# Bush speech tonight



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

:eyeroll: Unfortunately this article nails it....

Watch the speech and then ream your congressman and senator, or get ready to get screwed as a tax payer and citizen worker

The article starts here

President Bush will make his address to the nation tonight on the issue of what the politically correct among us refer to as "illegal immigrants" or the "immigration" problem. The "immigrant" word seems to have stuck. It's just a nicer way of saying "gate crasher." The proper phrase is not "anti-immigrant" because these people aren't immigrants. Immigration is a legal procedure, and those who ignore the legalities and just flow across the border in violation of our laws don't earn that label. If these home invaders are immigrants, than we could just as easily apply the same name to an invading army. Call them what they are, and please don't cloak them with the same respect do most of our ancestors who followed the law and waited in line to get here.

By the way ... apparently talk show hosts like me are part of the problem. Over the weekend I read the words of some columnists who made references to "anti-immigrant talk radio." Secondly, instead of "anti-immigrant," what's the matter with the phrase "pro-sovereignty?"

We're really going to have to wait until after Bush's little speech tonight before the real discussion starts, but there are a few points I would sure like for him to cover.

1. We're supposed to have a military capacity in this country to fight two separate wars in two separate areas of the globe at the same time. Now we hear that we don't even have enough troops to put on the Mexican-American border. If we can't stop the Mexicans from invading the U.S., we sure as hell can't stop Kim Jong Il from invading South Korea. Sup wid dat?

2. Does your idea of a path to citizenship put these illegals who have flooded our country ahead of those who have followed the rules and who have gone to our embassies and consulates, filled out the proper paperwork, and then have waited for their return phone call? If so, aren't we, the great country of the rule-of-law, rewarding these people for ignoring those laws?

3. Are you willing to place harsh penalties on American employers who hire illegals? We know that these employers of illegals are huge supporters of the Republican Party. Can you put your oath of office to defend the borders of this country ahead of those campaign contributions?

4. Do you have the courage to tell Vicente Fox that his open support and encouragement of the Mexican invasion is not making him any friends in this country, and that it will no longer be tolerated?

5. Are you willing to take a principled position and stand up to the sure-to-come demands from the left that non-citizen Mexicans and Hispanics be allowed to vote in local elections around the country?

Speaking of El Presidente .... Mexican president Vicente Fox called Bush yesterday to ask if he was militarizing the border. Well, duhhhhh. Pretty nervy guy, that Vicente. Let's see ... the Mexican government is openly encouraging the invasion of the United States by it's low-skilled workers. The Mexican government even prints instructions on how to cross the border, and to avoid being caught once in the US. :******: :******:

There are reports -- too many to ignore -- of uniformed Mexican troops appearing along the border to assist Mexicans in getting across, even reports of illegals being ferried across the border in Mexican army troop carriers. And, to top it off, there are reports that uniformed Mexican troops have actually fired on U.S. Border Patrol agents trying to intercept Mexican drug smugglers. :sniper: :sniper:

In the face of all this .... Vicente Fox calls Bush to ask if he's militarizing the border?

Fox has a lot at stake here. Mexico is a country rich in natural resources and people.

There is no reason Mexico can't be a thriving economic power unto itself -- no reason, that is, except for the rampant corruption throughout the Mexican government. :eyeroll:

The illegals streaming across the border into the U.S. give Fox relief on at least two fronts. One, they relieve the pressure for reform that could lead to jobs and opportunities in Mexico. Two, the illegal invaders represent about a $20 billion per year boost to the Mexican economy. That's "free," if you will, money just flowing into Mexico via wire transfers from the gate crashers living and working in the U.S. Oh ... and by the way ... that's $20 billion that's not being spent here to boost our economy.

Bush will take the position tonight that there is just no practical way that we can deport the 12 million illegal Mexican and Hispanic aliens now in this country. Fine .. I agree. We can't deport them. Logistically, it would be a nightmare and would most likely result in violence and riots in many American cities.

*We can, though, yank out the welcome mat. *

1. Harsh .. to the draconian level .. penalties against any employer who knowing hires any workers who are not in this country legally.

2. Punishment - though milder - of any employers who hire illegals because they didn't conduct due diligence in the hiring process.

3. Change the law to deny citizenship to children born to a woman who is in this country illegally.

4. No children of illegals in American government schools.

5. Deny all social welfare benefits to anyone who is in this country illegally with the one exception of life-saving medical care.

6. Confiscate a substantial portion of the monies earned in this country by illegal immigrants. We confiscate drug money because it was earned illegally, so why can't we confiscate the money earned by illegals? I'm not saying take it all. Leave them enough to buy some food and get a bus ticket to Matamoras.

Does all this sound harsh? Sorry ... I suppose it is ... but these people are criminals. They are NOT, as their signs proclaim, America. The idea here is to make them feel as unwelcome here as we possibly can. Yank out the welcome mat from under their feet. Make them prefer life in their own country to a life of deprivation here.

There's a letter making the Internet rounds. It was a letter to the editor of a newspaper in North Carolina, but I've been unable to track it down. Whoever wrote it ... it's brilliant. Here you go:



> To the Editor:
> Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the U.S. might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and once here, to stay indefinitely.
> 
> Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.
> ...


Well ... let's see what Bush has in store for us tonight. I'm virtually certain he is going to make the case for the 12 million illegals in this country staying. Add that to the past amnesties and we'll have about 30 million or so Mexicans and Hispanics in this country who came here illegally and later had their behavior cleansed for the sake of politics.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

The article states the following.............



> Bush will take the position tonight that there is just no practical way that we can deport the 12 million illegal Mexican and Hispanic aliens now in this country. Fine .. I agree. We can't deport them. Logistically, it would be a nightmare and would most likely result in violence and riots in many American cities.


I agree.........it would be a nightmare but then you say......



> I'm virtually certain he is going to make the case for the 12 million illegals in this country staying. Add that to the past amnesties and we'll have about 30 million or so Mexicans and Hispanics in this country who came here illegally and later had their behavior cleansed for the sake of politics


No Bob, the author is correct but I get the feeling you are prepared to throw stones before the target has even been identified. There is no case that has to be made. Yes they are here, yes they are illegal, yes they must be stopped, yes measures must be put in place to fix the problem, and yes some will use this a political opportunity, but no there is no way to deport 12 million people. It can be argued as to whether this would be amnesty or not but if they are place at the end of the line of all those waiting to become citizens, required to jump through certain hoops for a period of 7-11 years as suggested then I'm not sure I would call that amnesty. Besides the real priority is securing the borders......... the illegal's already here are really a secondary problem that can be dwelt with later.

But, personally I think I'll just wait until the Presidents speaks tonight before I start complaining about something that hasn't even been said yet .... there will be plenty time for that later as I suspect this will develop into a very hot issue that will surprise everyone how fast it moves in the house and senate.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I didn't write it, I just agree with it.


> but no there is no way to deport 12 million people.


Technically maybe but , I like the methods suggested to get them to leave voluntarily. I wish that they would be instituted immediately and the issue would go away on its own. If they get to stay its amnesty pure and simple.

I am extremely frustrated with Bushes position and handling of this issue though and I voted for him twice. And have defended him many times on this site, so I'm not throwing stones


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I'm also disappointed with the Presidents action to date with this problem as well as the congress. Problem is this is not just a recent problem and in all fairness we have to blame all the politicians as far back as Kennedy but especially the last three administrations. But, you're right in that Bush is at the helm at this moment so it is his responsibility to take action. I wish there was some way to round up all the illegal law breakers and that is what they are, and send them home but that is not possible. So I simply see no reason to even go there. What I will be looking for tonight is not just the Mexican border problem but those coming across the Canadian border, container ships from China and even Ireland. Yep, illegal's from Ireland, up 400% in the last couple years. Makes no difference to me, illegal is illegal and all must be stopped....... if that is even possible.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

I just hope he addresses congress and lets them know we have lots of work to do, so stop their little tit for tat contest they have going on and get to work for the people. :******:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

My point and the point of the article is that

We don't have to round them up

just take aways their ability to access jobs, public schools, and public assistance except for life saving medical assistance and they will leave on their own.

It really is that simple and our politicians know it.

Too bad our politicians are gutless....


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Bobm said:


> My point and the point of the article is that
> 
> We don't have to round them up
> 
> ...


AMEN! I think that could work except for the smart ones that would start their own business (LIKE DRUG DEALING) and other things under the governments radar, but that would be a great start.


----------



## boondocks (Jan 27, 2006)

You want to know what Bush is gonna do with the immigration problem-not a damn thing-because he sees no problem with it.I was a huge Bush backer at one time,when it comes to the war on terror I still am,but with this whole immigration thing, Bush needs to pull his head out of his arse.I'm really starting to dislike the man.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> just take aways their ability to access jobs, public schools, and public assistance except for life saving medical assistance and they will leave on their own.


I couldn't agree more. You know what is really sad though........ the American people themselves have sat on their *** for the last 50 years and turned a blind eye towards the problem. No wonder the politicians didn't have to do anything. Not until 9/11 and the thought of terrorist coming across our boarders did a uproar about illegal invaders get started. Why does it always take only the bombing and killing of Americans to wake this country up.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Because Americans are politically stupid, more concerned with whos on Amrican Idol or some such crap, than who is representing them in Congress


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

boondocks said:


> You want to know what Bush is gonna do with the immigration problem-not a damn thing-because he sees no problem with it.I was a huge Bush backer at one time,when it comes to the war on terror I still am,but with this whole immigration thing, Bush needs to pull his head out of his arse.I'm really starting to dislike the man.


boondocks, I'm with you. Getting more ticked every day. Like Bob said you can't deport this many, but you can take away the benefits they didn't pay a darn thing for. What fools decided they should have these benefits?d They are not citizens. About 95 percent of Washington needs to be replaced.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

So what did he say? I am at Bible study from 6:45 to 9:30 Monday evenings, and missed it. I seen about ten seconds of it when they turned on the TV, then the tape on 40 Days of Community.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Not much that you hadn't heard before except he was putting I believe 5,000 guardsmen on the southern boarders to assist the boarder guards. The troops would remain in force for one year at which point the first of 6,000 new boarder guards would start replacing them with all new boarder guards to be in place by 2008. I think that's what the numbers were but other than that it was just a call for congress to get something done and a bill to his desk that revamps the immigration laws. Like I said, nothing much new. We'll see what congress does now but two house members have already declared tonight that there will be no surrender of their bill in the direction the Senate wants to take it. Should be fun..........


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Plainsman you can read it here

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 515-8.html

Heres a good wirte up on it

"


> My main point of contention with Bush is that he says that any immigration bill or immigration reform right now has to be "comprehensive." By that Bush means that we have to have a bill that both deals with the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico, and deals with the 12 million invaders who are here already.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bob I wasn't very impressed with the Presidents speech and would liked to have seen him say more in other areas but with all due respect that article you just posted is so out of context, even to the point that it claims the President said something that he didn't say that it is ridiculous. Just one example .......... "6000 members will be deployed, but they'll generally be pushing pencils and buttons". That's bull****. the President never said any such thing. Did you listen to his speech? Did you really pay attention to what he said or did you simply get ****** because he didn't say what you wanted to hear. All that article is doing is repeating the rhetoric of those that want to make this a east and west Germany type country, round up 12 million people and drag them back across the boarder. The author of that article reminds me of the mentality of the doctors during the civil war....... oh hell he has been shot in the foot so we have to cut off the leg....... Anyone that thinks that this problem can be fixed by simply putting troops on the boarder without addressing what is already here has their head in the sand.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Ah, yes and someone mentioned that it was inherited from the previous administration and pity the poor guy that follows George W!! Whew, that guy will really have his work cut out for him whomever that may be.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

You just wait until some illegal alien gets shot be someone and it comes out in the press as, "Mexican civilians get shot by the American military near border." That will go over real big across the globe. This thing could get real nasty before it's over.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

And then they interview the Mexican's on TV and they can't see anything wrong with illegally entering our country. What difference should that make as long as we are coming to work and not rape, pillage and plunder? It is harmless to illegally enter another country. We are not the criminals. it is other illegal aliens that are the criminals. Just let us come and go as we please because this will not do anyone harm. Besides that pick on all the other illegal aliens but don't pick on us because we are coming in mass quantities and our country needs the money and we provide cheap labor. Yup, you have me convinced. Porous borders and illegal entry is good for America. Thanks for coming illegally.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gohon asked


> Just one example .......... "6000 members will be deployed, but they'll generally be pushing pencils and buttons". That's b#llsh*t. the President never said any such thing. Did you listen to his speech?


Gohon you ask if I listened to the speech I ask *did you read the article *its a opinion piece with the writers opinion based on more than just the speech, not a quote of the speech , Geez cut me some slack..

Heres a direct quote from the prezs' security adviser whats it look like to you??



> The Border Patrol would still be responsible for catching and detaining illegal immigrants, with *National Guard troops providing intelligence gathering, surveillance and other administrative support. *Yet the National Guard troops would still be armed and authorized to use force to protect themselves, said Bush homeland security adviser Fran Townsend.


Posse comitatis regulations probably prevents them from actually doing law enforcement, so the troops are symbolic at best.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/ ... ME_1617396


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

administrative support is just the political way of saying "secretary".

We have troops everywhere but where they should be...home. :eyeroll:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Posse comitatis regulations probably prevents them from actually doing law enforcement, so the troops are symbolic at best.


And the President has gone on to say the troops will be used to install electronic monitoring devices, high tech fences or walls, and will operate the surveillance equipment. The author of your article tried his best to say other wise. Doesn't matter what had been said this guy would have written the same kind of material. You're smarter than that Bob but I don't understand why you would swallow that stuff. I don't agree with you that the guard on the boarder is symbolic&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;

Take a minute and think about what he actually said and put it into context with some in between the line reasoning. The guest worker program that he said need to be considered along with border security, and by the way he mentioned more than once that boarder security was first priority. Anyway, as clarified this morning the guest worker program in the details he didn't expand on last night is for 350,000 guest workers a year. The requirement for becoming a guest worker is to have a biometrics ID card issued. Something that you won't be able to buy on the street and even if you could it won't be in the data bank. Coupled with this is employers must ensure a worker has this card or they themselves can face jail time along with fines. Now think about what that means to the illegal on the street that can't get one of these cards. People wanted to see the jobs dry up for the illegal, well there it is. What is their choice going to be now. It will be either starve or go home. The President is about a dumb as a fox. He can't come out and say he intends to force the illegal to go home without setting off a firestorm of complaints from the left so he sets it up in a manner that the end result is the same. I thought it humorous today when the Democrats in the Senate tried to kill any guest worker permit amendment. Their excuse was they were afraid it would hurt the economy. Guess they were worried about that economy that they have been claiming to be in the dumps for the last 6 years. Fortunately they were defeated.

I just think some are jumping up and complaining without finding out what is really being said and done first and the author of that article is certainly one of them. You normally wait and see what is going on first so maybe you just caught me by surprise. The other poster, well that babble is expected so no surprise there. BTW, one other possible benefit the troops on the boarder is 1) this is their two week yearly requirement and they are going to be paid to be somewhere during that two weeks so why not there and 2) drug smuggling is going to get just a little harder as long as they are there.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gohon I typed a long and well reasoned reply to you and my ff-in computer just dumped it and I'm too angry to do it again.

I just say this, our country cannot survive without borders and our country cannot survive if our govt doesn't follow the rule of law to the letter, not make a new law to excuse criminal activity.

The illegal immigrants are criminals, and our border is a sieve.

I don't believe they will be sent home and I don't believe anything would be happening about the border if it wasn't an election year.

I really don't think anything will be done on the border atleast not with Bushs blessing.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Isn't school out so you can go away for the summer again MT?


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

In my opinion, I liked the speech last night. This would be great for the national guard in those regions. I believe that the guardsmen will have shifts of 2 weeks which probably accounts for their annual training. Rather than going on a "vacation" to germany for two weeks they can be here on their own soil. Wasnt the national guard created to defend invasions on our own soil and provide support during emergencies-well people, we have both of these happenning in this situation- this is the way i guess i look at it


----------



## USSapper (Sep 26, 2005)

bob, that has happened to also:******: 
BTW bob- who is in the finals for american idol :lol:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I don't have a problem with using the guard my point is that they are not a substantive solution. Lindbergs and gohons points are correct relative to the benefit of using the guard but its not enough IMO and that 2 weeks a year is not a enough time to really be efficient. I was RA and then in the reserves for years and those two weeks are mostly a party. I have alot of respect for the military but they are just a bunch of guys like us, we need professional full timers on the border and have for years.

I don't believe Bush wants to make them go home infact he has said he doesn't. I strongly disagree with that position.

The solution is to take away the attractant no jobs, no public assistance, make them leave on their own.

The laws are already in place all we have to do is enforce them and make the penalties greater for employing them


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bob I think you are missing something here. IIRC there are something like 9,000 trained boarder patrol personnel. I believe it was said that about a third of those were tied up in mundane paper work, bookings, repairs, and so on. When these three thousand personnel are freed up which will be almost immediately then you have a large increase of trained people out on patrol. A 33% over night increase in fact. Add 6,000 more guards to be trained in the next two years and you can see what will start to take place, The guardsmen are not a solution to the problem and are not intended to be but more of a relief effort to put the right people in the right place. Add the psychological impact of the military on the boarder and you have a start to fixing a problem. As to the national guard just being a bunch of guys like us, I think they might disagree with that. Especially those in Iraq right now. A good portion of the Guard today are combat veterans. And I think you will find there is a little difference in the Guard and the Reserves.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Oh so you knew they would be doing administrative jobs?? :wink: :wink:

Just kidding

Hey I hope your right, you make agood argument. we will see I guess.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

No *they* won't but *some* of *them* will.............

As I write this Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala) is on the floor speaking about a amendment for a 800 mile fence and barriers to be installed. Hard to believe some on the other side are actually opposing the amendment.

BTW, did you catch Newt Gingrich on Meet The Press this past Sunday? Pretty good interview about the illegal intruders. Here is a transcript if you're intrested. http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3051


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

good article, too bad such a brilliant man has so much baggage of his own doing unfortunately.

I would probably vote for anyway but I doubt many other people would.

Even he tip toes around in the article about the immigrant problem, woried about the inhumanity of sending them packing :roll: although he does agree dry up the jobs and they will go on their own.

This stuff makes my head ache.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Even he tip toes around in the article about the immigrant problem


I noticed that he done a little dancing there also when asked about what about the kids born here. He was in fact saying they all had to go home first but wouldn't come right out and say yes you have to take the kids with you.


----------

