Comment #148744

    Do you believe these Senators, they overrule securing the border first; they (actually) want Amenesty. It’s as if the President didn’t address the Nation last night and that these Senators haven’t been listening to the American people. Jeez! These Senators are ruining our country. Period!

    Posted by: rahdigly at May 16, 2006 7:42 PM
    Comment #148746

    On March 29-30 of 2006, the 1004 adults polled were agreeable to Temporary Work VISAs:

    The latest Time Poll of 1,004 adults, conducted March 29-30, finds that even a large majority of border state residents, 78%, favor the guest worker approach over expelling illegals. Large majorities of Republicans (66%), Democrats (75%), and Independents (73%) favor the guest worker approach.

    But now, May 5th of 2006, 64% reject a Guest-Work Plan.

    Voters Reject Guest-Worker Plan:
    A new Zogby poll of likely voters finds that 64% of Americans prefer the House of Representatives’ enforcement-only bill, insteadn of the Senate’s plan to grant Guest-Worker status. Only 30% support the Senate plan that would grant Guest Worker status to illegal aliens. The poll asked whether likely voters prefer:
    • the House bill (Enforcement-ONLY)

    • or Senate (Guest Worker) plan.
      Support for the House’s Enforcement-only approach:
      81% of Republicans.
      72% of Independents.
      57% of Democrats.

    Could the switch be a result of the protest marches ?

    Posted by: d.a.n at May 16, 2006 7:46 PM
    Comment #148759

    what part of illegal don’t people understand?

    Illegal immigrants are breaking the law as long as they are in the country wether for a day, a month, or twenty years. They should not allowed to become legal. If we truly need immigrants for our workforce than we need to give the people trying to enter the country legally those jobs and punish employers who knowingly employ illegal workers.

    What part of National Guard don’t people understand. The National Guard is a defensive force and it is entirely appropriate to use that force to secure our borders.

    Posted by: constilawgirl at May 16, 2006 8:24 PM
    Comment #148910

    Chris F,

    Amen to your comments. Jesus Christ is the only true answer to our problems. The less obedient this nation is to God, the more problems we will have.

    Posted by: Mike at May 17, 2006 10:49 AM
    Post a comment