Apparently President Bush will have a "big" speech on immigration Monday night. Speculation is that Bush will announce the Pentagon will look at sending some token National Guard units to the border to help in "securing it".
This is a total shell game to fool the American public into thinking that he is listening to us and that he now wants the border secure. The reality is Bush and his handlers hope that this little placebo will make the American people roll over and start agreeing with his guest worker amnesty.
Unless the President announces that we're walling the border, increasing border patrol, are going to hunt down every illegal employer in this country without fail and cracking down on Mexican interference in our political system then it's all a bunch of bullshit.
I have faith that the American people will see through any sham that the President attempts to play on us Monday night, as they have seen through his shams of being able to identify which illegal aliens have been here for at least 5 years so that they can remain in the country under his amnesty plan.
Here's what others are saying on this and my take on them.
It really isn’t overtly feasible to guard a border that is thousands of miles long. The only true way to prevent illegals from entering America would be to erect a very large wall along the southern border. Of course, even still, illegals would find their way into America. It would be much tougher, but possible. Giving the military control over certain aspects of the border is a horrible idea. Troops could do a wonderful job of helping us find ways to secure the border, but to act in any manner at the border just opens the door to too many negatives.
Overall, this is just a horrible idea. It should be rethought and receive a major overhaul
I take exception to Hondo's comments above. It's almost as if the solution doesn't keep 100% of the illegals out it isn't worth it. It's basically saying "Well erecting a wall would reduce the number of illegals that cross the border every years from 3 million to 10,000, but they're still getting in!".
Let's sidestep the obvious argument that it's much easier to catch 10,000 illegal aliens a year than it is 3 million and jump right to the fact that this is the general argument of everyone against a wall. It is almost never about the cost -- which they bring up also over and over. It's also never about "America wants to be seen as an open country" because an open and inviting country doesn't mean you're open to letting an invasion of foreign nationals to illegally enter your country. It is always "Well it won't keep them all out".
The truth is that the cost of manning the border with troops for a few years could easily cover the costs of a wall. If you want to send troops to the border why not have them help in building a wall so that in a few years they can be withdrawn and replaced with a much smaller border patrol that reduces our costs overall in the long term?
Money aside, all of these arguments are "straw men" in favor of amnesty, a continued flood of illegal aliens and open borders.
Ideas float around in my head about giving them a "legal" status, but not citizenship. These "legal" workers, would then have to carry identification, pay the fines and learn English like we've heard in other proposed plans. But then they would be forced to pay taxes (this would come as a result of cracking down on businesses hiring illegals). Once set up to pay taxes, they would have to pay an extra say 5-15% "alien" tax. They would also never be elligable to receive social security, but they would absolutely pay in to it.
The only problem I see with this approach is that we can't track these people down now. What makes you think that they're going to voluntarily come forward and submit themselves to a 15% alien tax? Then having payroll taxes withheld from their pay and face other obstacles to employment when they can just buy false documents for a few hundred bucks and continue the way they are now. Under the table with no taxes taken out or heavily taxed which would they choose?
Outside The Beltway
It is a bedrock principle of American politics that the military does not get involved in domestic policing under any but the gravest of conditions. Peacetime standing armies were anathema until necessitated by the enduring Cold War. We even have a provision in the Bill of Rights precluding quartering of troops in private homes.
I personally believe this illegal invasion is a threat of the "gravest of conditions" for the future of this nation. Sending troops to the border as the only action though is just a token gesture that shows you're not serious about actually controlling the border and enforcing our laws.
Fact of the matter is the day we give illegals a damn thing is the day we have bowed to their demands and set ourselves up for future extortion. We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists and we shouldn't negotiate with blackmailing criminals that have broken into our country.
Bush will push a "vapor fence" and amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens. He will call this travesty "immigration reform," and continue to lecture us about "jobs Americans won't do." Of course Americans won't do them, not when they are competing for wages with slave laborers. He will make no mention of how much more it will cost taxpayers to give illegal aliens amnesty and the services that will inevitably come along with it. If you think illegals are net users of taxpayer money now, wait till you see what happens when you permit them to do so legally.
This is something that must be avoided at all costs by those who support a guest workers amnesty scheme. If any Americans who support this type of approach actually sat back and thought about the general costs associated with administering a program like that they would quickly realize that it is unworkable and just a sham to keep things the way they are now.
I am not hopeful about Monday's speech, here are my predictions...
The president will open with TALK about the need for enforcement, even as he personally works against it on a daily basis.
The President will TALK about the need for an orderly system to welcome aliens into this country when the GAO has already asserted no such system exists, nor will exist in the forseeable future.
The President will TALK about guest workers doing jobs Americans won't do, while never mentioning how exactly we will determine the veracity of greedy ass business owner claims.
I expect a lot of TALK on Monday, and the level of action we've come to expect from Vincente Fox's butt buddy.
Stop the ACLU
The hoopla over the use of military forces on domestic soil is a bunch of crap. Here’s the thing, we can no longer accept unregulated violations of our southern border. This is both an immigration issue and a matter of national security. In a post 9/11 world, national security issues trump all other concerns. At the present time, under the present conditions, a terrorist can enter any number of countries in South or Central America and enter via our porous, largely unchecked southern border.
Riehl World View
My concern over the Guard solution is that it would too easily be temporary in nature and we'd wind up with amnesty and an unprotected border as soon as the issue fades from the news. That is unacceptable.
Certainly that will win Bush some points with the conservative base which is concerned about illegal immigration, but as far as solutions go it is a band aid.
I agree with both takes above. It is all just something that the President can use as a tactic in the short term in order to push his amnesty legislation through.
I disagree with President Bush on immigration. He has the sequencing all wrong, as Newt Gingrich outlined earlier in a piece in NRO. He wants to create a guest worker program without closing off the border.
I can pretty much sum up what El Presidente is going to say in his Monday address. He’s said it all before:
I oppose amnesty, placing undocumented workers on the automatic path to citizenship.
Notice that Clintonian weasel word, “automatic.” Notice his unique definition of “amnesty.” “Undocumented workers” (or “illegal aliens” as they should properly be called) will not get “automatic” citizenship; therefore they’re not getting amnesty.
Instead they will be allowed to buy US citizenship for $2,000, provided they go “to the back of the line,” not the “front of the line”:
But what I do think makes sense is that a person ought to be allowed to get in line. In other words, pay a penalty for being here illegally, commit him or herself to learn English, which is part of the American system – (applause) – and get in the back of the line.
El Presidente is proposing to reward 20 million illegal invaders with US citizenship. Yet he’ll claim to oppose “amnesty.” This is not new; McCain and Kennedy claim to oppose “amnesty” too.
Great . . . if you need more fertilizer before bed-time. Is "24" going to be pre-empted for this? Give me Jack Bauer over George W., any day. New White House Press Sec Tony Snow claims, "This is crunch time" on immigration. No, it's well past that--years, decades past crunch time. It's lamentation and grieving time for our country.
The fact is, the Prez is not serious about it or he would have appointed someone who means business about stopping illegal aliens and sending them home. Instead, he appointed Michael Chertoff a/k/a "Mr. Burns" and The ICE Princess, Julie L. Myers, to head Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
It seems to me that we don’t necessarily have to put a division of National Guard ground-pounders on the border to get the job done, though I wouldn’t oppose it. ... But it’s good that the administration is getting the message. I just might have to stop calling the president Jorge Arbusto if he follows through with this.
I'm not so sure that he's "getting the message". I think he's simply looking for a short term solution to the current outrage. He's probably hoping that if he can reduce the outrage enough then he can hopefully get people to ignore the issue through the November elections.
All in all I don't expect President Bush to change his tune on immigration Monday night. One of the appealing things -- and at the same time most frustrating things -- about President Bush is that he makes a decision and sticks to it whether others think it is the right thing or not.