Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Tonight’s immigration speech: I can’t shake my skepticism
Posted by: McQ on Monday, May 15, 2006

As we agreed on our podcast yesterday, the three of us are unanimous in our skepticism concerning tonight's speech about immigration and border security by President Bush. All of us are of the opinion that the most likely outcome of tonight's speech will be a lot of vague promises and short-term activity which will eventually peter out to nothing. Or said another way, political theater.

Tonight's speech is a political speech. It is a poll based speech. It is the first in many attempts before November to shore up the base and influence the middle. It is designed to address the majority concerns about border security with the semblence of activity, but no committment to solutions.

Or so we believe. Yes, that's opinion, but it's based in watching this administration give lip service to many things during its 6 years in office. Spending restraint? How many times have vetoes been threatened? How many vetoes have actually been delivered? Intelligence reform? A bunch of chair shuffling and organizational chart remakes, but the quality of intelligence doesn't seem to have been significantly improved.

And whether you support the war in Iraq or not, it is hard to view the nation building effort as well done, even with 3 years worth of experience to point the way. Gen. McCaffery found the civilian side of the effort, that for which the civilian side of the administration is directly responisbile, to be a disaster. Much activity, but most of it ineffective and wasted.

Which brings us to border security. It seems, given today's reports, that the Bush administration is more worried about Mexico's reaction to the possiblity of using National Guard troops than the desire of most Americans that our borders be secured:
President Bush assured Mexican President Vicente Fox on Sunday he did not intend to militarize their countries' mutual border, but was considering sending National Guard troops there to temporarily support border control efforts.
If President Fox is so concerned why not use his troops to control his side of the border? Because he's unconcerned about border security or illegal immigration. In fact, as we've documented, he's more than happy to abet it since it provides the 2nd largest source of outside income for his nation and it bleeds off any pressure to reform his own country's economy and make it more attractive for workers there to stay instead of going.
"The president made clear that the United States considers Mexico a friend and that what is being considered is not militarization of the border, but support of border patrol capabilities on a temporary basis by National Guard personnel," White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri said, describing a telephone conversation between Bush and his Mexican counterpart.

[...]

"This is something that's actually already being done. It's not about militarization of the border," Hadley said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"It's about assisting the civilian Border Patrol in doing their job, providing intelligence, providing support, logistics support and training and these sorts of things," he said.
Let's get something straight ... this is, at least temporarily, about "militarizing" the border. When you use military assets to secure a border, that's precisely what it is called. But it is the "temporary" nature of all of this which concerns me. What does that mean?

Does it mean "temporary" until we find other means to control the border (fence, sensor arrays, drones, increased border patrol personnel, increased border detention facilities, fast-track repatriation of illegal crossers, etc.) that doesn't involve the military, or does it mean "temporary" as in "until November" when NG troops will quietly be withdrawn and we'll see the situation return to the condition it is in today?

At the risk of sounding cynical, I find it difficult to believe a politician who, until apparently last week, was dead set against this sort of move and clearly favored a form of amnesty (but wouldn't call it that) and a "guest worker" program, is now serious about border security.

Maybe he'll surprise me. But until he does, I'll take what he has to say tonight with a grain of salt. Until he actually does something which isn't of a "temporary" nature on the border, I'll remain skeptical.

UPDATE: Another reminder of why I'm skeptical:
The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday.

Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.

But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
&Considering that a year ago Bush zeroed out a planned 10,000-agent increase
 
Written By: Mithras
URL: http://mithrastheprophet.blogspot.com
Ack! DotBlog bug strikes again — that post looked fine in Preview.
Anyway, safe to say that this is strictly a November plan.
 
Written By: Mithras
URL: http://mithrastheprophet.blogspot.com
As I have said before, this whole immigration reform debate is utter nonsense. The politicians have no desire to secure the border, if they did it would have been secure. We have had many so-called immigration reforms and all it has done is make things worse. The Mexican government is for all-intents-and-purposes, in control of our immigration policy. A descion has been made at every level of our state, local and federal governments that the United States should become an Northern province of Mexico, there can simply be no denying that fact. We don’t secure our
borders, we have sancutary laws in many big cities, we do very little interior enforcement, etc. We have bi-lingual education in schools, we print official documents in spanish, when you call most comapnies you have to press one to continue in english, etc.. we are not assimilating them they are assimilating us.
And some of the provisions for guest worker programs call for up-to 1.5 million workers per year!! Why exactly is it in the overall best interest for the United States to import desperatly poor, poorly educated low skilled labor? I will tell you why, big labor and the corporations want it, and by god, the politicians are going to deliver. So while the corporations bottom line swells, the ordinary taxpayer is left holding the bag for the illegals, educational need, their medical
needs and their incarceration needs. Don’t be fooled by the words of President Bush, he is more concerned for the well-being of the Mexican people than he is for
the American people.
 
Written By: Radical Centrist
URL: http://
or does it mean "temporary" as in "until November" when NG troops will quietly be withdrawn and we’ll see the situation return to the condition it is in today?

Bingo! If Bush had deployed the NG the moment he ’realized there was a crisis’ maybe it would’ve made sense. But now? What is the point of having a secure border for only 6 months? The National Guard is made up of people with regular jobs. They shouldn’t be deployed as a political stunt and I doubt they’ll be too thrilled to be called up, yet again.
 
Written By: Mike
URL: http://
The illegal immigration seems to come around every 10 years, and then disappear for a while...is it that it just isn’t quite enough of a cogesive bloc for voting purposes? Or that it crosses party lines too much? I think the pols in both parties must feel its a political hot potato for one reason or the other.

I do think that making sure Mexico is clear on the troop deployment is important, though. The chance for an incident is small, but you wouldn’t want to have a crisis with Mexico right now, would you?
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I have this bad feeling that Bush is going to make a MAJOR mistake tonight- that he’ll put just enough guard troops on the borders to make it look like a sop to his base, but too few to also be very effective, while pushing amnesty/guest worker/path to citizenship whatever you call it. Maybe a token call for Congress to work on punishing businesses that won’t amount to much.

In other words, he’ll try to straddle the fence that cannot be straddled.

I hope I’m wrong.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
If President Fox is so concerned why not use his troops to control his side of the border? Because he’s unconcerned about border security or illegal immigration. In fact, as we’ve documented, he’s more than happy to abet it since it provides the 2nd largest source of outside income for his nation and it bleeds off any pressure to reform his own country’s economy and make it more attractive for workers there to stay instead of going.

Are you saying that Fox should restrict the freedom of his own citizens to travel abroad?

That’s the kind of crap they do in Cuba and North Korea.

Secondly there is no threat to Mexico’s "border security" if people are leaving the country. "Border security" comes in to play in the face of a hostile exogenous enemy.

The main problem here is that NAFTA was ill-conceived from the standpoint of labor. Unlike the European Union where capital and labor flow without obstruction, workers can follow jobs and industries can flow to surplus labor markets.

Under NAFTA, capital can flow without restriction, but the ability of individuals’ to react to changes in capital flows is inhibited. With this type of system, these illegal immigration patterns are only to be expected. In fact, predictions about increased illegal immigration to the US as a result of NAFTA were given by experts back in the early 90s when the issue was being debated in the US.
 
Written By: RangeRover
URL: http://aol.com
maybe we’ll get to see him standing on the border, with a sign that says "mission accomplished"
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://meta-phor.com
Are you saying that Fox should restrict the freedom of his own citizens to travel abroad?
Illegally? Yes. What’s the purpose of internationally recoginized passport and visa system if it’s "hey, just go where you want to go"?

Nations agreed to the arrangment for a reason. All that’s being asked is Mexico live up to its side of the agreement.

Too much to ask?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The Mexicans have militarized the border for the past several years, even invading our side with their army to escort drug traffickers. An NG border deployment will last only long enough for our spineless congress to pass an amnesty, then all promised enforcement measures will be forgotten, just like in 1986. There has been no interior immigration enforcement for 20 years, and none likely in the future. A foolish congress passed the 1986 amnesty and a naive president signed it. It resulted in more illegal immigration, and a large increase in alien crime, especially drug crime. Einstein reputedly defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
 
Written By: Creighton Michael West
URL: http://
How about temporary meaning until the various NG units are pulled to return to Iraq for the third fourth or fifth time and yet another alternate reality vision runs headlong into the truth?
 
Written By: Randy B
URL: http://
How about temporary meaning until the various NG units are pulled to return to Iraq for the third fourth or fifth time and yet another alternate reality vision runs headlong into the truth?
That is indeed one of the reasons the fix is being termed temporary, so the point is valid, but not particularly relevant to whether there are really plans of a permanent nature to control the border.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Americans,

Without a doubt, tonight is a political stunt to build voter support for November. I am a hard line republican and even I can admit this clear fact. Why should we depoly any NG if they are only providing infomation to exisitng BP agents? BP is already thin and missing most of the human traffic. Having the NG rubbing it in is only going to pour salt into an infected wound. Who cares what FOX is worried about.... Maybe we should escort our criminals to the border and set them free in Mexico.
FOX and Mexico care nothing about having an economy or a way of life for their people.... OBVIOUS!!

Americans are sick of the deception and LIES...

I teach school in West Texas....
Most illegal immigrant students care nothing about learning English. They refuse to say the pledge. They receive Free Lunch, Free Grades, Sleep in Class, and promote the general THUG LIFE....

Sideways Hats & Saggy Pants -
American children are catching on....

It’s time for social reform....
No Matter WHO IT ANGERS !!!
 
Written By: Brooks Jackson
URL: http://
This administration (including Congress) is as serious about immigration reform as it is about Energy reform. Look, if these douchebags are serious, the first thing they need to do is to REVOKE the clause that grants automatic citizenship to every child born on U.S soil. DUH!
 
Written By: Vin
URL: http://
Illegally? Yes. What’s the purpose of internationally recoginized passport and visa system if it’s "hey, just go where you want to go"?

McQ:

Have you ever travelled abroad before? When you enter a foreign country it is the RECEIVING country that regulates the passport and visa system for visitors.

Would you put up with the Border Patrol restricting your travel to, say, Canada?

Fox can’t tell his citizens, "don’t leave the country" any more than Bush can tell Americans, "don’t travel to Iceland." (Of course, Bush already has such a policy with regard to Cuba, but we won;t get into the stupidity of THAT policy).

Restricting moibility is the epitome of restricting basic human freedoms.

It’s troubling to see you deviate from basic principles of human liberty to support the types of policies embraced by Kim Jung Il and Hu Jintao.
 
Written By: RangeRover
URL: http://aol.com
This whole mess is so basic and simple and it is little more than the lost war on drugs. Simply put, it’s all about supply and demand.
Bush won’t do anything about this, corporate America has been using cheap labor, here and abroad, for a long time now. Dubya just made it easier to do it in this country. Companies know if you are legal or not, and so does the government when the payroll taxes are sent in.
The illegal aliens are not the enemy and we have no more chance of stopping them than we ever had of stopping the drug traffic. If there is no longer a demand people will not flock here.
This is nothing but academic exercises, concentrate on how they will scam the polls in November!
 
Written By: Kurt
URL: http://
We as citizens of this find country are the majority of the problem when it comes to Illegal immigration.
One is by hiring illegal workers for higher profits, and two by allowing our congressman and other political leaders to just drop the issue without challenge,when we do this, we leave the door wide open for them to make any political decision to fit there own personal agenda.
These people work for us, we don’t work for them and that includes the president.
Your strength is in your vote. The one thing illegal immigrants have yet to have handed to them, and by exercising your rights by replacing our fearless leaders with someone who will listen and act according to the wishes of the people and not lobbyist, then and only then will you get there undivided attention.
 
Written By: Rick
URL: http://
Have you ever travelled abroad before?
Most of my life, yes.
When you enter a foreign country it is the RECEIVING country that regulates the passport and visa system for visitors.
No kidding ... that’s the overall point. Nations decide who they’ll allow in, not individuals.

But that doesn’t mean Mexico has no responsibility for it’s border and who is crossing it. Theirs is to keep Mexican citizens from crossing without having the permission of the RECEIVING country.

That’s how the system works.
Fox can’t tell his citizens, "don’t leave the country" any more than Bush can tell Americans, "don’t travel to Iceland."
That’s not the point and you know it. Anyone is perfectly free to travel LEGALLY. And there are procedures to be followed to do so. But he has every right to tell those who would ignore those procedures and attempt to travel illegally that they can’t do that.

Take your Iceland example and tell me whether the first time your passport is checked is when you land in Iceland? And without it and the proper visa, tell me how successful you’d be in boarding the aircraft in the US.
Restricting moibility is the epitome of restricting basic human freedoms.
Nonsense. Try to get into CIA headquarters without the proper credentials. Wander up to the White House and demand entrance without examination.

There are valid reasons for restricting mobility. There are also usually procedures which will grant it, if valid.

I find it increasingly interesting that defenders of illegal immigrants want to grant the illegal’s desire with immunity from law. They demand respect for illegals. Yet it seems that respect only works one way. They, in turn, have no respect for the laws of the nation which they demand grant the illegals entrance.

And then, usually, they end up reduced to pitiful hyperbole:
It’s troubling to see you deviate from basic principles of human liberty to support the types of policies embraced by Kim Jung Il and Hu Jintao.
As most understand, these regimes are tyring to keep people in, not out. But that’s usually lost on those who stoop to these examples.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Ah, the principles of human liberty argument. Principles meaning in this case that we don’t have the liberty to enforce the laws that are inconvenient for illegal immigrants.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
This is for the people who are listening, about the leviathan consequences of tomorrows Senate debate on immigration reform.

I’m an old University Professor of Economics, and because I finally caught on to this huge menace, that threatens to overwhelm our culture. It was time for me to come out of retirement, and do whatever I could for my country and for all the taxpayers. We are the ones who pay the bills, for illegal immigration not the fat cat’s, the elites, the illegal employers and the pro-anti-immigrant organizations. Been a republican all my life, but this was the final straw. Sorry, but I do not even trust the Democrats with Reid, Feinstein and Boxer. Both parties have become Al Capone’s of the 21st century. I have signed off on both parties, because neither the GOP or the DEM’s are listening to the hurting American people. If they did we would have Universal healthcare, like most of the civilized countries.

I have started a petition in my own little town in Indiana, to throw any pro-illegal immigrant councilmen or official out. Only just started and I have already collected 1800 signatures. The federal government better listen to the American people, about this immigration mess? Then We, the citizens in the greatest nation in the world, must put up a fight of our own. If our so-called peoples representative, will not enforce “The Reform and Control Immigration Act of 1986, then Citizens MUST fight the La Raza’s, Aztlan and open border crazies at the municipal level.

In addition, individuals like Ted Kennedy, McCain, Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of LA, must be driven out of office. Anybody who has leanings towards this massive amnesty tomorrow, must be treated as enemies of the American people. These politicians are fracturing the very fabric that holds our nation together. Whatever the outcome is Mondays debate every American who cares deeply about this land, will take the verdict to heart. Each and every one of US, will realize this is a personal attack against each citizen and those who entered this country legally. Those politicians who force another amnesty on us, will without any shadow of doubt be discarded. Period!

I have followed the histories of multicultural societies, and they do not work! Either we are one culture, one language, one flag under God or there is going to be deadly outcome. We are becoming a nation divided and just like Yugoslavia, Bosnia, there will be retribution.

Laugh at the idea of American civil war 2, but American patriots are not going to watch the Southwestern United States become a satellite of the Mexican government. It has already started the growing anti-illegal alien grass roots organizations are gaining membership. The new militia, called the Minutemen have are growing in numbers and now building fences. Herndon, Virginia kicked out the mayor and other official, using tax-payers money for a cheap labor center. Georgia has just approved a hard-line set of laws, to stop welfare and other schemes to stop illegals plundering tax money. Many other states and local government are coming down hard at long last on illegal employers.
Kentucky went after IFco and arrested managers and illegal employees, along with Ohio who took down four construction companies, who should have been employing Americans. Fischer Home builders also have been swarmed over by local police and State agents.

On the political side, Two years ago, Matt Throckmorton kept Chris Cannon (UT) from getting the 60% of GOP convention votes necessary to go on the ballot in the fall. That is almost unheard of for an incumbent Congressman, but Cannon’s Pro-anti-immigration positions gave Throckmorton a good citizen issue. Cannon went on to win the primary but with only 58% of the Republican voters supporting him.

Ever since then, Cannon has been a little more careful and has voted pretty well on enforcement issues while continuing to push for amnesties and massive guest worker programs. Utah people will be watching very carefully, how he votes from now on and like those who follow Bush tomorrow, will be looking for a job in November. Whatever State is your residence, keep a sharp eye on the traitors who have been brought and sold, by the corporate lobby.

Alas, Most Democrats support open border, but I believe and hope that these politicians will see the writing on the wall. Our nation has a serious crisis. The American people have been ignored and abused by our leaders. Tomorrow we can expect the worst, because big business has opened their coffers to the people in Washington. Using the word comprehensive immigration reform is just another set of lies. Anything that smells of reform is liable to release 12-20 million aliens in our society, to get citizenship. Plus the next huge deluge of poor and under-trodden illegals, expecting the next amnesty? Not forgetting the millions of family members soon to follow, who will be allowed in.

On your computer use Google news or Yahoo, and insert key words about immigration. Thousands of media articles will inform you of the corruption in our midst. Come the end of year we can take our full revenge against, incumbents and others who have sold Americans to the highest bidder. No President Bush indoctrination tomorrow, will stop me from seeing through his fat lies. As I said before, we must read the small print. 1500 more Border Patrol but did they allocate the money. 7 hundred miles of border fence, but are the funds there? Real National Guard troops on the border, but what is there duties? Just to observe? The minutemen chapters can do that? If our warmongers in Washington can spend 87 billion dollars on Iraq annually, then they can afford $10 billion to seal our borders. Our politicians are aware that American citizens are complacent, and soon forget about things such as immigration and the borders. This time there are too many eyes watching, because this is a national emergency.

This incompatibility has built up resentment from many citizens as they see their communities and lifestyles overwhelmed by impoverished, overcrowded, noisy, crime-prone influx of humanity. That synopsis is today! Tomorrow if amnesty zealot’s get their way, the terrible consequences to our country, can only defined as a living nightmare. More pollution on our highways, building overdevelopment, water shortages, financially drained hospital and social services and more and more foreign languages encroaching on our culture and traditions. Here are a few facts:

Each year, the world’s population jumps by 80 million. America’s population surges 3.3 million per year—almost all from third-world immigrants and their offspring By 2050, if current trends continue, America’s population will approach HALF A BILLION. California alone adds 600,000 annually By 2030, California will be saddled with 55 million crowded people. * An endless line is always waiting to enter America. Since the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, over 60 million have come here. And there are always more waiting with no end in sight The number of foreign-born in America has tripled since 1970. The average Mexican immigrant in his lifetime consumes $55,200 more in services than he pays in taxes. Legal and illegal immigrants sent $56 billion of our dollars abroad last year (2004)—$15 billion to Mexico, $25 billion to South America, and $16 billion to Asia. The drug cartels took another $100 billion. * Unlike America, Mexico has immigration laws that are very restrictive. It is pro-sovereignty and anti-bilingual. Illegals are quickly deported or imprisoned and receive no benefits. Mexofornia will ignite into a racial conflict, far beyond the Watt’s riots or anything we have ever seen this side of the Atlantic.

 
Written By: Dave Cullen
URL: http://
McQ:

The main point I am trying to make is that there is little Vincente Fox can do to restrict individuals’ right to travel.

The basic concept of national sovereignty means that a country enforces its own laws. Sure, countries can engage in cooperative agreements with other countries to assist in law enforcement, but it is the responsibility of each country to enforce its own laws.

If I decide to travel illegally to North Korea, should Bush be held responsible? Can Bush stop me from attempting to travel there? I don’t think anyone would answer in the affirmative. There is no qualitative difference between a US citizen travelling illegally to North Korea or a Mexican travelling illegally to the US. In both cases the receiving country has the obligation to deal with foreigners in accordance to their own immigration laws.
Take your Iceland example and tell me whether the first time your passport is checked is when you land in Iceland? And without it and the proper visa, tell me how successful you’d be in boarding the aircraft in the US.
I’ve never been to Iceland, but I travel to Canada four-five times a year and there is absolutely no checking in the US for your passport. Take a trip north on Interstate 5 and when you hit Blaine, WA, you can leave the US without any US border patrol/immigration officials asking for papers. You do have to pass through Canadian immigration and they can let you in or exclude you as you choose—since you are on their soverign territory. The US has absolutely no control over who goes north.
As most understand, these regimes are tyring to keep people in, not out. But that’s usually lost on those who stoop to these examples.
Isn’t that what you are implying Fox should be doing? Any attempt to restrict people from leaving their country is inherently subversive and antithetical to freedom.

This does not mean that countries have the right to restrict immigration and visitors, mind you. But if Bush told his own citizens they couldn’t go to Canada or if Tony Blair told his own citizens they couldn’t go to the Republic of Ireland, they would be rightly criticized. You seem to be asking Fox to do the same thing.
 
Written By: RangeRover
URL: http://aol.com
On your trips to Canada - are you usually swimming or hiking across at a point where there aren’t any U.S. observers? Are you crossing over into Canada where there are no Canadian border agents to ask the purpose of your trip and if you are employed in the U.S?

Do you feel that if Canada had a problem with illegal Americans sneaking continuously across her border, and complained to the US about it that we’d ignore it and wouldn’t try to stop it? Or do you feel that we’d provide maps to help them avoid the Canadian government law enforcement?

Do you suppose that we don’t currently try and stop you, or question you, because we currently don’t have a problem with millions of Americans sneaking illegally into Canada, and realistically never have?
If 10 million of us started heading north over the border, Canada’s response would be far more swift than ours has been.

One of the reasons you stop your own people from crossing a border is to protect THEM from what the guys on the other side might do to them when they cross over illegally. But since the average Mexican is going to get far better treatment from our average law enforcement officials than he will ever receive from his own, it’s not exactly something they worry about is it?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
But if Bush told his own citizens they couldn’t go to Canada or if Tony Blair told his own citizens they couldn’t go to the Republic of Ireland, they would be rightly criticized. You seem to be asking Fox to do the same thing.
I still think you are missing the point. Fox SHOULD be telling his people to not break the law. You said the Candien’s check you on your way north. You give them the opportunity to let you in legally. If MILLIONS of Americans were flooding over the border illegally into Canada, it would be perfectly acceptable for the POTUS to make public statements about it. And those statements should be in the negative.

I still want to see Congress discuss a law that is the english translation of how Mexico deals with illegal aliens.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
I still think you are missing the point. Fox SHOULD be telling his people to not break the law. You said the Candien’s check you on your way north. You give them the opportunity to let you in legally. If MILLIONS of Americans were flooding over the border illegally into Canada, it would be perfectly acceptable for the POTUS to make public statements about it.
First of all, it is the US government’s responsibility to deal with its domestic problems. Its a fundamental tenet of conservatism.

Secondly, Fox HAS been vocal in discouraging immigration. His statements to Jim Leherer are typical:
We want all of our paisanos, our beloved paisanos, respected paisanos, back to Mexico, because this is the people with courage, with talent that came here that are working and that they have gathered new knowledge and new levels of education -we want them back, and I invite every Mexican here, that they should go back not only for retirement - on the active lives, because each one of them that comes back to Mexico is a detonator of growth in his community.
The thing that he can’t do is physically stop people from travelling.

It is just stupid to blame Fox for what is essentially a structural problem. In fact, Fox has been trying to negotiate with Bush for a way to deal with immigration since Jan. 2001.

Bush, of course, has failed to do ANYTHING over the past 6 years. After having a few high-profile discussions with Fox early on in his first term, Bush dropped the ball and basically stopped high-level bilateral discussions.

After 6 years of inaction, Bush FINALLY decides that the issue merits some consideration. Of course the problem, is that he doesn’t have a clue how to deal with it and comes up with this stupid and ineffectual plan to "patrol the border."

Bush is much more at fault for not dealing with the issue of immigration than Fox. Why in the world would Americans expect the president of another country to act in our country’s interest. That is job for OUR President—unfortunately Bush has had his head in the clouds for years on this issue and he pathetically trying to do something symbolically.

It is typical of his incompetence.
 
Written By: RangeRover
URL: http://aol.com
But if Bush told his own citizens they couldn’t go to Canada or if Tony Blair told his own citizens they couldn’t go to the Republic of Ireland, they would be rightly criticized. You seem to be asking Fox to do the same thing.
You mean if Blair or Bush said they couldn’t go illegally (you keep forgetting that word for some reason) they’d be criticized? I doubt it.

Vincente Fox has encouraged illegal immigration into this country. He should, at the very least, retract that bit of advice, wouldn’t you say?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
maybe we’ll get to see him standing on the border, with a sign that says "mission accomplished"

Written By: Scott
LOL.
Yeah, yeah... And at the bottom of the sign in fine print reads,
"MADE IN CHINA"
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider