/ October 13, 2004 06:54 PM
Finally, A question on immigration! President Bush is just horrible on this issue and it is one of the major strikes against him for me. Now he just said he doesn't support amnesty. He doesn't get to the heart of the issue though, he continues the same rhetoric of adding a whopping 1000 border patrol agents, a little technology and the lame worker card program.
That stuff isn't working! You need to enforce the law, not just make excuses.
Kerry touches on the subject of middle easterners and over 4000 people crossing the border everyday. He vows to crack down on employers who hire illegals. He also went on to discuss biometric fingerprinting in order to know who is coming across.
While I applaud his comments on cracking down on employers, his fingerprinting thing is fine for the actual border, but the 4000 streaming across daily aren't going through the checkpoints. They're fence hoppers, lawbreakers and aren't going to be lining up for you to see who they are.
This problem is out of control and neither candidate is serious about it. They have a one paragraph memorized script they go by with no conviction behind it.
The sad thing is there was only one single question on immigration. The moderator prefaced the question by saying "I received the most email on this issue and next question", yet the candidates only spent maybe 4 minutes total on it.
Michelle Malkin's take on the immigration responses.
Others covering the debate:
Blogs of War
Ace of Spades
In Search of Utopia
A few More:
Right Moments debate reaction in pictures.
Right Journal on immigration.
Wes Roth has a nice roundup and counterpoints.
Crossposted to The Command Post
This entry is in the following archive(s):
Next and Previous Entries:
Posted by Digger on October 13, 2004 06:54 PM (Permalink)
For the past 5 years my favorite "win-the-lottery" fantasy has been to move to Washington, start a "think tank", hire the best lawyers I could find, and send them out to file suit against the executive branch of the U.S. government to force them to enforce the immigration laws. The theme, the talking points, the sales pitch would all be to force the issue: "Change or Enforce Current Immigration Laws". If they don't wanna enforce 'em, they have to change 'em. If they don't wanna change 'em, they gotta enforce 'em.
I'd call the organization CECIL--catchy, huh!!!???
Posted by: deona on October 13, 2004 07:18 PM
One of the more amazing statistics concerning immigration and border control is that over 60 percent of Americans want a more strict border patrol and some, myself included, want militarized borders.
Neither candidate said anything resembling one word that would actually help out this issue. Bush continues to imply it's a non-issue while Kerry made promises that are out of touch.
You brought up the fingerprint scans. Kerry also called for retinal scans. You can't scan someone to determine if they are who they say they are unless you already have that person on file. It just doesn't work any other way.
There was a drive in Kindergarten when I was there (yeah, yeah, a long 20+ years ago) where local police collected every student's fingerprint. If we can expand this idea to every single person that has entered this country legally without the ACLU going apeshit then we might be heading into the right direction.
Until we do the above or simply militarize our borders in an effort to stop illegals and drug traffickers, our borders will remain as pourus as swiss cheese.
I can personally attest to the border of Texas and Mexico being pourus. In every single trip down to Mexico and back, I was never stopped once near the border after the initial check. Keep in mind this is a very baren region where illegals routinely catch rides already inside of Texas to other portions of the state. They have Border Patrol stations, but they do not check.
Posted by: Chad Evans on October 13, 2004 08:25 PM
So what do we do exactly?
Pull the National Guard out of Iraq and Afghanistan to guard the border? 1000 additional law enforcement isn't enough? What about 10,000 or 100,000? What's that going to cost?
I too am digusted with this problem that's gotten out of control, but the problem is more like an earthquake or a tidal wave and not something where you make a wish and it comes true.
What's a good specific plan and what will it cost?
Posted by: Steve on October 14, 2004 12:42 AM
Oh hell, lets just put up a fence. I don't live near a border, I'm thinking many of you may. I agree something needs to be done and no, in four minutes. Do you think (possibly) Kerry reported "middle eastern" people being seen at the border because it's A. True or B. suited his need of the moment?
I'm not saying it's NOT a huge matter, and doesn't need to be addressed- only that in the context it was raised, it's merely a political move.
What WOULD be the best way to address it? You can't fingerprint and retinally scan people sneaking over in the middle of the desert! The drones seem like a good idea IF you have a patrol nearby to catch them. Frankly, the best thing I heard was to FINE the employers for illegally employing undocumented aliens. Seems to me THAT would be the best use of the existing laws. Make it COST more to hire illegals than it saves- if they come across and there is NO job, they'll stop. Then you can begin to address the "middle easterners" who surely would stand out among those crossing. And what of the Canadian border? THere's an awful lot of unguarded territory there, and would be MUCH easier to cross I should think...
Posted by: AnArmyMom on October 14, 2004 04:03 AM
Good Job on the post. Its sad. I too commented on the candidates lack of substance in my debate commentary. This is an issue that is dear to us as we live only 8 miles north of the border here in southern California. There is no difference now than before 9/11. There is an increase in rhetoric, but illegal immigrants continue to POUR accross the border here in rural Imperial County. Prediction: No matter who wins, nothing will be DONE.
Posted by: EdWonk on October 14, 2004 07:38 AM
Probably too emotional an issue to solve easily, but I have to go first with the idea, "If it's the Law either Enforce it or change it!" The politicians won't touch it because they fear ailenating the Hispanic vote. And for the life of me, I don't understand that sector's objection to any Immigration control that is proposed on our southern borders. The Hispanics go nuts everytime we even talk of controlling border crossings from Mexico, and should you talk about it in the presence of a Hispanic on this side of the Rio Grande, you're singled out as a Racist.
These are the same people who discriminate against "Mujows" ( pronounced Moo-hows), bad mouthing them locally and discriminating against them generally. But to suggest that as an "Illegal" they shouldn't be here . . the same American Hispanic will call you a "Racist with an Agenda".
When the politicians begin to have enough spine to enforce the Laws we now have on the books, we may see something change, but don't hold your breath. But whatever you do . . Don't piss off the mexicans!
Posted by: large on October 15, 2004 10:18 AM
"When the politicians begin to have enough spine to enforce the Laws we now have on the books, we may see something change"
That's the whole point about bringing suit against the executive branch. Isn't it true that a citizen can sue the executive branch for failure to perform its duty? If so, then both the President and the Congress would be off the hook -- "Gosh, we're sorry, Juan, but the courts have ordered us to enforce these immigration laws, or change them. I can't get anybody in Congress to vote to eliminate the laws on illegal immigration, so, gosh, I simply have no choice but to see that the laws are enforced. Maybe you and your friends could write in letters to your Congressmen and try to talk them into changing the law!"
Oh, how beeeyoootiful that would be to watch as it played out. You just KNOW that the laws would start being enforced! The President would be off the hook, but members of congress wouldn't dare change the laws to suit illegal immigrants.
Posted by: deona on October 15, 2004 12:47 PM
Years ago, probably back when, the Legislature made a law that says you can't sue the Government unless they say you can . . Catch 22!
But it'd be a great Idea! Lets see if John Edwards will take the case!
Posted by: large on October 16, 2004 10:03 AM
I can't believe it's that simple when the law-enforcement branch of government simply ignores its responsibility to enforce the law.
What you're saying is that if Bush gets elected, and wants to REALLY give us a tax cut, all he has to do is order the IRS to quit enforcing the tax laws? Hey, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad idea!
Seriously, I don't think he could get away with that. If you're right, then the only recourse would be impeachment? But if thats the case, what if a majority of congress won't impeach? There's gotta be some sort of remedy available through the courts.
Posted by: deona on October 16, 2004 10:39 AM