More and more reports are indicating that the National Guard will figure prominently in President Bush's speech tonight:
WASHINGTON - President Bush will call for thousands of National Guard troops to be deployed along the Mexico border in support of patrols aimed at keeping out illegal immigrants, White House officials said Sunday on the eve of an Oval Office address announcing the plan.
White House aides worked into the night Sunday to iron out details of the proposal and allay concerns among lawmakers that using troops to man the border would further burden an overextended military.
Two White House officials said Bush would propose using troops as a stopgap measure while the Border Patrol builds up its resources. The troops would play a supportive role to Border Patrol agents, who would maintain primary responsibility for physically guarding the border.
The get tough approach is both the morally correct and politically expedient way to go - it is rare that such a thing happens, but here is one of those rare instances where raw politics and good policy coincide.
On the moral side of the issue it is just plain wrong for us to allow some people to ignore the rule that others adhere to - this is almost the definition of injustice. On the raw politics side of the issue, the American people are fed up with millions of people crossing our borders and then having the unmitigated gall to make demands upon our political system.
The backlash against immigration is here - and I do wonder how those who ginned up the illegal immigrant protests are feeling now. The lesson for them is that when you advocate an injustice - in this case, the flouting of the law by some - then you will get burned in the end.
UPDATE: Some centrist Democrats are trying to get to the right of the GOP on the immigration issue. This won't work in the long run because the Democratic base is de-facto in favor of illegal immigration. One thing struck me about the claims of these centrist Democrats.
If you read the news report, you'll see that the Democrats claim lax border enforcement by the Bush Administration - their evidence for this assertion is the fact that aprehensions at the border have declined while the number of border control agents have gone up. This assertion - typical for a Democrat assertion - makes no sense at all. The logical reason for reduced aprehensions at the border afer an increase in border patrol strength would be the fact that with more agents, illegal crossing has become more difficult - higher difficulty means a lower number of crossings, and thus a lower number of aprehensions at the border.
Could be that some of our fellow GOPers have done a grave disservice to common sense here: by constantly asserting that President Bush has done nothing for border security, they have helped to create, well, the false impression that nothing has been done, and thus have given an opening to the Democrats. The lesson here is to think carefully before engaging in polemics...
Posted by Mark Noonan at May 15, 2006 11:07 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/president.cgi/7135
Comments
Democrats are most certainly not de-facto in favor of illegal immigration. There is no bigger stumbling block to living wages and unionization of the work force than illegal immigration.
Bush needs to fully find the border partol if he means to stem this tide. Photo ops won't fix a thing. Bush also need to stop cowering to Mexico's Fox on this. He can get Fox's cooperation in the war on drugs as we saw just recently. Us LIBERALS are tired of educating Mexico's kids, treating Mexico's sick and feeding Mexico's unemployed. For chrissake, Mexico's unemployment rate is lower than ours! Why? Fox sends his unemployed HERE. Liberals want a safety net for AMERICANS, not illegals.
Posted by: congressive at May 15, 2006 11:43 AM
Well said, congressive. As a CONSERVATIVE, I think everyone is on the same side of this issue. It just seems that everyone, regardless of political affiliation is terrified to address it, and I'm not sure why. I realize that it's a "hot topic", but it seems that so much of the country is also concerned that the politicians would jump all over this. It really is baffling.
Posted by: NC Cop at May 15, 2006 12:23 PM
the American people are fed up with millions of people crossing our borders and then having the unmitigated gall to make demands upon our political system.
And on our social services.
Democrats are most certainly not de-facto in favor of illegal immigration.
LOL, congressive. What rock have you been hiding under?
Posted by: Retired Spook at May 15, 2006 12:39 PM
So he's going to bring in some National Guardsmen for a little bit to maybe do the job of the almost 10,000 border control agents who got scrapped last year because, gee, Bush slashed the budget and they couldn't be afforded.
Of course, it's smart: He signs an act that calls for 10,000 more border control agents, and he gets to pretend he's Mr. Tough Guy, do some of his famous photo ops, and then quietly pass another act a few months later that basically defunds the act he had been preening over, rendering his little fantasy camp null and void. A "stopgap measure while the Border Patrol builds up its resources?" Bush is the one who took those resources in the first place.
When raw politics meet good policy a-comin' through the rye....
Posted by: SeesThroughIt at May 15, 2006 01:34 PM
Tell me how illegal immigration helps our unions? Tell me how illegal immigration helps restore overtime pay protections? Legal immigration has always been an essential part of the American experience, but amnesty being suggested by Bush for illegal immigrants is the very definition of injustice. It spits in the face of those who play by the rules. It is a falling tide that sinks all boats, except for those who exploit illegals with impunity, having no fear of prosecution KNOWING they are breaking the law.
Employers Risk Little in Hiring Illegals
This lack of enforcement makes PATSIES out of every law-abiding citizen, who do the right thing and bear the financial burden, while law breakers get off scot free and enjoy the profits of their crimes.
Legal, controlled, documented paths to citizenship - of course. Amnesty for illegal immigrants - most certainly NO.
Posted by: congressive at May 15, 2006 01:46 PM
I came across a good article from the
Center for Immigration Studies, a reasonably bipartisan think tank, which studies the cost of illegal immigration in quite a bit of detail. They concluded that when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. Amnesty would be even more expensive -- up to $29 billion.
I'm not sure posting the National Guard on the border is a great idea, but something has to be done. And whatever it is it should be inclusive -- go after the employers of illegals in addition to the illegals themselves. If something isn't done to cause the job market to dry up, then no matter how high you build a wall, and no matter how many people man it, they will find some way to keep coming.
If you ask me, illegals constitute a form of "in-sourcing": it provides a pool of cheap labor for some industries, which is ultimately subsidized by the American taxpayer.
Posted by: Ricorun at May 15, 2006 02:41 PM
“They concluded that when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002.”
If they didn’t, I’m too lazy to check, they should include the effect immigrants have on the economy both as a hedge against inflation and on spending (money spent as consumers in the local economy).
One other point, Bush says the NG presence at the boarder will be temporary. Temporary in the way Bush turned a budget surplus in to a budge deficient, or temporary like our military deployment in Iraq? I’m just asking.
Posted by: Barneyg2000 at May 15, 2006 02:50 PM
In order to fix illegal immigration Americans need to stop hiring illegals. If they cannot work here there would be little reason for them to come here.
The economy is very strong right now and umeployment is down. Therefore there are plentiful employment opportunities. Americans have many job choices and may not want to do manual labor. Especially Generation Y.
The President is the Executive branch of the government. His duty is to enforce the laws on the books. According to this site: http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/051101_nd.htm.
These are the numbers for worksite arrests of illegal alien workers:
1997: 17,554
1999: 2,849
2000: 953
2001: 735
2003: 445
2004: 159
The non enforcement of the laws we currently have is adding to the problem. The President simply needs to execute the rule of law. He is failing at his job. Seems as though this is his intent with respect to illegal immigrant labor.
He needs to go on television tonight and let employers know that hiring of illegal immigrants will not be tolerated. He can then give a 1-800 number people can call to anonymously turn in employers who hire illegal aliens. Maybe give folks a $500 reward that leads to the successful prosecution of anybody that hires illegal aliens. This would motivate citizens to be involved in the solution.
If this plan were to actually work and employers had to hire Americans to do the work illegals did but at wages Americans would demand for doing the same work - labor costs would increase dramatically and we may end up paying $5.00 for a tomato. Many people in this country would be stretched to feed their families.
It's a complex issue for sure.
According to this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55202-2005Mar21.html
"Pew Hispanic Center Director Roberto Suro said that the number of illegal immigrants continues to grow at the same rate as in the 1990s -- approximately 485,000 a year -- "despite significant efforts by the government to try to restrain the flow . . . at the border." "
Illogical but true.
Posted by: Aitch at May 15, 2006 03:21 PM
It is very transparent that this latest push on immigration reform is no more than a political ploy to divert attention from all the scandals and problems that face this administration: See every poll reflecting ratings in the toilet.
This immigration problem did not emerge in the last few weeks. It has been one for a long long time now. And since they have controlled every branch of the government for 6 years now, I think we can all deduce the improtance they have put on immigration.
Politics pure and simple.
Posted by: Ash at May 15, 2006 03:26 PM
The National Guard can't meet their quotas now. What a great recruiting tool border duty will be. Sitting in souther Arizona in August. There is attractive duty.
But wait, there's more. After training on the Sonoran Desert, you will be more than prepared for duty in Iraq. It is a win-win situation>
Posted by: Ash at May 15, 2006 03:41 PM
I can just see it now circa 2008, GWB “We must stay the course. We will step down (NG patrols) when the Mexicans step back.”
This could back-fire on the Prez. His speech will push back tonight’s primetime programming such as Ophra’s special, season finale of Grey’s Anatomy and 24. I don’t know if TIVO will self correct for the 20 to 30 minute delay, but most DVRs wont.
Bush is going to piss-off a lot people tonight.
Posted by: Barneyg2000 at May 15, 2006 03:45 PM
You guys are tilting at liberal windmills on this one. Everybody and their grandmother favors securing the border. You'll need to differentiate on another issue - only violent agreement from the left here.
On another point - I heard on Rush today that he is against using the national guard and that such an operation would just be photo-op to improve his ratings. What do our resident dittoheads think about that?
Posted by: extramedium at May 15, 2006 04:07 PM
"It is very transparent that this latest push on immigration reform is no more than a political ploy to divert attention from all the scandals and problems that face this administration"
Really Ash? Because I seem to remember a few months ago that two DEMOCRATIC governors declared states of emergency in their state due to illegal immigration. So were these governors part of Bush's attempt to divert attention or were they lying?
Posted by: NC Cop at May 15, 2006 04:27 PM
congressive, ash and blarney:
If liberals are against illegal immigration please explain what their plan is to stop it since they are virtually silent on the issue, other than saying Bush isn't doing the job.
Extramedium:
Placing the NG is a good (temporary) first step toward stemming the tide of illegal immigration. But unless its follwed by a second step, like building at least 700 miles of walls in the most frequently crossed areas, and a third step, prosecuting employers for employing illegals, and a fourth step, jailing and/or deporting illegals caught, then I agree that its just a photo op that will not fool the american people.
Only after steps one through four can we begin a credible discussion on what to do with the 12-15 millino illegals that are here.
Both parties are fooling only themselves if they think they can get away with politics as usual on this one.
BTW: Ash get off the "its just a diversion" meme, you'll say that to anything that's proposed, and after a while it has zero credibility.
Posted by: phnxbmed at May 15, 2006 04:28 PM
Mark
That reminds me of the liberals at the New York Times. Every now and then they have an article titled "Despite all time high prison population crime is at a 10 year low." Or something similar.
Posted by:
CJ at May 15, 2006 04:31 PM
the speech tonight should be very interesting, hopefully it will help resolve some of the issues today
Posted by:
tim steel at May 15, 2006 04:36 PM
Phnxbmed, “If liberals are against illegal immigration please explain what their plan is to stop it since they are virtually silent on the issue, other than saying Bush isn't doing the job.”
I believe the Senate plan has been endorsed by the Democratic party, but my thoughts are:
-Why not just enforce the laws already on the books? If we wont enforce those, why would they enforce new laws?
-Bush should have increase funding of the boarder patrol like the 9/11 commission recommended.
-If you are employed, pay your taxes, stay out of trouble and learn English, you should have the opportunity to become an American citizen. If you don’t, you get deported.
-If you close the boarders, the “illegals” will just come over on tourist visas and stay (as the majority already do).
Posted by: Barneyg2000 at May 15, 2006 04:55 PM
Barney said: "If they didn’t, I’m too lazy to check, they should include the effect immigrants have on the economy both as a hedge against inflation and on spending (money spent as consumers in the local economy)."
That's a very good question. The article specifically examined only social revenues and expenditures, not the impact on the private economy. They did discuss it, but only in relation to other studies. Some found a small net postitive impact, some a small net negative impact on the economy. A more recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that immigration (both legal and illegal) has a decidedly negative impact on the income of all Americans. So there you go.
However, if the attempt is made to stem immigration immediately, as well as to immediately expel a significant portion of the illegal aliens that are already here, I suspect taht some localities are going to take major hit -- at least over the short term.
Posted by: Ricorun at May 15, 2006 05:10 PM
I'm wondering what orders will be given to the troops.
Shoot on sight? There's women and children coming over the border.
Don't fire first? Some of those coyotes are armed. I can see them wanting to get rid of any witnesses and avoid being caught.
I can hear the screaming if Mexican civilians or American troops are shot. I can see a new shooting war developing, with Mexicans, if not with Mexico (note the difference).
Posted by: The Small Town hick at May 15, 2006 06:14 PM
How about that for a novel idea? Enforce the existing laws. Spank lawbreaking employers. Fund the border patrol. Add to the border patrols like Bush promised, then renegged. We all paid good money for a bipartisan 9-11 commission, so try doing what they recommended.
And about Vicente Fox: GROW A PAIR and "persuade" him that it's in his country's best interest to cooperate, or we tax the crap out of all the billions of dollars being sent back to Mexico by illegals. They try to sneak the money out, we confiscate the whole pie.
Why is this so hard?
Posted by: congressive at May 16, 2006 02:34 AM
US Constitution
Protect against all enemies...FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC
Posted by: Warriornation at May 16, 2006 02:43 PM
Congressive hit the nail right on the head.
Posted by: axis at May 17, 2006 12:39 PM
Post a comment
Democrats are most certainly not de-facto in favor of illegal immigration. There is no bigger stumbling block to living wages and unionization of the work force than illegal immigration.
Bush needs to fully find the border partol if he means to stem this tide. Photo ops won't fix a thing. Bush also need to stop cowering to Mexico's Fox on this. He can get Fox's cooperation in the war on drugs as we saw just recently. Us LIBERALS are tired of educating Mexico's kids, treating Mexico's sick and feeding Mexico's unemployed. For chrissake, Mexico's unemployment rate is lower than ours! Why? Fox sends his unemployed HERE. Liberals want a safety net for AMERICANS, not illegals.
Well said, congressive. As a CONSERVATIVE, I think everyone is on the same side of this issue. It just seems that everyone, regardless of political affiliation is terrified to address it, and I'm not sure why. I realize that it's a "hot topic", but it seems that so much of the country is also concerned that the politicians would jump all over this. It really is baffling.
the American people are fed up with millions of people crossing our borders and then having the unmitigated gall to make demands upon our political system.
And on our social services.
Democrats are most certainly not de-facto in favor of illegal immigration.
LOL, congressive. What rock have you been hiding under?
So he's going to bring in some National Guardsmen for a little bit to maybe do the job of the almost 10,000 border control agents who got scrapped last year because, gee, Bush slashed the budget and they couldn't be afforded.
Of course, it's smart: He signs an act that calls for 10,000 more border control agents, and he gets to pretend he's Mr. Tough Guy, do some of his famous photo ops, and then quietly pass another act a few months later that basically defunds the act he had been preening over, rendering his little fantasy camp null and void. A "stopgap measure while the Border Patrol builds up its resources?" Bush is the one who took those resources in the first place.
When raw politics meet good policy a-comin' through the rye....
Tell me how illegal immigration helps our unions? Tell me how illegal immigration helps restore overtime pay protections? Legal immigration has always been an essential part of the American experience, but amnesty being suggested by Bush for illegal immigrants is the very definition of injustice. It spits in the face of those who play by the rules. It is a falling tide that sinks all boats, except for those who exploit illegals with impunity, having no fear of prosecution KNOWING they are breaking the law.
Employers Risk Little in Hiring Illegals
This lack of enforcement makes PATSIES out of every law-abiding citizen, who do the right thing and bear the financial burden, while law breakers get off scot free and enjoy the profits of their crimes.
Legal, controlled, documented paths to citizenship - of course. Amnesty for illegal immigrants - most certainly NO.
I came across a good article from the
Center for Immigration Studies, a reasonably bipartisan think tank, which studies the cost of illegal immigration in quite a bit of detail. They concluded that when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. Amnesty would be even more expensive -- up to $29 billion.
I'm not sure posting the National Guard on the border is a great idea, but something has to be done. And whatever it is it should be inclusive -- go after the employers of illegals in addition to the illegals themselves. If something isn't done to cause the job market to dry up, then no matter how high you build a wall, and no matter how many people man it, they will find some way to keep coming.
If you ask me, illegals constitute a form of "in-sourcing": it provides a pool of cheap labor for some industries, which is ultimately subsidized by the American taxpayer.
“They concluded that when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002.”
If they didn’t, I’m too lazy to check, they should include the effect immigrants have on the economy both as a hedge against inflation and on spending (money spent as consumers in the local economy).
One other point, Bush says the NG presence at the boarder will be temporary. Temporary in the way Bush turned a budget surplus in to a budge deficient, or temporary like our military deployment in Iraq? I’m just asking.
In order to fix illegal immigration Americans need to stop hiring illegals. If they cannot work here there would be little reason for them to come here.
The economy is very strong right now and umeployment is down. Therefore there are plentiful employment opportunities. Americans have many job choices and may not want to do manual labor. Especially Generation Y.
The President is the Executive branch of the government. His duty is to enforce the laws on the books. According to this site: http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/051101_nd.htm.
These are the numbers for worksite arrests of illegal alien workers:
1997: 17,554
1999: 2,849
2000: 953
2001: 735
2003: 445
2004: 159
The non enforcement of the laws we currently have is adding to the problem. The President simply needs to execute the rule of law. He is failing at his job. Seems as though this is his intent with respect to illegal immigrant labor.
He needs to go on television tonight and let employers know that hiring of illegal immigrants will not be tolerated. He can then give a 1-800 number people can call to anonymously turn in employers who hire illegal aliens. Maybe give folks a $500 reward that leads to the successful prosecution of anybody that hires illegal aliens. This would motivate citizens to be involved in the solution.
If this plan were to actually work and employers had to hire Americans to do the work illegals did but at wages Americans would demand for doing the same work - labor costs would increase dramatically and we may end up paying $5.00 for a tomato. Many people in this country would be stretched to feed their families.
It's a complex issue for sure.
According to this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55202-2005Mar21.html
"Pew Hispanic Center Director Roberto Suro said that the number of illegal immigrants continues to grow at the same rate as in the 1990s -- approximately 485,000 a year -- "despite significant efforts by the government to try to restrain the flow . . . at the border." "
Illogical but true.
It is very transparent that this latest push on immigration reform is no more than a political ploy to divert attention from all the scandals and problems that face this administration: See every poll reflecting ratings in the toilet.
This immigration problem did not emerge in the last few weeks. It has been one for a long long time now. And since they have controlled every branch of the government for 6 years now, I think we can all deduce the improtance they have put on immigration.
Politics pure and simple.
The National Guard can't meet their quotas now. What a great recruiting tool border duty will be. Sitting in souther Arizona in August. There is attractive duty.
But wait, there's more. After training on the Sonoran Desert, you will be more than prepared for duty in Iraq. It is a win-win situation>
I can just see it now circa 2008, GWB “We must stay the course. We will step down (NG patrols) when the Mexicans step back.”
This could back-fire on the Prez. His speech will push back tonight’s primetime programming such as Ophra’s special, season finale of Grey’s Anatomy and 24. I don’t know if TIVO will self correct for the 20 to 30 minute delay, but most DVRs wont.
Bush is going to piss-off a lot people tonight.
You guys are tilting at liberal windmills on this one. Everybody and their grandmother favors securing the border. You'll need to differentiate on another issue - only violent agreement from the left here.
On another point - I heard on Rush today that he is against using the national guard and that such an operation would just be photo-op to improve his ratings. What do our resident dittoheads think about that?
"It is very transparent that this latest push on immigration reform is no more than a political ploy to divert attention from all the scandals and problems that face this administration"
Really Ash? Because I seem to remember a few months ago that two DEMOCRATIC governors declared states of emergency in their state due to illegal immigration. So were these governors part of Bush's attempt to divert attention or were they lying?
congressive, ash and blarney:
If liberals are against illegal immigration please explain what their plan is to stop it since they are virtually silent on the issue, other than saying Bush isn't doing the job.
Extramedium:
Placing the NG is a good (temporary) first step toward stemming the tide of illegal immigration. But unless its follwed by a second step, like building at least 700 miles of walls in the most frequently crossed areas, and a third step, prosecuting employers for employing illegals, and a fourth step, jailing and/or deporting illegals caught, then I agree that its just a photo op that will not fool the american people.
Only after steps one through four can we begin a credible discussion on what to do with the 12-15 millino illegals that are here.
Both parties are fooling only themselves if they think they can get away with politics as usual on this one.
BTW: Ash get off the "its just a diversion" meme, you'll say that to anything that's proposed, and after a while it has zero credibility.
Mark
That reminds me of the liberals at the New York Times. Every now and then they have an article titled "Despite all time high prison population crime is at a 10 year low." Or something similar.
the speech tonight should be very interesting, hopefully it will help resolve some of the issues today
Phnxbmed, “If liberals are against illegal immigration please explain what their plan is to stop it since they are virtually silent on the issue, other than saying Bush isn't doing the job.”
I believe the Senate plan has been endorsed by the Democratic party, but my thoughts are:
-Why not just enforce the laws already on the books? If we wont enforce those, why would they enforce new laws?
-Bush should have increase funding of the boarder patrol like the 9/11 commission recommended.
-If you are employed, pay your taxes, stay out of trouble and learn English, you should have the opportunity to become an American citizen. If you don’t, you get deported.
-If you close the boarders, the “illegals” will just come over on tourist visas and stay (as the majority already do).
Barney said: "If they didn’t, I’m too lazy to check, they should include the effect immigrants have on the economy both as a hedge against inflation and on spending (money spent as consumers in the local economy)."
That's a very good question. The article specifically examined only social revenues and expenditures, not the impact on the private economy. They did discuss it, but only in relation to other studies. Some found a small net postitive impact, some a small net negative impact on the economy. A more recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that immigration (both legal and illegal) has a decidedly negative impact on the income of all Americans. So there you go.
However, if the attempt is made to stem immigration immediately, as well as to immediately expel a significant portion of the illegal aliens that are already here, I suspect taht some localities are going to take major hit -- at least over the short term.
I'm wondering what orders will be given to the troops.
Shoot on sight? There's women and children coming over the border.
Don't fire first? Some of those coyotes are armed. I can see them wanting to get rid of any witnesses and avoid being caught.
I can hear the screaming if Mexican civilians or American troops are shot. I can see a new shooting war developing, with Mexicans, if not with Mexico (note the difference).
How about that for a novel idea? Enforce the existing laws. Spank lawbreaking employers. Fund the border patrol. Add to the border patrols like Bush promised, then renegged. We all paid good money for a bipartisan 9-11 commission, so try doing what they recommended.
And about Vicente Fox: GROW A PAIR and "persuade" him that it's in his country's best interest to cooperate, or we tax the crap out of all the billions of dollars being sent back to Mexico by illegals. They try to sneak the money out, we confiscate the whole pie.
Why is this so hard?
US Constitution
Protect against all enemies...FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC
Congressive hit the nail right on the head.