At least he addressed it. This is a step not taken by our last two presidents, just like other important issues that went ignored...

keefer,

He adhered to his beliefs, and I agree with what he wants to do...the unfortunate thing is that far too many conservatives have gotten themselves obsessed at mass deportations. I know that they SAY no one is advocating mass deportations, but if a person is refusing to support a guest worker program then that person must be either advocating doing nothing, or advocating mass deportations.

I do wonder what is is - right and left - which demands of President Bush that he wave a magic wand and undo the errors of the past 30 years...for too many, the universe was created 10 seconds ago and if President Bush cannot make it perfect, then he is failing...

Very strange days we live in...but President Bush is equal to the task of leadership in these times.

I agree, at least he addressed it. I don't like the answers they came up with necessarily (I like the troops, not enough sent however) but at least he addressed and didn't ignore it like Bill, his father G.H.W. Bush, or Reagan with the Amnesty program (though I credit Reagan with also addressing it).

Gets the Barney stamp of approval as long as:
-NG is only assigned for 1-year
-Temp workers earn citizen “credit” something like time severed

Bush should have asked for an increase in the Boarder Patrol as recommended by the 9/11 commission years ago. If he did that, we would not have to station the NG on the boarders now.

Should have could have didn't.

Just like Clinton should have taken out Bin Laden, but didn't. But I give you credit Barney, at least for once you actually had something constructive to say.

Now, why is it a bad idea to have the NG there longer than one year? Hell, we have to train the NG anyway so why not do their normal training at the border.

Barney

Serious question for you. Why do you support "-Temp workers earn citizen “credit” something like time severed"?

Is this not the same as rewarding people that break the law? Exactly "what time did they serve"?

Barney,

From what I recall, the Guard will be on the border more than a year...but in reduced numbers as more and more Border Patrol agents come on line.

For me, I'm gratified that the man I voted for in 2000 and 2004 is sticking to his guns...he could have bowed to xenephobia entirely and talked for twenty minutes about walls and deportations...he did the right thing. If he pays a price for it, then that is a failure of our political system, not of President Bush.

Warrior,

I can't answer for Barney, but on my side I just can't bring myself to advocate the deportation of, say, a man who has lived here as a decent, hardworking member of society for the past 10 years...he needs to pay a price for his illegal crossing, but to deport and ruin his life just seems a bit much, in my view.

I also can't entirely blame them for coming across - the government of Mexico shoves them north, and we as a people have not demanded - until recently - that anything really be done about it.

As an aside, if there was a weak point in the speech it was in not getting a little tougher on Mexico for abetting illegal crossings.

I would have liked to see him completely shut down the border and then grant folks the proper papers...call it an amnesty or whatever. But put an end to it happening anymore.

The Heritage Foundation released a study today saying it could be 100,000,000 immigrants in 20 years because all of these people will have the right to bring in their own relatives, etc, etc.

I've lived in 3rd world nations like Peru and Panama for almost 5 years of my life and I do not want the USA to become a replica of that world. I'm worried it could very much become that way, if it hasn't already in some parts of this country.

What a waste of time that speech was for me and most of the President's base. Why wasn't this speech given 15 years ago to address the illegal problem? Not like we haven't had this problem for the last 15 years. Do you honestly think the ineffectual, name calling, in fighting, lack of solutions Congress we have now is going to do anything? When you make the illegals issue a political issue instead of a safety issue, you have already lost. When you fail to take a stand at our borders and allow an invasion, you have already lost. When you allow an illegal cottage industry to survive so it can support another country, you have already lost. When you allow states to go into the red b/c of overburdened social programs, you have already lost. Thank God President Bush is not running again. As a Republican, I'm going to write in my plumber's name. At least he has solutions to problems.

President Bush came close to a problem that is my chief complaint. He mentioned that immigrants should learn to speak English. I agree 100%. However, as long as Congress keeps pussy-footing around the national language issue we will keep being told to press #1 to continue in English. We must stop enabling these immigrants by doing away with this practice. Even the Social Security office does this. People say that we don't have a national language. Then please tell, me what was the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights written in? I'm a retired Naval Officer with 21.5 years of service and a Vietnam veteran. I think I have a right to demand Congress get on the ball and establish our national language, "English," once and for all. Put a stop to pressing number one to continue in English.

We are currently graduating 500 new border patrol agents a year. By the time the border patrol gets a handle on halting illegal immigration it will be to late. The real solution is regime change in Mexico. Let's add another star to the flag!

He did a very good job. I for one want an accounting of the illegals currently in the country.

As far as the Border Guard, its gone up 1/3 since he took office, and will double (per Bush's proposal if approved by Congress) in two years. This was noted in the speech. So, Barney 2000, you may be right on this issue, but he did increase the guard. I am not familiar with the 7-11 proposal. Is Barney becoming a right wing nut?

Mark

It's a tough issue, no doubt. We will be living with this for decades to come.

I understand the argument against deportation and I agree in large part both on a practical and compassionate level. If we go that route, however, then I want the borders AIR TIGHT tomorrow so it ends now.

If not, then it just comes up again and again. Remember when Reagan told us in 1987 that the amnesty program was a one time deal? That's what bothers me, especially in light of today's Heritage Report.

I agree that we must do something, but by converting the ones already here into citizens will create a huge problem as the union scumbags...looking to skim union dues from these folks...start waging strikes and other passive-aggressive tactics we will see burritos at Chipotle costing $15 each....when, of course, they are open and not striking.

The union leaders must be licking their chops about the prospect of 11 million illegals suddenly becoming legal citizens. Lots of dues to pay for their lifestyles.

mnlib

The Temp workers need more than a paycheck, they need the opportunity to be come American citizens (improves respect for the law). The greatest achievement a foreign can achieve is to become an American citizen. If not, than our policy would be no better than then French’s.

I thought I heard the Prez say the NG would be deployed for only a year. Without deadlines written into the law, the NG could be there indefinitely, just like in Iraq. That would be a disaster for recruitment, and our national security.

Also, it allows the congress to pass the buck.

I actually thought it was a descent speech. I agree with most of the President's plan. But...who's going to take care of all the government red tape concerning guest workers? Who's going to issue ID cards? Who's going to track down the ones who don't return home? If they are crossing the border, chances are they don't yet have a job or an address, how will they ever find them? Who is going to pay for everything in his plan?

Next, can we actually trust companies not to hire illegal aliens and pay them cash? Since none of these people have pay stubs or checking accounts, how will they ever enforce back taxes? Are they making minimum wage? Are they entitled to minimum wage?

These are some serious questions they need to answer before adhering to Bush's plan. It's probably why none of the President's predecessors ever succeeded at immigration reform. I admit, it's an awesome plan in theory, what about in practice???

Mark:
For me, the touchstone will be how the Corporate community reacts to these measures - and how the administration reacts to the Corporate community.
This whole thing could be scuttled if the government bows to corporate pressure to maintain the (profitable) status quo.

Is there any possibility of repealing the 14th amendment ("anchor babies")?

Hick,

It can also all go smash if the open border advocates start suing on behalf of the to-be legalised people...start demanding back pay and immediate citizenship, that sort of thing.

We have to tread carefully here - we genuinely need leadership in order to navigate our way out of this 30 year old immigration mess...the President has provided executive branch leadership, now well have to see if Congress steps up to the plate.

Is adding +50% border guards enough? I don't know. We should have the number that we need.

When he says we can't stop all illegal immigration, that's not true. It's just a matter of how far do we want to go? Now, I'm not advocating motion sensor automatic rifles, just pointing out the statement is fales.

I like that he wants to secure the border, I'm just not sure his plans will actually do it.

I liked his comment about learning english and that leads me into a concern I have. We are a melting pot as he said, but most of us are Americans. People emigrating here need to assimilate into the unique American culture, not move Mexico City here. I see the same thing happening to Europe and the "invasion" of muslims. They're not becomming French, or British or Danes, they're just moving to those contries and keeping their own laws, language and customs, not assimilating. And we see the strife that this is causing.

America is a great place and I think President Bush is a great man. He's certainly proved that with the war on terror. I just don't think his "immigration" refom will actually do anything.

To be honest, the speech was a complete dud and sets him up for IMPEACHMENT if, God forbid, another terrorist attack occurs on the United States under his watch. Guest worker hokum MUST be put on the back burner until a large, solid physical barrier is constructed along the border. Bush is way too chummy with Vincente Fox to trust him on this issue. How many terrorists are sneaking in here illegally? Do we want to find out the hard way? It is amazing that someone who is so forward thinking overseas is so blind and inept domestically.

I am disappointed.

I expected immediate deployment of troops to the border, instead we got promises of things which are supposed to happen in the future.

I don't want talk, I want action.

Sorry Mr. President not enough.

I think it's a good first start. I also think it's the only thing that could bring these two sides together and actually accomplish something.

Maybe, just maybe, we could be compassionate and strong at the same time.

Finally, the one issue that can bring the left & the right together.

Heckuva job, Dubs.

One thing that struck me about Bush's speech was that it seemed like a complete reversal on his border patrol stand since 9/11. As recently as February of this year he cut funding for all but 210 out of an allocated increase of 10,000 patrol agents over five years. Now, all of a sudden, it's urgent. That seems a little flip-floppy to me.

I also worry about the morale of NG troops acting as border agents. But I guess we'll see on that score.

Also, I don't think Bush mentioned anything about going after employers of illegal immigrants. It just seems to me that if something isn't done about that side of the equation, no approach is going to be very effective. When the will remains, a way will always be found.

Same old song. It is Amnesty. Yes bush has increased border spending, but it is probably all going to the mexican consulates who work out of our border patrol offices to help the illegals file complaints against our gov. when they are apprehended. I & my friends will go to the polls & vote for the house members & Senators who vote for border security. Any who help pass this dressed up smoke & mirrors amnesty will not be voted for. If that lets the dems take the Senate, then so be it. The House is the important body of congress. All bills originate in the house,so we will keep it republican as long as they don't cave to the Senate & the President.

This is a [shorten] rough working draft for talking purposes. It is far from a final version and does not include all issues.

Any "guest worker" should include and address the following provisions:

Amend the Constitution to make English our official language.

Fix and secure our borders... permanently!

Immediately deport any future illegal immigrants. Jail any repeat offenders who will then work building more prisons to house future overflow!

There will be no extended and delaying court hearings clogging our court system.

Guest workers will not be given voter status. Courts will be prohibited from granting them voting rights.

Guest workers will return to their country when their guest worker permit expires. Courts will be prohibited from intervening and extending the permits for any reason other than provided for in the guest worker law.

Any children or family of a guest worker or illegal immigrant will return to their country when the guest worker permit of their sponsor or provider expires or when the permit holder returns to their own country.

Family members of guest workers will not accompany the guest worker to the U.S. or remain in the U.S. unless all of their living, medical, and other expenses can be and are paid for by the guest worker or by other than taxpayer dollars.

Guest workers and their family members will not receive free medical care at taxpayer's expense. Mexico can use their oil to subsidize medical insurance for all workers permitted into the U.S. to work. Any medical bills not paid for by the guest worker or illegal immigrant will be billed to and paid by the Mexican government.

Guest workers and their families will not receive welfare or any other taxpayer funded support or subsidy. If the guest worker and their families are unable to live in the U.S. without taxpayer funded welfare and assistance, they must return to their own country. Courts will be prohibited from intervening and approving taxpayer funded welfare, medical, or other assistance.

Guest workers and their families will not be granted citizenship if they will immediately qualify for welfare or other taxpayer funded assistance. If those low wage jobs are inadequate to provide an acceptable living without welfare, they will return to their country.

Amnesty will not be given to guest workers or illegal immigrants if they or their families must rely on taxpayer funded welfare or support once they become citizens.

Taxpayer dollars will not be used to build non-English speaking schools, pay for any non-English classes or instruction, or to hire teachers to conduct classes in any language other than English. Courts are prohibited from overruling this provision of the law.

Any guest worker or illegal immigrant who marries an American citizen will not be granted automatic citizenship nor will their marriage be used as a basis to extend their guest worker permit, or to permit them to remain here. Courts will have no jurisdiction in this matter. Guest workers must return to their country when their permit expires, whether married to an American citizen or not.

Any child born in America to a guest worker, illegal immigrant, or one of their family members will not be a U.S. citizen unless one or both parents are U.S. citizens. Courts will not have jurisdiction to intervene and grant citizenship nor use the fact that the child was born in the U.S. as a basis for the parent to remain in the U.S.

Federal, State, and Local government will not be required to provide duplicate programs in Spanish or any other language. Guest workers or illegal immigrants who cannot speak English must provide their own interpreter. Courts will not have the jurisdiction to overrule this.

Congress will review and update all existing welfare and taxpayer funded subsidy and support programs to insure that benefits are not paid to those who are capable of working but who refuse to work. Individuals who are on welfare and who are able to work but have not found jobs will perform community service to earn their welfare payments.

The guest worker program will be terminated and all provisions will be null and void in any jurisdictions in which a court rules against any provisions, restrictions, and requirements of the guest worker law or declares the law or any of it's provisions unconstitutional.

Many or most of these provisions would also apply to any illegal immigrants who might qualify for a [non]amnesty program.

AAR

Dear God. Untrained national guardsmen are going to do what, exactly?
Illegals are being deported now. How is that going to change by calling the program something else?
It's clear Bush is aware something needs to be done. Building huge fences, sending down troops, coming up with bizarre amnesty programs that reward those that have jumped the queue and have decided they were going to ignore our laws,... is not the answer.
The answer is to presure President Fox and force Mexico to get its act together and make that place a lot less inhospitable to its desperate citizens.
How many Canadians do you see fleeing into this country? Tourist mainly, and they come, they spend, and they go home. They leave because they have decent jobs in Canada, and actually would PREFER to live there than here.
As long as a house is on fire, people will run out from it. If you don't want them gathering on your lawn, you'd better help put out the fire.

I live in Yuma, unfortunately, this is the largest point of entry for the illegals at this time.

Democrats and Republicans in the U. S. Senate and U. S. Congress are the wimps who aren't going to do any thing to prevent the illegals from coming in and staying. They are too worried about being relected, Harry Reid and his cohorts aren't doing this country any service. I am going to learn Espano'l or I won't be able to live here in the future. It is going to be Mexiona before long. GWB, and Congress DO SOMETHING TO Fight this invasion of illegals.....

He did a wonderful job.:)
sounds like a "winner" to me.:)

I think though before we go to making a bunch of conclusion's about this and that regarding what he should do or should'nt............we need to stop and think that this is just the start toward's a better immigration plans and laws.

I am a big fan of "W" so this is very difficult. He is totally wrong on this issue! Listen to what he said tonight. Case in point:"To secure the border effectively we must reduce the number of people trying to sneak across". NO. To reduce the number of people sneaking across we must secure the border!

You guys know who got the ball to rolling on the big immigration speech don't you?

One of the most powerful men in america:
Mr.Bill Oreilly.

For those of you who aren't aware of it, we deployed hundreds of National Guard troops to the borders and airports immediately following 9/11. The troops on airport security were there while the TSA ramped up strength, then they were withdrawn.

The troops on the border (here in Michigan we had troops at the three points of entry from Canada: Sault Ste Marie, Port Huron, and Detroit) assisting Customs with searches of trucks and other vehicles. As additional Border Agents were deployed, the troops stood down.

I can support use of the National Guard as long as its a terporary measure until additional Border Guards are hired and trained. In my full-time job, I work with members of the 7 Reserve Components and their employers to gain and maintain employer support. With the Global War on Terror causing an increased number of conflicts between employers and employees who are members of the Guard and Reserve, we need to minimize any additional stress on the employer/employee relationship. The easiest way will be to ask for volunteers for the mission. With about 350,000 members of the Army Guard, it shouldn't be to hard to come up with 5,000 who are either un-employed or have employers who are supportive.

Rico, from the SF Chronicle article you linked to:

The law signed by Bush had a caveat that went virtually unreported at the time. A summary, published by the Senate Government Affairs Committee, required the government to increase the number of border patrol agents by at least 2,000 per year, "subject to available appropriations." (emphasis - mine)

I guess if this provision was inserted by the Congressman or Senator who penned the legislation, then it's probably just SOP/CYA. If Bush knew there were insufficient funds at the time he signed it, then, I don't know about flip-floppy, but it's certainly disingenuous.

BTW, another coded message for you in the previous post/comments.

I think though before we go to making a bunch of conclusion's about this and that regarding what he should do or should'nt............

Well put Jeremiah. But the acid test is whether he follows through. Remember all that hot air about our dependency on oil. Anyone really believe he meant a word of that?

Rico, from the SF Chronicle article you linked to:

The law signed by Bush had a caveat that went virtually unreported at the time. A summary, published by the Senate Government Affairs Committee, required the government to increase the number of border patrol agents by at least 2,000 per year, "subject to available appropriations." (emphasis - mine)

I guess if this provision was inserted by the Congressman or Senator who penned the legislation, then it's probably just SOP/CYA. If Bush knew there were insufficient funds at the time he signed it, then, I don't know about flip-floppy, but it's certainly disingenuous.

Mark, I liked President Bush's speech alot tonight. Of course, no matter what he said tonight he would get criticism from both sides. It's amazing how President Bush loves to tackle big issues. Like all the other issues, when all is said and done, President Bush will have done alot more than any other president, but of course, he is the one that will get all the criticism for "not doing enough".

This is infinitely more than any other president has done, including our lord and savior Bill Clinton. Nothing has been done in the past, so perhaps this is the beginning of something finally. Thank you W for at least doing SOMETHING>

James,

President Bush has, indeed, done far more for border security than any other President...and, you're right, he's going to get hit by both sides on this issue.

"At the end of the day, the President rejects both amnesty and 'know-nothingism"

At the end of five years, with his back to the political wall and his hard-right base in desertion mode, Bush discovers a need to quit cutting funds for border patrol personnel, and to get serious about something besides a steady inflow of cheap, easily exploited workers for his corporate backers.

So, he's going to send 6,000 National Guard people to the border for two-week deployments. That means by the time they get their bearings, get acclimated and begin to function with any efficiency at all, it's time to go home. Then, at great expense, the next uprooted 6,000 can come in and start the cycle all over again.

This is precisely the kind of Keystone Kops incompetence we've come to expect from Bush and his big thinkers. Was "Heckuva Job" Brownie a consultant on this plan?

As for rejecting amnesty, you need to stop spinning and look the word up in a dictionary. Bush isn't rejecting amnesty, he's pushing it. It may be the only expedient thing to do, but be honest enough to call it what it is.

"You guys know who got the ball to rolling on the big immigration speech don't you?

"One of the most powerful men in america:
Mr.Bill Oreilly."

Indeed, he's a legend in his own mind.

Amazingly, Warriornation and I completely agree on this. I just got back from Peru, and trust me, folks, amnesty now and their families in 20 years of a hundred million people will turn us into a third world hellhole that'll make Lima seem like Paris. I mean, Lima is fine if you don't mind the smell of raw sewage from an overused, underfunded infrastructure. Many of these poor immigrants will have no problem peeing on your lawn if they gotta go. You get used to the burn in the back of your throat from the poorly maintained smoking cars clogging every square inch of available pavement.

Is it too much to demand Alberto Gonzales to just enforce existing laws? I guess it is...

SW,

Always pleasant to see your comments here...

Have you always been this nasty about everything?

Congressive,

Yeah, but that seems a bit of alarmism...after all, we're really talking about Mexicans, for the most part...so the study is essentially asserting that all of Mexico will move up here...not likely.

What are you willing to bet that they are going to start a huge NG recruitment drive, "Sign up to protect your borders" , then 2-3 months later Bush will change his mind and figure that these new guards should be sent to Iraq instead.

Just watch, it'll happen if there an increase in recruitment. Bush isn't going to sit and watch these NG stay safe in America.

"a goodly portion of the illegals are long-established in our country, and that it would just be cruel to round them up and send them home"

Oh, boo-hoo. Every criminal in America ought to start using this excuse to get out of jail. "But your honor, my client has been long established on the outside, it would be cruel to put him in jail." IF you can't do the time, don't do the crime -- and that ought to apply to trespassing on US soil, forgery, identity fraud, tax evasion and all the other crimes illegals commit on a daily basis. What part of "lawbreaker" don;t you understand? Do we enforce our own laws or not?

I generally support president Bush, but not on this issue. There is no way possible to incorporate these illegals into the American society. How you going to do it, how are these people going to prove when they got here, who they really are. There is no way to do backround checks on them, hell most have already changed their names two or three times. For those of us that deal with this problem daily, it is obvious this won't work. The only way to solve this issue is to...
1. Lock the border down now!
2. Impose huge fines to any employer who employs and illegal alien.
3. You don't have to deport these people, thru etrition most of them will leave when the jobs disappear.
To think some government agency could man this task of signing these people up is crazy, but to think they would all sign up is even crazier. This is nothing but amnesty over a period of time. These people should not be rewarded for pissing all over our laws. And for those of you that think these people have any intentions of assimilating to our culture, I guess your living in the same "Wonderland" McCain and Kennedy live in!

The business community will not get 100% in line with these proposals, but if the government gives them the tools to verify eligibility to work in the U.S. such as the ID card, then there are no excuses why they cannot comply with the law.

I will predict though, that the Democrats will find some excuse for denouncing the ID card. (Maybe they'll use the 'race card' tactic.) They have come up with no proposals of their own. Even Durbin last night made remarks about the 6,000 National Guard troops would turn into over 100,000; yet he couldn't come up with anything else to secure the borders.

I think this plan sound pretty good.

I don't like the idea of a militarized border, but I think you'd find that the border is already pretty darned close to being militarized already, what with tens of thousands of border patrol agents, some national guard, barbed wire fences and apache helicopters.

I'm not sure how the earned citizenship thing will work. Personally, I'd give illegals in the country a year to sign up for such a program (once it's established), then after that year has passed, go back to shipping any illegals caught here to Mexico al la Up in Smoke ("It's not the cops, man. It's MIGRA").

sw said: "So, he's going to send 6,000 National Guard people to the border for two-week deployments."

And as was pointed out, over two years that is actually 600,000 people. (@100 weeks X 6,000)

That's going to be great recruitment material! Join the National Guard: See Iraq. See Nuevo Laredo.

"I've lived in 3rd world nations like Peru and Panama"

Then warnation you probably have heard of Doe Run. Maybe you even work for them. Doe Run is a lead mining and smelting plant that is the #1 polluter in the state of Missouri. But the operation it runs in La Oroya, Peru is much worse. 90% of the children in this poor town suffer from lead levels in their blood that are above any safety standard. 20% should be hospitalized.

So in this case we are also exporting what amounts to poison to a third world country. So we might want to think about how we label immigrants coming into our country. Glass houses and all.

Cavalier,

Sorry, I'm a Christian...the laws must be enforced, but if we, the people, have not enforced the laws for 20 years we can't suddenly get on a high horse about it...we can be stern with those who break the law from this point on now that we've warned them we will...but those we essentially let in via laxness over the past 20 years have a call upon our sense of justice and mercy.

Mark, is there some reason the whole country has to follow your Christian dictates just because YOU're a Christian?

Deport:

convierte or proslytize

DeportEmSiSePuede,

Is there some reason the majority of Americans have to follow the atheist's dictates just because YOU'RE an atheist? (You can take "you're" whichever is most appropriate for you -- you personally, you figuratively speaking, you generally, you all, or other.)

It is not the Christians who are forcing their beliefs on you, it is you who are trying to hide and remove everything Christian from America. Christian beliefs, prayers, crosses, Ten Commandments, families, etc. have been part of this nation for most of it's history. I don't know of anyone who is forcing you to say a prayer, to believe in God, or to be a Christian, or to join a Church, but this IS a Christian nation -- for now at least.

Does that mean that Christians should give up their values, philosophy, and lifestyle and agree with whatever the liberal left atheists want and accept the atheist and liberal agenda for America instead? No! Does that mean the Christian majority is going to accept or condone any thing or any lifestyle you choose to live. No! Absolutely not!

Maybe we should let as many Mexicans immigrate to America as want to come. Most of them are Christians, and who knows how they might vote. They might even vote to make America's national religion Catholic!

Maybe Christians will eventually get enough of the liberal left's and atheist's attacks on them and start to use their majority to fight back!

I hope so!!!

AAR

It is not the Christians who are forcing their beliefs on you

AAR: You'd best go to James Dobson's Focus on the Family website. He is threatening to withdraw the mighty religous rights endorsement of Republican Party candidates if they don't get tougher on same sex marriages, family values etc. If that's not forcing their values on the normal person, then what is?

Dear AAR,

News flash, I'm not an atheist. Go back and read what I was responding to. I'm also real tired of hearing "We can't" with everyone assuming it's a foregone conclusion that we can't. We can start deporting the worst of them and as far as I'm concerned you can also start with the Mexican flag-wavers and Aztlanists. Adios.

I don't know what sent you on that whole off-topic diatribe but aside from the fact you apparently would like to have a state religion, I don't have a problem with Christian values. I do have a problem with people who say we aren't going to enforce the law because we're Christians.




I also have a big problem with whitewashed sepulchres who try to pass as Christians by promoting state religion.

"Indeed, he's a legend he's a legend in his own mind"

You better watch what you say about BIG BILL.

Besides he definitely does have a big influence on capitol hill these days, And I'd say that the president listens when he speaks on the factor.

"Indeed, he's a legend in his own mind"

You better watch what you say about BIG BILL.

Besides he definitely does have a big influence on capitol hill these days, And I'd say that the president listens when he speaks on the factor.

Confusing, isn't it? Everyone has an opinion. It's just as confusing on the Democrat's blogs. I don't think any party has developed a hard line that all of their people can adhere to, but the Dems seem to be a lot closer to it. Compassion is right up there in the consideration list, along with the need to seal the borders, getting a handle on the people already here. They don't tend to get their panties in a wad over the "illegal" part much, mostly because of what the Mexicans are running from, which is extreme poverty, largely brought on by an elitist government who dumped a thing called "NAFTA" on them,... and destroyed their livelihoods by doing so. In desperation, they flood over our borders, they don't care about immigration laws, they care about making a living for themselves and their families. If you owned a boat, and you saw a man drowning, wouldn't you pick him up? I agree the boat is crowded, but instead of throwing the rescued overboard, maybe it might be a better idea to find out how they landed in the water without boats in the first place! I'm saying it's NAFTA. OUR NAFTA. It enriched many, mostly the already-rich, but it is causing our own boat to sink. It's fixable. The focus on "punishing lawbreakers" is creating a divide in this country, between those who cannot in all conscience throw those people back into the water, and those who insist on doing so. Do you want to turn this country over to one-party Democratic rule? Keep focusing on throwing the illegal aliens overboard.

"SW,

Always pleasant to see your comments here...

Have you always been this nasty about everything?"

When truth, logic and sensible criticism strike you as so much nastiness, maybe it's time to take stock, rethink things.

We would be in a better place right now if someone had gotten a little nasty with Bush and his retinue of mediocre yes men before invading the wrong country and proceeding to turn a successful act of aggression into an occupation debacle. Turning it into a $300 billion, 2,400-plus lost lives debacle, at that.

Is that just more nastiness? Sometimes you do power a favor by criticizing, by speaking truth to it. We're seeing how far wrong bad ideas, bad judgment and bad results can take us.

In case you haven't noticed, a growing majority of Americans aren't enjoying the ride or the fare.

"You better watch what you say about BIG BILL.

Besides he definitely does have a big influence on capitol hill these days, And I'd say that the president listens when he speaks on the factor."

That's an interesting theory. All the messes people on Capitol Hill and the White House are making of things these days make it plausible.

DeportEmSiSePuede,

When I read your post, I could have taken it at least two different ways.

Your comment seemed more of an attack on Mark's preface about being a Christian than about his comment on how we should deal with illegal immigrants. For that reason, I took it as yet another of the incessant one-line sniping shots from the liberal left against traditional American values and all things religious, especially Christian.

I could just as easily have reacted the same way to any of the other never ending anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-everything-conservative one-line shots from a passing liberal, cruisin' the conservative blogs, and depositing their little pile of droppings before they move on to the next site!

As you pointed out, though, religion is not the topic of this thread, so I'll stop while I'm behind! I'll wait for next time Mark posts news about yet another liberal or atheist attack on religion, Christians, Christmas, Christmas songs, Christmas trees, Christian names of American cities, crosses, boy scouts, traditional families, gay marriage, or whatever the subject is of the next attack by the liberal left.

Now that you have provided a little more information, I can better understand what your position on illegal immigrants.

I'm not quite as "understanding" as Mark, but I'm not a total hard liner either. Some, probably many of those who came here illegally and who really want to be Americans would be an asset to America. Many others, however, are not. Many seem to think they will come to America but remain Mexicans. Many should be rounded up and sent back to Mexico. Which ones fall in which category and what should be do about each? I don't have a good answer, or at least one that I could quantify and easily convey to others.

Like you, I am tired of hearing "we can't" with everyone assuming it's a foregone conclusion that we can't. We could if the majority of American people would get behind it and provide some long term support for the concept -- not just for a few days or weeks until they got bored with the effort and something else draws their attention. As with the war on terrorism, it is a long term effort, and it takes a long term commitment. There is no instant gratification and if Americans don't have the will or stomach for that long term commitment, there's no point in trying.

Most of the people who say "we can't" round up 11 to 20 million aliens say that because they don't want to round them up or deport them -- mostly for their own political reasons. We can't do it if we don't get started and by making it seem impossible, they hope to keep us from starting the journey. It would, however, be a long and costly effort. At the same time, if we don't close the border, anything we do with the illegals already here would be for naught, because another 20 million would be (are) waiting to join them!

Do I think we should round up all illegal immigrants and send them back to Mexico? No, probably not. Could we? Yes, but only if enough Americans would support the effort for as long as it took and as much as it cost. Would they? Realistically... no!

I don't oppose some type of limited and reasonable "guest worker" program, but I do think we need to fix our borders first and then control the program on our terms -- not Mexico's. I think we should make sure that any guest worker or [non]amnesty program does not stick the American taxpayers with another mutli-billion dollar tax supported welfare program.

I think we also need to look at the current welfare program as part of any immigration reform bill. We have all these jobs that "no one" will do. We have millions of Americans on welfare who will not work. Why? I see valid, although not high paying job-wanted signs every day. Before we bring millions of guest workers to do these jobs, I want to see those who are on welfare and who can work get out and do work... even if we do continue their welfare payments at the same time.

I want it to be made clear through a constitutional amendment that English is our language. This is not Mexico. I don't want to see taxpayers stuck with the medical and schooling costs for guest workers either. I don't want the courts to have jurisdiction to make their own rules and rewrite the rules once any such program is approved either.

If you read my earlier post, I addressed some of my issues there, but I have others too.

If Congress can't do something about those issues, then I agree with you. Close the borders and start rounding up and deporting the worst of them now and keep on until we put the problem back in Mexico for their President Fox to handle.

Here's where I would switch back toward Mark's view somewhat. As we are rounding them up and shipping them out, I would still apply some criteria and allow some, probably many, who are an asset to America, to remain and apply for citizenship... under some criteria and conditions which I still don't know exactly what those would be. It would probably include those who have good jobs, have established roots, have families, are productive members of their communities, have learned or are learning English, and who want to be Americans -- not Mexicans living in America.

One thing's for sure though -- we must control our borders. We can't allow illegal immigrants and possibly terrorists to stream across unchecked, make it an issue every 10 to 20 years, give that group amnesty, and wait for the next bach to build up and start the cycle all over again. America cannot accept everyone who wants to come here either. That's why we have immigration quotas and laws. I don't care if the Democrats need the votes, America can't physically, economically, or culturally handle everyone who wants to or deserves to come!

And as to your comment about those waving the Mexican flag-wavers, Aztlanists, and those whose intent is to invade America and use our taxpayer funded programs... I agree. I've had all of them I want! Adios Amigos!

And while we are at it, if they don't like American flags waved and worn in our schools while being told not to wear or fly the Mexican flag... The same thing! Adios Amigos!

I'm a little short of time and won't get to clean up the grammar and rambling, but hopefully this is a better response to your comment that my last one.

AAR

"All the messes on capitol hill make it plausible"

So your'e saying that nothing the president or any other congressional leader in office has done has benefited you in the very possible least???

Man I would hate to be in your shoes!!

Any legislation which allows citizenship to those who came here illegally IS amnesty. Period.

We can find a way to weed out most of the criminals, through mandatory registration and laws stating that being here wihout being registered is a felony. We can find a way to let people stay here as long as they are employed and law-abiding. But we cannot allow these people to make a mockery of our laws, or of those who have respected them, by allowing them citizenship.

We cannot dilute the meaning of citizenship, or demean it.

Mark, interesting how you say laws must be enforced, yet you are ok with your President breaking over 750 of them since assuming office.

I see your logic. If a law is not in our interests, its ok and cristian to break it. If not, it MUST be enforced.

And here I thought laws applied to everyone.

Quote by Mark

"Sorry, I'm a Christian...the laws must be enforced"

Deport,

Not at all - but I make my decisions based upon my beliefs...and it would be un-Christian to try and mass deport 12 million people.

Axis,

Geesh...you never do lay off the anti-Bush slanders, do you?

Stop being such a broken record...

Mark, it was a simple question. It was not a Bush bash. Is it too difficult for you to answer?

Are you true to your work, then you believe that laws should be obeyed, or are you a hypocrite that its ok to ignore some laws that don't suit you, while insisting that other laws MUST BE ENFORCED.?

I am just interested to know where you stand personally, because you seem to ignore the fact that many, many laws are being broken, by people on your side of the fence but are quick to point out others that break laws.

axis,

I missed the story about President Bush "allegedly" breaking over 750 laws since assuming office.

Who is it that claims President Bush broke these laws?

Realizing that even President Bush is presumed innocent until tried and found guilty by a judge or jury, I guess I missed the information on the court trials and convictions too!

Was he fined, sentenced to jail time, or on probation? Is he appealing the convictions?

Could you fill me in on the details or give me a website where I can read them for myself?

AAR

AAR, it was published in the Boston Globe near the first of the month.

Heres the link.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

Nearly every law he has signed in in the past 5 years, he has written on the bottom in his signing statement that it does not apply to him.

Of course INVESTIGATIONS and OVERSIGHT are needed before anything else happens.

But, assuming that a President is breaking a great many laws, thats not OK with you is it? If it is, then I guess its also ok if the next Democratic president that gets it also breaks all those laws and more.

"I missed the story about President Bush 'allegedly' breaking over 750 laws since assuming office.

"Who is it that claims President Bush broke these laws?"

Here's an excerpt from the excellent story Axis cited, "Bush challenges hundreds of laws," that gives the gist of what's going on.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Bush's claims are so broad in scope and so potentially damaging to our whole democratic system that they're historically significant. We have a president with the attitude of a king governing by divine right. Or, worse, we have a budding neofascist dictator on our hands.

The third and actually least dangerous possibility is that we have an intellectually stunted, poorly read and spoiled-rotten individual in the presidency, one who believes being the unquestioned "decider" is simply the latest of life's good things he's just naturally entitled to.

S.W.Anderson Quote
("We have a president with the attitude of a king governing by divine right")

Quite simply put-- but instead we have a president who is governing by divine right with help from "ABOVE".
NOT from some intellectually handicapped left-wing extremist from the face of the soon to be hell(earth).

". . .but instead we have a president who is governing by divine right with help from "ABOVE"."

No, Jeremiah, we don't really have divine-right monarchs in this country. You're a few centuries out of touch, I'm afraid, and taking a bad attitude as proof of leadership ability.

I'd be careful, if I was you, who I attributed Bush's help to. Considering Bush's approach, performance and results, the One you're giving credit to might not appreciate the plug.

axis,

Thanks for the link.

This thread is getting somewhat long and past its prime, so I'll "limit" my comments for now, but...

My guess is that the Boston Globe and the person who wrote the article are no friends of President Bush and the article is "somewhat biased" against the President.

I would need to know the details of each case, but in many/most instances, it sounds like President Bush is exercising his right to ignore laws that he believes are contrary to the Constitution and which illegally infringe on the powers granted to the President of the United States under the Constitution.

I missed the part where it said that President Bush has been tried and found guilty of violating the "Constitution" on any of these 750 "laws". Until that occurs on each of the 750 "laws", each of these allegations from the liberal left are just that -- allegations -- and not a conviction. Once again, it is the "seriousness of the charge", the allegation, that matters, not whether the President may in fact be acting totally in compliance with the Constitution.

I don't think the Constitution requires the President to comply with any Congressional laws that infringe on the powers granted to the President -- any President -- under the Constitution. I'm sure President Bush has a very good team of lawyers who are much more knowledgeable of these laws and the Constitution than I am.

The article also states: "Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power."

Are you aware that Congress also passes laws which the rest of us must follow, but which exempts and excludes them?

The activist courts are continually reinterpreting and changing the meaning of our Constitution and laws which is contrary to the Constitution. I and many/most Americans object strongly to that, but so far we haven't stopped it because liberals block all efforts to do so. The liberals "agree" with "violating, ignoring, and abusing" the Constitution when it suits their agenda and purposes.

Why do you object to the President exercising what he and his legal staff believe are his Constitutional powers, but you don't object to the activist liberal courts usurping the legislative powers of Congress and legislatures, effectively legislating from the courts, contrary to the Constitution, and making laws? That is the real problem... not President Bush!

Until the details are argued and decided on each of the 750 instances, I'm going with President Bush.

AAR

Oversight. That's the issue. Not whether or not it's a reasonable thing to do, but whether or not there is oversight to prevent abuses. What's so hard to understand about that? Why wouldn't you want it?

S.W.Anderson Quote
"I'd be careful, if I was you,who I attributed bush's help too"
__________________________________________________
Let me just get one thing straight here Mr.Anderson,I don't mean to sound harsh or mean or whatever else bad you want to say about me,I just want you to realize the fact that anytime we question the man who's in charge of this country, and we know good and well that he is a sound minded, christian man we are in danger,because no matter how good we think things should be under our own standard of thinking, we've got to stop, and remember that this president's decision's,actions,ethics and his whole way of life, are controlled by God.
George is a good man believe me.

Believe me we should "NEVER EVER" question Gods authority,No matter who we think we are PERIOD.

Oversight of what by whom?

Oversight of President Bush by a bunch of liberals? Don't need 'em!

Oversight by a bunch of liberal judges? Don't need them either!

That's about the same as calling for a committee, a compromise, a study, a consultant, a review, an extension, etc.

It's the liberals and liberal Democrats I don't trust!

AAR

RIGT ON,WAY TA GO,AAR!!!You tell um buddy!!

I feel the same way" instead of attempting a curveball,why don't we just tackle this thing and get it out of the way.

I'll tell ya' those liberal's that's "ALL" they think about, is an easier way,they don't want to work a little,,all they wan't to do is escape it.

Maybe that's why america's got so many deadbeat welfare communities.
_____________________________________________
Like president reagan said once jokingly..........

I don't know anyone who died working,but I don't guess it would hurt to try though.......
______________________________________________
what he was referring to was we(america) have too many lazy people on welfare, sadly enough though that very fact...... still remains.
........What a mystery?..............

On a lighter note like paul harvey says....

good day.