Bush Urges 'Civil Debate' on Immigration

[Terri]

Bush Urges 'Civil Debate' on Immigration

AP

As Congress prepares for a showdown over immigration policy, President Bush urged lawmakers Thursday to have a "civil debate" that respects people of all backgrounds.

"Ours is a nation of law and ours is a nation of immigrants, and we believe that we can have rational, important immigration policy that's based upon law and reflects our deep desire to be a compassionate and decent nation," Bush said.

He urged a serious debate on the issues at a time when advocates on both sides have been playing to voters' gut emotions.

More (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/23/D8GHCQAG0.html)

I agree with the civil debate, if not much else. Let's keep it civil.

[Terri]

Reid Filibuster Threat (http://www.gopusa.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.pl?act=ST; f=16;t=28555)

[jackbenimble]

I think President Bush kind of set the tone for the debate a year ago when he called the Minutemen who are good, law abiding patriots who happend to be very concerned about his failure to secure the borders during a time of war, "vigilantes".

And then there was the incident where Karl Rove accussed JD Hayworth who is critical of the Administration's immigration failures and their guestworker shamnesty of "not wanting to help the little brown people".

This Administration has shown a frequent willingness to play the race card. Those of us who did not think Harriet Miers was an appropriate choice for the Supreme Court were called sexists and those of us who were against the Dubai Ports World deal were called racists.

There was a time when playing the race card was looked upon by Republicans with derision as a liberal tactic designed to silence debate signaling that they lacked a real intelligent argument. I guess that time is now the past.

Its funny and kind of hypocritical that the Whitehouse suddenly now wants to have a respectful debate.

Regards,
Jack

[Terri]

Good points, Jack!

Nevertheless, we will have a civil debate here, as we always do. That was really my point and it wasn't directed at you. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I hope someone comments on the Reid filibuster threat.

[Titus]

I don’t agree with this vision of a respectful civil debate, he is mocked the American people all for his guest worker program and calling it something else when it is amnesty either way. He talks about the rule of law as if he understands it, though if he did understand the rule of law he would realize that you don’t reward those that have broken our laws. Instead he brands patriotic Americans “Minutemen” Vigilantes for doing the job our president wont do. Yes we are a nation of immigrates though we are nation of laws in allowing immigrates to come in this nation legally, not rewarding those that come here illegally. Iam sorry to be critical but our president is out touch with what the American people want in real immigration reform and until he and the congress realize it they will continue to be criticized until they come up with something reasonable. Hell, iam all for putting our military on the border to backup the BP though Bush isn’t going to do that, instead he is allowing a foreign governments military to make insurgents into the US on the southern border.

It is time to put aside the need to reward those that came here illegally and reflect on what the American people want. It is rather hypocritical of the President to state that we have a war on terror and we need to protect our ports, borders etc though turns a blind eye to what is going on at our southern border.

Reids fillabuster is nothing more than nothing.

T

[jackbenimble]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">he is mocked the American people all for his guest worker program and calling it something else when it is amnesty either way.[/QUOTE]

That is amazing isn't it? Very Clintonesque in the sense of &quot;oral sex isn't sex&quot; or &quot;it depends on the meaning of is&quot;.

Time after time he says he is against amnesty and then goes on to describe his favored guestworker program which shares every characteristic of an amnesty.

The illegals are not deported and they are given legal status and allowed to stay. Not only is the punishment for their criminal acts waived but they are rewarded! How can that be described as anything but amnesty?

There was a time when I, as a long time critic of the President, could (and frequently did) praise him for being a straight shooter who was honest and meant what he said. But on the illegal immigration issue he is totally disingenuous!

During the State of the Union Speech he jokingly referred to Bill Clinton as his &quot;brother&quot;. Now I'm starting to believe that he wasn't kidding. But he isn't half as good at lying as his brother Bill! Bill had the gift whereas the President just sounds like a crappy cheap car salesman trying to unload a lemon.

Regards,
Jack

[Froufrou]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Frist unveiled a bill last week that sidesteps the question of temporary work permits. It would tighten borders, punish employers who hire illegal immigrants and provide more visas.
[/QUOTE]

At first, the &quot;more visas&quot; didn't sit well with me. However, I believe the intent here is to keep better 'tabs' on noncitizens. And I'm all for that.

The McCainneddy bill is crap.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">The illegals are not deported and they are given legal status and allowed to stay. Not only is the punishment for their criminal acts waived but they are rewarded! How can that be described as anything but amnesty?[/QUOTE]

Not only that, but it doesn't punish the REAL offenders - the ones who employ them!

The concept that the 'carrots' are jobs Americans won't do is bunk. It's jobs that employers are too CHEAP to pay citizens to do.

Since when does small business have to be smarmy business? http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[lance sjogren]

Actually, when Bush, McCain, Kennedy, and the rest of that crowd say their amnesty is not amnesty I think they have a point.

Amnesty is pardoning someone for criminal acts.

What these guys want to do is grant a huge reward for criminal acts.

[lance sjogren]

Regarding the Reid filibuster threat:


I'm all for it.

Any bill that comes out of the Senate will be horribly negative. Even Frist's bill, which at least does not have amnesty but does have a massive increase in immigration at a time when we already have a huge inflow of legal immigrants that is more than our society and economy can handle.


But my guess is the Senate will wind up passing an amnesty.


Then it's up for the grownups, people like Jim Sensenbrenner, to stand up and put a stop to the nonsense.

[lance sjogren]

&quot;Ours is a nation of law and ours is a nation of immigrants, and we believe that we can have rational, important immigration policy that's based upon law and reflects our deep desire to be a compassionate and decent nation,&quot; Bush said.



This is what is so infuriating, that Bush would so readily adopt the Orwellian rhetoric of the radical left.


These proposals DO NOT respect the law. They reward people for breaking the law.

I just wonder how much doublespeak these guys can get away with.

Especially &quot;straight talker&quot; John McCain.

[Original Rebel]

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/star2.gif http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/star2.gif http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/star2.gif

IMNSHO, using &quot;civil&quot; and &quot;democrat&quot; in the same sentence is an oxymoron (civil being the oxy and democrats being the morons.)

I doubt that any of them know the meaning of the word &quot;civil&quot;.

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/bird16.gif

[Original Rebel]

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/star2.gif http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/star2.gif http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/star2.gif

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">I hope someone comments on the Reid filibuster threat. [/QUOTE]
I just did!!!

It all comes down to how long are the PEOPLE going to let these overpaid, temper-tantrum-throwing slimeballs tell US how it's gonna be?

I just pray that all the blue states will wake up and throw out every last one of those two-legged hypocrits - right on their rotten cans. Most of them ought to be sitting in jail.

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/bird16.gif

[Old Man]

Well, I will say that if the immigration bills are all compromised and mingled and they come out with a stronger defense of the border but don't deport one illegal that has a job, America won't even blink.

The number of seats lost will all be Republicans because the democrats will support their candidates and we will lose what little ability we had to try and start the decades long process to turn the nation around.

Then after the democrats are in power they will do basically what they promised. The will cut spending on the border and I bet they don't go after the employers either. And, guess what, American voters won't throw them out of office either as long as they keep playing to all the various special interest groups that feel Republicans pick on them.

It doesn't matter whether we are right or not. This is not that big an issue to the 1/2 who don't pay income taxes. They don't think it is costing them anything. If fact they think it is government's job to care for them and the poor of the world.

Don't forget that poll question because the politicians havent.
&quot;&quot;As you may know, President Bush has proposed to allow foreigners who have jobs but are staying illegally in the United States to apply for legal, temporary-worker status. Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this proposal?&quot;

39% strongly oppose. I bet the majority of them are those of us in border states with politicians like JD Hayworth or Tom Tancredo who are already fighting an uphill battle. For many of the blue states that have a stagnant population, they would probably welcome a few more people as long as they are working and paying taxes.

Once you get down to specifics, the 70% that want tighter controls suddenly don't have the stomach for the tough decisions that need to be made. That is the same reason they hate congress but think their own congressman is doing a good job.

The majority of voters are victims of the nightly news and say what they think they are supposed to say. The few that are educated on the real cost and damage like those on this forum are in a small minority.

Tom Tancredo has been touring the nation for two years or longer and still all we have is &quot;talk&quot; coming from congress and we are no closer to Tom's position than when we started. Instead, we have democrats openly bragging on the nightly news they will even block a minor restriction on this problem.

Sorry, but as stupid as the demcoratic leadership is and as socialist and bad for America as they are, I don't believe they would openly be advocating resisting even a minor restriction on illegals if they didn't think they could carry more states this fall then they will lose over this issue.

I hope they are blinded by the support of the mainsteam media and the voters will prove them wrong but it sounds more like we will put them in office even in the states where the voters want tough policies. Either the media is drowning out our voice and our Repubican representatives can't hear us or there just aren't enough of us to be heard.

It might even be that a &quot;moderate&quot; policy will attract dems that don't want to vote for a fully relaxed polcy the dems are pushing for.

Sure hope you guys are right and that more voters are &quot;strong&quot; on this than I see.

[GeorgiaRedneck]

If Shamnesty comes out of the Senate, the House will never pass it. You pay more attention when you gotta run every other year. If no bill is passed, I fear for our majority. Every poll I've seen in the last 6 months has put this issue #1, and 8 out of 10 want ENFORCEMENT. How hard is it for our elected servants to understand one word? Enforcement, border and business.

As for Reid, his threat is as empty as his head. Shamnesty is coming out of the committee, like it or not.

How do we get Johnny Isakson's bill to the floor? It's the only thing CLOSE to HR4437.

[Old Man]

There is no poll that I would completely trust. However, as a politician, if I was going to listen to a &quot;poll&quot; it would only be one from my own district in my own state or in the case of a Senator, my own state. Who would I poll?

I would poll, for one thing, all the people who have stopped voting. I would find out what the majority of them have as a hot button issue and then make that a campaign priority with the priorities for the majority that do vote. (However, what if it is different? Then you know what to leave alone)

I am amazed at some local and state elections that try to run on a &quot;national set of issues.&quot; I am not sure why they try to do that unless they hope &quot;national spending&quot; will give them a &quot;free ride.&quot;

I don't think the &quot;national issue concept&quot; is where to look. Let's say I run a poll and its on &quot;hire more border agents&quot; and the poll (nation wide) comes back 60% say they won't support it. But, what if you broke it down and the issue was only negative in the major metro area and you are from a rural area, or vice versa. What good does that poll do you if you don't know the breakdown? What if in the national poll the Blue states were 80/20 and in the red states 40/60 or 30/70. You know you are going to lose the blue states anyway, so why worry. Run on what you can win with in the rest of the states and get the seats for controll.

Where do most voters sit out the election? Blue, red, metro, rural, coastal, interior, border states? I am sure they have these statistics somewhere, in the party, hopefully. If not, get them. Spend some campaign money to find out what the targets are, where they are, and how to win them or ignore them if it is a waste of money and you can't win.

I also wonder if &quot;battleground&quot; states get too much attention at the house level when &quot;battleground districts&quot; can be found even in solid blue or solid red states. Is there too much funding of the national GOP and not enough of the state?

I am fairly new to being active in campaigning (about 2 years) and so I don't know what stats are conditions exist but, I haven't been impressed by the marketing of our party for decades. It is like they have only political experts and need more marketing experts that know how to &quot;sell an image.&quot;

You can have the best &quot;widget&quot; in the world and go broke because the 2nd best &quot;widget&quot; knows how to sell people on their &quot;widget.&quot; Being right isn't enough if people don't believe you are right.

We tend to campaign to win elections. The democrats for as long as I can remember have campaigned to win minds. They are 24/7 either selling a negative image of the Repubican party, business (big) and the wealthy, or their image of being for the poor, minority, working people, oppressed, and even the illegal immigrant who is being denied a chance by the &quot;evil Republicans&quot; and the &quot;greedy Americans.&quot;

Since nobody, as has been pointed out on this forum (Basheva, I think?) that we don't want to be called mean-spirited or greedy, or oppressive, give the democrats a positve image by not denying the hypocracy of socialism loud enough or often enough. We get on the TV and promote a policy and the democrats get on and promote an image, negative for us, positive for them.

Every policy is going to be unfair to somebody whether it is a tax, law, regulation, or social program. Thus, they can always point out a &quot;negative&quot; and claim they oppose the evil Republicans who want to enact that unfair policy. They don't bother presenting alternative because they don't want to have it known that they don't have one that is any more fair that the one they are trashing.

If we go to war, it is a waste of American lives. If we don't we are risking American lives by not acting quickly and decisively. If we stormed into Louisiana we would have them say George Bush thinks he is a king and tries to rule like a dictator. If he waits for the state to call on him, he is indecisive, and FEMA is no good.

They get away with a lot because they work on &quot;image&quot; 24/7 with every issues. They are masters of marketing. They are selling manure, but they are selling it.

Even on this issue of immigration there is no such thing as &quot;civil debate&quot; because the democrats don't have &quot;civil&quot; in their game plan.

[Luckyme]

Good points Old Man. It is hard to have a civil debate with a party that is uncivil and their base is uncivil as well.

I am tired of the argument that we are a nation of immigrants. Lost in that is the fact that we came here legally and have a right to be here. We have made it our country. Illegal immigrants have no interest in assimulating into our culture or working to make our country better. They refuse to learn English and want as many services they can get for free.

When they break our laws to get in, they come in with a criminal mindset. They continue to live their lives without much thought to our laws and being good citizens. They drive without licenses, insurance, and probably don't register their cars. They send their money back to their home countries and don't have any investment in ours.

We need to get our borders under control and stop illegal entry. No amnesty programs for those who have broken our laws. They should not be rewarded.

[GeorgiaRedneck]

In my mind I see this 'guest worker plan' as amnesty in a pretty dress.

amnesty n. 1.a general pardon for offenses, esp. political offenses, against a government. 2. a forgetting or overlooking of any past offense

If it quacks like a duck....

As far as a 'civil debate', those folks don't look like they WANT one, and they're certainly acting like they don't NEED one.

[Titus]

I really hate being negative about this whole issue and criticizing my president over this but he needs to wakeup to reality and stop this pandering. Look, what else pissed me off further was his called the minutemen vigilantes you don’t go calling proud Americans exercising there 1st and 2nd Amendment right Vigilantes when they are doing and showing the government that they are in the wrong. This problem isn’t going away and I don’t whom bush is listening to in his cabinet but the man needs to wake up period!

I understand why they are coming here and isn’t just Hispanics even though they are the majority here but we cant keep allowing people to come here breaking our laws and expecting a hangout or free services or demanding it when there Americans that don’t even have that. Illegals have babies right as they over the border putting that Childs life at risk all to make it here so that they have a way of staying here permanently. We need to also stop this Birth right citizenship. We also need to make clear of what the 14 amendments means and stop this nonsense interpretation. I am sick to death of those invoking the 14th when the authors of this amendment in there notes indicated that it wasn’t to protect illegal immigrates the same right on US soil.

I don’t disagree with a lot of what the president has to say but this issue I wish the Repub would take stand not offer some other type of amnesty with a new look. We cant afford to keep this up at this rate and it has become more of a problem under Bush and then appoints the Meyers lady to ICE as a recess appointment, if he was serious he would have found someone who new what they were doing.

T

[GeorgiaRedneck]

The truth is that our President knows EXACTLY what he's doing by fomenting this incredibly divisive problem on the American electorate. He's actually trying to MAKE the Republican Party vote for their own destruction.

This man is NO conservative. If he had even a spark of American in him he would SEAL THE BORDER and DEPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS. Anything less shows him to be the sellout of the middle class and the Emperor of the downfall of the United States.

[Old Man]

Don't forget most of Congress supports him or even less enforcement than he does.

[navyblue]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">This man is NO conservative. If he had even a spark of American in him he would SEAL THE BORDER and DEPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS. [/QUOTE]

Ooooh Georgia, you're gonna git in trouble now! Lol.

Now all you folks must have seen the 500,000? protestors in Los Angeles yesterday. *Can anyone question which area of the country has the biggest problem and *biggest burden for illegal immigration? Bush won't do anything about this. That should be perfectly clear to everyone. I agree with another poster who said our only help would come from the House. If we can keep the House with us and we get the right president in 08, maybe there's a chance. *Of course, if we get the Wicked Witch from the East in the White House, we're done. (Make that &quot;well done.)

One thing I've noticed over the last 3 or 4 years is that Tancredo's Immigration Reform caucus has expanded from a mere 30 or so when I first started watching it to around a hundred now. *Maybe we're getting somewhere.

[GeorgiaRedneck]

Trust me, Old Man, I haven't forgotten THEM, either. My own votes are already sure for November, I'm blessed to live in Charlie Norwood's Congressional District, and Sen. Isakson has finally come down on the side of sanity after visiting the border himself last month. I'm waiting to see if Sen. Chambliss will take a stand instead of talking out both sides of his mouth, but overall I'm pretty well represented.

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/usflag22.gif

[Old Man]

Part of Tancredo's success is going around the nation speaking on this issue. When he does, the Congressmen and Senators or their staff are present to &quot;read&quot; the audience. When Tom spoke recently in Phoenix, McCain had two staff members present. They said not one word but listened and observed very intently and quietly exited after the presentation from Tom.

This what we have to do as well. We have to know the facts like those that Jack and others on this forum present. I use them frequently when discussing immigration with people. I don't attack &quot;Hispanics&quot; or &quot;illegals&quot; directly. I simply point out what they cost us and us includes all legal Hispanic residents.

This is not a issue of one nation against another nation's people. It is about all nationalities in this nation protecting themselves from things that could eventually drag them down. If we end up being like the nation the people are fleeing, what have they gained?

We can't even get the cost of caring for our own &quot;system abusers&quot; down. What good is it for a person to come here and live in a nation that keeps going deeper and deeper into debt, a debt they will have to pay as well?

[Terri]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">This man is NO conservative. If he had even a spark of American in him he would SEAL THE BORDER and DEPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS.[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to argue Bush's conservative values. He has plenty of them but he doesn't agree with us on this issue.

However, I will ask if you think that Ronald Reagan was a conservative. Do you?

[Razor]

I am tired of the argument that we are a nation of immigrants. Lost in that is the fact that we came here legally and have a right to be here. We have made it our country. Illegal immigrants have no interest in assimulating into our culture or working to make our country better. They refuse to learn English and want as many services they can get for free

What is lost is the fact that we are not a nation of immigrants. That is PC garabage. My family was here when this Nation became a Country and have been citizens since day one. Indians who the libs love to call&quot;Native Americans&quot; are not that at all. In fact using the libs criteria Indians are not native to this country since they did not become citizens until 1924. Immigrant, yes they are!

[GeorgiaRedneck]

Terri,

I don't want to get in any arguments here, but I came to the Republican Party in the 90's on the 'Contract with America' band-wagon. Fiscally conservative, socially responsible compassionate conservatism. The Federal Government was supposed to start keeping it's nose OUT of my business.

12 years later and I see very little of that 'contract' being fulfilled, and a lot of it being VIOLATED. I'll be bolluxed if I vote for a Dem, but in truth I might be looking to 'grass-roots' the Constitution Party.

(Sorry for the blatant plug) http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Terri]

Actually, we won't give you a platform to plug third parties.

That's a decision we made in 2004 because third parties only help to elect Democrats and that is something GOPUSA does not care to contribute to.

We can debate issues but boosting third parties just won't be tolerated. Third party supporters need to provide their own forums and websites just as Republican supporters do here.

I don't blame anyone who is unhappy about some of the things that Republicans have done but helping Democrats to get elected is not the solution.

Razor, I have no problem with controlled legal immigration and I don't think that most people posting here do. And I don't think it matters that your family was here before my family as long as no laws were broken.

[Old Man]

Since we are conducting &quot;civil debate,&quot; GeorgiaRedNeck, I have this thought. If you want to support a 3rd party, any thrid party, pick one that will think rationally. Possible the Constitution party is like that. I hope so.

What would a &quot;rational&quot; 3rd party do?

I think they would work to further their goals, the issues they support, rally voters by educating them and then do one of a few things even if running a candidate.

They would evaluate the benefits and see if continueing to run a candidate was &quot;winnable If not, it would pull the candidate and throw their support and encourage their voters to support the major party closest to their own views. Even if not actually supporting that party, but rather opposing the party that would so greatly damage the nation.

Now it is true I would say the Democratic party is the more dangerous party and the one that must not be allowed to win, but that is what the 3rd party would have consider. The 3rd party is defeating themselves if they allow their greatest enemy to gain a foothold that might not be gained back, what have they really gained.

Socialism is like the siren on the rocks. Once she has set the trap, the ship that listens rarely turns away from destruction on those rocks. Voters who buy the line of socialism will only be turned back if they never reach sight of the rocks.

If you allow them to gain the White House and Congress, I doubt you will have time to turn things around before we begin a decades long economic malaise much like Japan experienced. It may be caused by different economic conditions but the damage will put China and other nations so far ahead that we never recover.

This is not a game where we can &quot;hold out&quot; and let a &quot;temporary victory&quot; by the enemy occur. We have moved too far into socialism to do that and still survive. Whether you agree with the policies of this administration or not, they believe they are conducting a balancing act that is keeping this nation afloat long enough for voters to start moving back to the right.

One only has to look at the approval ratings of the Senate to see the handwriting on the wall. Out of the top 20, you have 10 and 10. Ten Republicans against 9 democrats and 1 independent. But, what is more revealing is when you see those top 10 include, McCain, Snowe, and Collins. Some of the most &quot;RINO&quot; according to those on this forum are the ones with the highest approval ratings.

Look at the lower ratings. Do you see any &quot;Conservatives&quot; with low approval ratings?<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Fall 2004 Senator Kyl supported the interests of the Conservative Index - The John Birch Society 90 percent in Fall 2004.

2005 Senator Kyl supported the interests of the Eagle Forum 75 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Kyl supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus 90 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator Kyl supported the interests of the Eagle Forum 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kyl supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Kyl supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 100 percent in 2004.[/QUOTE]Project vote smart (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_categor y.php?can_id=H012110 3)

His approval rating? 95th at 45%

McCain the RINO at 16th at 64%, Kyl at 95th?

Then you wonder why there is a Democrat running against Kyl? Kyl isn't liberal enough for the voters, apparently.

So, go ahead and run a 3rd party candidate but, make sure that if he isn't going to win and he can't if Kyl can't get more than a 45% approval rating in a state regularly voting red in federal government races, then you better pull the candidate and throw your support behind a Republican.

[GeorgiaRedneck]

Valid points all, Old Man.

I can't really argue with you over ANY of them.

But I gotta tell you, this immigration thing for me is the proverbial straw. I supported a lot of things this Party wanted to do even though I didn't agree with them, because I was led to believe that certain OTHER priorities would be accomplished. Those PROMISED accomplishments were my 'carrot'. (Those lop-sided tax cuts were my 'stick')

A 3rd party Presidential candidate that draws significant Republican support would be disastrous for this country RIGHT NOW, because the remedy would be worse than the disease'.

I'll not do anything to let Ms. Bangalore become the next President, but I know a lot of people just like me that are expecting the Republican Party to stand up to the corruption on Capitol Hill, to stand with their constituents instead of their 'benefactors' and stand on the Constitution overall.

Even this 'chauvinist' can admit when he's lost and look at the map. Why can't our politicians do the same?

[Tommy Jefferson]

Texas Senator John Cornyn is promoting amnesty.

I want him OUT.

[protecGOP55]

Since the beginning of 2001, Bush and Fox announced their intention of 'Guest-worker' program. There was some political grumbling then, and appeasement by omission on the subject, and justified distraction by 911 since. What goes around...here it is again.

GWB talks about jobs Americans won't do and the hard working people from Mexico who want to work.

The hardest working people are here:
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">In response, ICE first partnered with other federal, state, and local law enforcement officials in Laredo, Texas, to create a multi-agency operation called Operation Black Jack in July 2005. Operation Black Jack has subsequently evolved into the DHS’s Border Enforcement and Security Task Force, known as BEST.

The BEST task force incorporates personnel from ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), ATF, FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Attorney’s Office, and key state and local law enforcement agencies. The BEST task force concept incorporates personnel from existing intelligence groups — involved in both collection and analysis — to help identify and disseminate information relating to violent smuggling organizations. The BEST task force has been a highly successful tool to combat violence in the Laredo area.
[/QUOTE]
ICE Initiatives to Combat Southwest Border Violence (http://nyjtimes.com/cover/03-14-06/ICE-ToCombatBorderViolen ce.htm)

The numbers are astounding. But its only a bandaid on a bullet wound.

There is clearly anarchy at the border. Civil debate is not possible...a wall has to be included in the discussion...close the border. No amnesty, no guest worker. They can come back when they fill out the paperwork in their own country and come here LEGALLY! Acountability is key, we cannot account for illegals, they have no legal protections.

[Old Man]

If you live in a border state and can't get a tough immigration bill, I would like to know why?

Here in Arizona, we have two Senators, each with his own bill and both include a means for workers to be here that are &quot;needed to do jobs Ameicans won't do,&quot; but, one is much easier (McCain's) and Kyl's basically says they have to go home (within so much time before they can attempt to return legally. Neither one is that populuar with the people who don't want the ones here now allowed to stay for any length of time.

500,000 turn out in one of the worst areas for immigration violations to protest any attempt to make them a felon for breaking the law. The number that turned out to support making it a felony?

I don't know because the media was mainly concernced with the anti-felony crowd. What support are you hearing for the bill in the public? As long as the socialist leaning liberals have control of the media, you won't hear much.

However, I think the voters are more behind this than even many politicians know. If they made this a hot button I think they could gain seats for the GOP but they have to do it state by state and read the voters in each state (especially the ones who don't usually vote) very well.

[protecGOP55]

Interesting that the only MSM printing the truth about the border are on the border (or have a significant number of drop houses):
Border News--AZ-Star (http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/border/)
Border and Immigration-AZ Central (http://www.azcentral.com/news/border/)
SignOnSanDiego--Tijuana and the Border (http://www.signonsandiego.c om/news/mexico/tijuana/)

If all the rest of the MSM printed just a few of the articles listed in the above links, the faithful constituents in other states would understand the extent of the problem.