[tater_salad]

I woke up today to the news talking about President Bush calling on the troops to secure the U.S. Border with Mexico. (I thought I was dreaming at first).

Thoughts?

[Biker]

Bush has already stated that they're temporary (www.drudgereport.com) .
He's just trying to gain support for his guest worker program/amnesty.

Biker

[RocketMan]

Count me as cynical. It's window dressing, some simple logistical support for the Border Patrol that will have little practical effect.

[WeedWhacker]

The issue is usually that the deployment of active duty troops anywhere within the USA's borders is unconstitutional (hm, can't remember where - just illegal, then?) and threatening to civilians.

However, I'd heard that the troops were going to be Guard members, which is fine, as they're assigned to the state, as I recall. Technicalities, yes, but important ones.

[tater_salad]

I heard they're posted there to prevent the flood of illegals we will have when they get pardoned. again. :uhoh: :evil:

[griz]

His speech tonight will have some comment about the troops and "getting tough" on securing the border. That will allow him to claim his plan is something other than simple amnesty. After it passes he can pull the troops back out and go back to business as usual.
Please explain to me again how Bush is different than the Democrats?

[Helmetcase]

Temporary? Until when? Until Mexico isn't a 3rd world country without the basic public services, robust economy, and opportunities found in modern, industrialized countries? Until there are no more people there who find coming here illegally to be a better choice than staying put?

Kinda like the Iraq thing is "temporary" I guess.

You'll try anything when post-Watergate Nixon is more popular than you are. :evil:

[Camp David]

I woke up today to the news talking about President Bush calling on the troops to secure the U.S. Border with Mexico. (I thought I was dreaming at first). Thoughts?

It's an improvement over his past border policy and much better than anything being recommended by Dems.... while I don't believe Bush will go far enough the National Guard militarizing the border is what we should have done on 09/11/01 and I give the President high marks for finally getting the message! No illegals no more!

[Ira Aten]

Read Article I, Section VII, sentences four, fifteen, and sixteen, and then also Article IV, the last paragraph, and it specifically states how invasion at a border is to be handled.

The National Guard is not the Militia now, nor never has been. Congress has the power to organize, and raise one, specifically because they did NOT want an Army to do that, they wanted a Militia to do that.

The military, is not to be used for police/civilain law enforcement, but if you read the Article I, Section Eight closely, you will see that the Militia is to "enforce the laws of the Union" related to border invasions. If you read Article IV, last sentence, you will see that it is PROMISED.

It is straightforward as can be. However, when you get militarization of the border for law enforcement, then you start making the words of people like Alex Jones, seem credible.

[griz]

It's an improvement over his past border policy and much better than anything being recommended by Dems.... while I don't believe Bush will go far enough the National Guard militarizing the border is what we should have done on 09/11/01 and I give the President high marks for finally getting the message! No illegals no more!

Do you really think he wants to reduce the million or so illegals who get in every year? If he did, I think he would have acted before now. As for the Democrat's plans, here is one:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060420-121647-1179r.htm
I don't think he is representative of the party, but then I don't think Bush is either.

[stevelyn]

Election year posturing.....window dressing to give the appearance something of substance is being done.:barf:

The Minutemen and Ranch Rescue's successes have been an embarrassment for the .gov.

The .gov is responding by appearing to do something as if they'd been planning to all along.:rolleyes:

[Erebus]

The military, is not to be used for police/civilain law enforcement, but if you read the Article I, Section Eight closely, you will see that the Militia is to "enforce the laws of the Union" related to border invasions. If you read Article IV, last sentence, you will see that it is PROMISED.

That would involve armed private citizens confronting illegals. I say armed because if they are going to confront illegals they better be armed or they will in some instances be dead.

The last thing the gov wants is to give the citizens a reason to arm themselves. It is in complete opposition to everything they have been indoctrinating for decades. Thus they HAVE to use the military as civilian law enforcement cannot handle it. Could the minutemen if their ranks were large enough? Quite possibly if they have the authority to arrest and detain, or at least stop and turn back. And the minutemen are all volunteer and are doing it for free. But the gov would never turn to a well organized militia like that. Even though that is exactly what 2A refers to. I see nothing in 2A that says that the militia must be organized by the government.

[Hawkmoon]

IANAL but I don't see using the military to secure the borders against foreign invasion as a violation of posse comitatus. I do see this as grandstanding ... the Pentagon is thinking a minimum of 10,000 troops (which I think is woefully inadequate), and El Presidente is saying it won't take nearly that many. It's like an instant replay of pre-Iraq, when retired General Shinseki (sp?) said we would need at least 300,000 troops on the ground, Secretary "Big Donny" Rumsfeld said 100,000 would be enough ... so the General was quietly retired and the result is now history.

Bush doesn't want to secure the border, he wants to do a smoke and mirrors act to convince voters that he is doing something. The "troops" he is proposing will be "logistical support" for the Border Patrol. What does that mean? Motor pool? Clerk typists? Radio operators? It's BS -- we need active, armed militart patrols along the entire length of the border.

Don't be fooled by this for a moment.

[HankB]

Securing the borders against foreign incursions is a legitimate purpose for a sovereign nation's armed forces.

My question is - if the National Guard is sent to secure the border, will they be issued weapons, live ammo, and given Rules of Engagement that actually allow them to be useful down there, or is their purpose simply a "photo op" for El Presidente Bush, with their main mission being something like rescue, aid, and assistance of illegals who run out of water when crossing the desert?

If the Guardsmen are not there ready, willing, and able to use force to secure the border, then it's just a big publicity stunt, a "smoke and mirrors" show, which will backfire - badly - and thoroughly sink the GOP's chances in the '06 and '08 elections.

[WT]

Bush is grandstanding. Once he gets his vote thru Congress he will order the National Guard home.

The guy makes me gag.

Back during WWI, the NJ National Guard was called up to protect the Texas border against invasion because the Texans wouldn't do it. I guess nothing has changed in 90 years.

I think Hillary would be tougher on illegal immigration.

[Camp David]

when you get militarization of the border for law enforcement, then you start making the words of people like Alex Jones, seem credible.

So what can be done now? Specifically, the fault of all these illegal aliens lies with the INS, who have not done their jobs relative to control of immigration. The president, acting after the fact, is addressing the specific request of citizens to control the southern border. Whether he does it with militia, state National Guard forces, or the 101st Airborne, is his choice since we are currently at war. If we were at peace, your point would be valid. We are at war. The president's authority while nation is at war is very different than his authority while nation is at peace.

I think Hillary would be tougher on illegal immigration.

:) Funny stuff!

[22-rimfire]

First I just have to say "I don't know." We absolutely must control our borders. I believe the Border Patrol folks (Immigation) need to take the lead role as the agency is federalized. The fence will piss off Mexico, but it needs to happen.

I don't think the National Guard should be involved other than for the first year or so. These people have lives in addition to serving in the National Guard. They are not law enforcement people and were not intended for that purpose. I also don't think National Guard troops were intended to be on active duty for years at a time such as we are seeing now. We need more regular troops, but that is another topic.

Bush has not made his speech yet, but I find it interesting how the states have come out against using the National Guard since the authority to move National Guard troops rests with the Governors. My guess is that it is all about money and funding the program.

Guest worker program is fine or whatever you want to call it, but it is essentially a work visa. But, it should NOT be a one-way ticket to citizenship. The guest workers need to go through the same process as everyone else to permanently immigate into the US. The illegals should have 6 months to get their work visa's and after that they are jailed. To make this effective, the border has to be manned, effectively patrolled, and a fence built as a deterent. After the program goes into effect, enforcement becomes more aggessive and criminal penalties must be imposed otherwise the program (laws) will have little effect.

[Ira Aten]

Quote
"I see nothing in 2A that says that the militia must be organized by the government.
"

I was not talking about the second, I was talking about Articles I, and Articles IV. Article IV promises that the United States would protect against invasion. The only other reference to the manner in which to do it, is Article I, Section VII. It specifies, the MILITIA, not the army, to enforce laws of the Union. People are missing the point about being at war. Congress, has not delcared war against illegal aliens entering the country, but they have declared they intend to address the manner in LAW.

The only actual Constitutional method, is described in the referenced Articles above. The fact that they don't trust Americans, is quite telling. The founders were very specific about all "officers" of a militia, being appointed by the States. They wanted locals, in order that any chances of armed oppression by the Government (remember New Orleans gun confiscations anyone?) did not occur.

Putting the Guard on the Border, equates to militarization, for enforcement of a civil law, and that is NOT a good course. You have people monitoring your calls, your computer, and now you have a suggestion that we toss the entire Constitution out, simply because politicians PURPOSELY have created the influx of 12 million illegals, coming in to vote/feed off the Government tit.

That is the problem in a nutshell. We are being CONNED when we are now, all of a sudden told, "Oh, gee, we have a border problem. Let's send in Armed employees of the Federal Government to make sure there is adherence to law."

I would rather trust my neighbors than I would some fellow from New Jersey I have never met before, to maintain civil law myself. The army's job is to break things and kill people upon order of their commander, unless it is "unconstituitonal". Since the Constitution says it is Unconstitutional, then it is pretty much Unconstitutional in my humble opinion. The militia's job was set forth as "enforcing the laws of the Union" during an invasion, so it seems clear to me when you have twelve (or twenty) million people arbitrarily crossing the border, and shooting at your law enforcement officers, you have an apparant problem that needs to be dealt with.

If we send the National Guard down there, after the shooting of the American Civilian in El Paso (many will remember the seventeen year old boy gathering goats and plinking with his .22 on his family's own land) by a Marine engaged in law enforcement (drug patrol) there is no controlling civil authority for which to provide remedy. However, a militia person has to be very, very careful due to the lawsuit that would take every single possession he owns.

A soldier has the government to back his legal/illegal action. So in my opinion, that is exactly why the guys smarter than me (and obviously smarter than our sitting government representatives) wrote the thing the way they did.

[RealGun]

Why would the NG be less effective than the Minutemen? I still say deployment of the NG is intended to displace the Minutemen, no more no less.

Don't kid yourself. There isn't going to be any shooting along the border...at least not started by the Americans. There is not and will not be any resolve to shoot, bomb, or mine men, women, and children crossing the border.

[WT]

Ira - I don't want to see NJNG troops on the Texas border. They are just returning from Iraq and are very adept at dealing out death and destruction. They could use a break from that routine.

I AM challenging Texans to take back control of their state. Sam Houston and the Defenders of the Alamo must be rolling in their graves over what is happening now.

PS: a guy from 'Joisey' was at the Alamo. 'Joisey' has a long history protecting Texas.

[Lone_Gunman]

This is an election year.

The vast majority of Americans want the border controlled, either by using the military, national guard, or border patrol.

The Republicans are afraid they will lose the November elections unless they look like they are doing something about it.

Its just election year politics, folks. Bush has pulled this kind of crap before to entice voters. Remember the 2004 elections? Bush made a huge issue out of gay marriage. Republicans in many states put propositions out to amend the state constitutions to prevent gay marriage. The effect was to draw everyone who was remotely religious out to vote against gay marriage, and while they were there, of course they also voted for Bush. Have you heard about gay marriage since then from Bush??

He makes me gag. He will do the same thing with the border. He will put out troops right before election time, so the conservative Republican base will feel like he has done something, but when the elections are over, he will back off.

[Ira Aten]

WT:

A guy from Jersey may, or may not have been at the Alamo. Dr. Ameila William's doctorate (which compiled the Alamo defender list in 1936, for the monument in the Plaza, and for the Daughters of the Republic of Texas list, or "Honor Roll" relied soley on Land Grant applications from relatives and witness statements after the war, and ignored the voting lists that were at her disposal to research, but were ignored..

So since the Alamo muster roll voting list for the delegates voted to represent Bexar (San Antonio) at the convention at Washington on the Brazos show people who were there that never made it on Dr. Williams list, and land grant applications were sought by many who swore an individual was there, simply to aquire some land for free.

So there are some folks listed on the monument/roll as being there who were definitely not there (documents showing those folks survived and were later shown to be alive) and some folks who were there, that did not get listed, since if they had no relatives to file for a land grant claim for services in the war, that did not make it on the list.

However, your point is well taken, that a guy from Pennsylvania may have MOVED to Texas, and BECAME a Texan, and had some reason to care what happened to, and in, Texas.

A guy that lives in New Jersey, or anywhere else in the U.S., has less interest in a specific community, than someone who lives IN the community.

See the point?

[22-rimfire]

"Its just election year politics, folks. Bush has pulled this kind of crap before to entice voters. " It sure is! Both parties do the same thing prior to elections. It is not a Bush or Republican tactic. BUT, that does not alter the fact that something needs to be done. This un-controlled "immigration" reminds me of the movie "End of Days". The difference in the movie is that US citizens were migrating in mass into the warmer Mexico. We had to make a deal. Lets start controlling the borders and then we can make a deal. Lets see... oil? drug enforcement? human rights? paying a livable wage in Mexico?

[garyk/nm]

"The Great Poodle and Shetland Extravaganza of '06"
Classic misdirection. This will gets the public's attention focused away from the Senate, who is getting ready to jam a very large amnesty suppository up our collective butts.
As soon as that happens, the NG will be removed from the border.

Color me cynical.

[Biker]

Well said, Gary. Check out what Malkin has to say on the matter.

www.michellemalkin.com/archives/005190.htm

Biker

[Lennyjoe]

12-18 months, no arrest power, used to build infastructure and are used only in a supporting role to free up border patrol. That's what they are saying on Foxnews.

Sounds like they will be changing oil, tires and setting up a soup kitchen for the border patrol guys so they can concentrate on border security. I think it's grandstanding as well but we will see.

BTW, Foxnews just had a story on send a brick to congress. Guess that is getting some visibility too. Good!

[Ira Aten]

Quote from WT
"Back during WWI, the NJ National Guard was called up to protect the Texas border against invasion because the Texans wouldn't do it. I guess nothing has changed in 90 years."


WT:

Texan's wouldn't do it? First, if you have studied any border history below the Nueces strip, you will see that Texans fought single handedly against Border "Bravos" who were being supplied and encouraged by both the German, and Japanese government. We fought raids on ranches using the Rangers, volunteer posses, (see historical books by W.P. Webb, W.W. Sterling, etc.) and finally, the Federal Government finally sent help, since we had single handedly fought this border battle, ever since L.H. McNelly's "Washington County Mounted Volunteers", or "Texas Ranger Company" went into Las Cuevas after Captain King's cattle back in 1875, all the way up to, and including during, the "Plan of San Diego" border crisis backed by Germany and Japan during WW I.

To say Texans wouldn't fight the border war, shows a vapid lack of information about this subject. It would compare to a Texan saying we had to front a bunch of money to fight Al Queda, because New York/New Jersy residents didn't have the courage to fight back.

I am personal friends with an elderly lady who lives on land next to me, who was hidden away under a seat in a passenger train down near MacAllen Texas, while Pancho Villa's raiders, robbed and pillaged a train she was in as a child. Nobody was there to help her from Jersey then. Nobody was with the approximately 170 Gringos who were killed during the border war, except Texans until after a CONGRESSIONAL HEARING had taken place in Washington.

It wasn't like the U.S. Government rode to the rescue instantaneously. That is for damned sure. It took several years to finally get Washington to realize that Texans had been, and were then under, a concerted Planned attack, backed by Germany and Japan. In hearing testimony, it was finally proven that the Border raiders would not harm any "Aleman" or oriental, but would kill any gringo they could get to who was unfortunate enough to be caught unarmed, or outnumbered during 1914, until 1918 when the border conflict finally slowed down.

But to this very day, there are not many Texans (Nor New Jersy folks for that matter) who would want to be caught by themselves in South Texas, working on a windmill or in a broke down truck, within two or three miles of the river.

[Art Eatman]

WT & Ira: Odds are it was a red-tape squabble over authority and funding, and not about any "willingness to fight". In WW I, Texas didn't have nearly the amount of royalty income from oil that it had later on. Travel was still pretty doggoned difficult and slow.

Art

[RealGun]

By giving the raspberries to Bush sending NG troops to the borders is another example of how this administration can't be allowed to do anything right. There is a demand for border enforcement, but it is somehow inconceivable that any effort in that regard should be complimented.:confused:

[Biker]

The troops were needed on the border years ago, RealGun, and now Bush, when he needs support for his Guest Amnesty Program, just now decides that it's time to shore up the border with the NG and states that they are temporary?
Say hi to the Easter Bunny and Santa for me if you're buying this load of BS.;)
Biker

[HankB]

There is a demand for border enforcement, but it is somehow inconceivable that any effort in that regard should be complimented.RealGun, initial reports are that there really isn't "any effort in that regard" - that's the problem.

[Camp David]

The troops were needed on the border years ago

Agreed.

and now Bush, when he needs support for his Guest Amnesty Program, just now decides that it's time to shore up the border with the NG

He hasn't so stated yet. Speech is this evening.

and states that they are temporary? Say hi to the Easter Bunny and Santa for me if you're buying this load of BS.

I prefer to give the man credit for finally acting and encourage more action. Condemning such action somehow might send the wrong message, unless of course you're with Ed Kennedy and wish to defend the rights of these "undocumented workers" as he calls the illegal aliens! We've waited years for the government to get this far and admit there is a problem and send troops to fix it! Let's not shoot the horse before the race eh?

[longeyes]

Talk radio and the Web have already unmasked the whole bloody charade. If Bush thinks he's going to fool anyone except the chronic sleepers he's wacko. This is going to backfire on him bigtime when people see that the Guard is just being used as a political ploy and that Bush is nothing but a manipulator.

What I see happening with the National Guard on the border is that they are being used for nation-building, only this time the nation they are building is the New America with its more useful demographics for the vote-grubbers and the labor exploiters.

[longeyes]

Reform bill to double immigration
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published May 15, 2006
Advertisement
The immigration reform bill that the Senate takes up today would more than double the flow of legal immigration into the United States each year and dramatically lower the skill level of those immigrants.
The number of extended family members that U.S. citizens or legal residents can bring into this country would double. More dramatically, the number of workers and their immediate families could increase sevenfold if there are enough U.S. employers looking for cheap foreign labor. Another provision would grant humanitarian visas to any woman or orphaned child anywhere in the world "at risk of harm" because of age or sex.
The little-noticed provisions are part of legislation co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel Martinez of Florida, which overcame some early stumbles and now has bipartisan support in the Senate. The bill also has been praised by President Bush, and he is expected to endorse it as a starting point for negotiations in his prime-time address to the nation tonight
All told, the Hagel-Martinez bill would increase the annual flow of legal immigrants into the U.S. to more than 2 million from roughly 1 million today, scholars and analysts say.
These proposed increases are in addition to the estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens already in the U.S. whom the bill would put on a path to citizenship. These figures also do not take into account the hundreds of thousands of additional immigrants who would be admitted to the U.S. each year under the guest-worker program that is part of the bill.
"If there is anyone left in the world, we would accept another 325,000 through the guest-worker program in the first year," said NumbersUSA's Rosemary Jenks, who supports stricter immigration laws.
The numbers have emerged only recently as opponents studied the hastily written 614-page bill in the five weeks since it was first proposed. It quickly stalled over Democratic refusal to allow consideration of any amendments to the bill, but debate resumes today after Senate leaders reached a compromise on the number of amendments.
"Immigration is already at historic levels," said Ms. Jenks. "This would double that at least."
The figures have been provided by Ms. Jenks, the Heritage Foundation and several Senate lawyers who have studied the bill since it was proposed.
One of the most alarming aspects of the bill, they say, are the provisions that drastically alter not only how many but also which type of workers are ushered into the country.
Historically, the system that grants visas to workers has been slanted in favor of the highly educated and highly skilled.
Currently, a little less than 60 percent of the 140,000 work visas granted each year are reserved for professors, engineers, doctors and others with "extraordinary abilities." Fewer than 10 percent are set aside for unskilled laborers. The idea has always been to draw the best and the brightest to America.
Under the Senate proposal, those priorities would be flipped.
The percentage of work visas that would go to the highly educated or highly skilled would be cut in half to about 30 percent. The percentage of work visas that go to unskilled laborers would more than triple. In hard numbers for those categories, the highest skilled workers would be granted 135,000 visas annually, while the unskilled would be granted 150,000 annually.
What's more, the Hagel-Martinez bill would make it considerably easier for unskilled workers to remain here permanently while keeping hurdles in place for skilled workers. It would still require highly skilled workers who are here on a temporary basis to find an employer to "petition" for their permanent residency but it would allow unskilled laborers to "self-petition," meaning their employer would not have to guarantee their employment as a condition on staying.
Slanting immigration law in favor of the unskilled and uneducated would be costly, said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has just completed a study on the impact of immigration and the new Senate bill.
"College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government's finances, with their taxes exceeding the government's costs," wrote Mr. Rector, who will release his findings today at a press conference with Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican.
"By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers," he added. "This is important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high-school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty."
The flood of unskilled workers could cause other problems as well, opponents say.
Because they would be allowed to "self-petition," their obtaining permanent residency here would bypass the Department of Labor, which currently monitors immigration to ensure that American workers are not displaced by foreign immigrant labor.
But the greatest cost to the U.S. may not be the unskilled workers who immigrate here in the future, but the ones who are already here illegally.
Mr. Rector estimates that the Senate bill would grant citizenship to between 9 million and 10 million illegal aliens. If allowed to become citizens, those immigrants would be permitted to bring their entire extended family, including any elderly parents.
"The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more," Mr. Rector said. "In the long run, the [Hagel-Martinez] bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years."

[KINGMAX]

Start collecting a Border Tax both coming in and going out. Start supporting the US government when they first arrive, make sure we collect the State and Federal Income Tax prior to returning to ol' Mexico. Put a stop to draining the resources of the small border towns. I don't mind anyone trying to better themselves, but they should not take away from me or my country to do so.

[longeyes]

I don't mind anyone trying to better themselves, but they should not take away from me or my country to do so.


If anything like what we've seen actually becomes law, you've only seen the first five minutes of the movie.

[RealGun]

Deploying NG resources helps fill the shortfall while numbers of new Border Patrol personnel are recruited. Those new BP numbers or the funding for it are part of the pending legislation. It seems likely that many of the new BP recruits will be NG returning from duty in Iraq or otherwise rolling out of active duty. Even Minutemen could be candidates.

[longeyes]

You mean the Welcome Patrol, don't you?

After the new law passes we won't have a border to "patrol." Why bother when it's everybody-come-on-in? What are we talking about here?

This is way too big a problem to deal with by using a small force of "police."

[RealGun]

So we shouldn't put anybody on the border? All this nay saying gets silly after awhile.

[longeyes]

It goes without saying that we need force applied on the border.

Of course that will, that force begins in Washington, D.C., not at the dividing line between the U.S. and Mexico. What good is putting a lot of uniformed bodies on the border if you have no intention of really using them to stop the invasion? Bush has already assured Fox there's nothing to worry about--what do you think he was trying to tell him? Come on.

[RealGun]

Obviously, Vincente Fox was being assured that troops amassing along the Mexican border or news in that regard were not a threat to Mexico nor was it an expression of hostility toward Mexico. Some assurance of how captured intruders were to be properly treated and processed was likely included.

[longeyes]

Fox knew before he called we weren't "hostile" toward Mexico or planning an invasion. His concern was that illegal immigrants might actually be repelled. Good to know our President reassured him, huh?

The grim fact remains: this IS an invasion, and it may be the first time in history that a nation's leadership WELCOMED an invasion.

[Ira Aten]

Fox wasn't worried about us being a threat TO Mexico, he was concerned we would repel the threat FROM Mexico.

Bush assured him, by sending the National Guard, (being that they are Constitutional bound NOT to be involved) it would be pure window dressing.

In the meantime, the "Trans Texas Corridor" is being planned and the execution of re-establishing a "New World Order", like his pop referred to, is on the way.

The Trans-Texas Corridor, owned and operated by the King of Spain, will be somthing upon completion. Really something.

[ApexinM3]

This is pure BS, plain & simple. As a former republican (the lack of caps was not an accident), I'm disgusted with the way the current administration is handling this. I have said before & will emphisize again: I have no problem with immigration or immigrents. It is the ones that do so illegally and with no intentions of ever assimilating themselves into this countries culture. These are the ones causing problems. :cuss: :cuss:

Active enforcement of the exsisting laws would solve most of the problems, or at least cutail them. Though that would require budgeting and so on...:banghead: :banghead:

[Davo]

Feel Good Legislation. It will make the soccer moms sleep better.

[Lone_Gunman]

By giving the raspberries to Bush sending NG troops to the borders is another example of how this administration can't be allowed to do anything right.

Come on give me a break here. Unless you are employed by the Republican Party, I don't see how you can stick up for him any longer.

Sending the NG to the border 6 months before an election is nothing but political maneuvering.

You are correct, though. At this point there is very little that Bush could do that I would consider "right". He has screwed up so much for so long that at this point, anything he proposes I would view with a jaundiced eye. And I voted for him twice!!

If he had sent the troops there shortly after 9-11, I would have supported him. At this point (5 yrs later) its obviously nothing but a political tactic.

Let us hope that the Republican monopoly on power is broken in November, or woe be unto our country. Gridlock is the only remaining friend we have.

[Waitone]

Sounds like the boy just pulled a Full Clinton. Lots of fuss and feathers and little substance.

I would love to know what is causing him to finger his base. Money, power, women, legacy, greed, stupidity, arrogance, principal, religious conviction, what? Whatever he is reacting to has to be powerful for him to flip off his base.

[hank327]

Bush's plan to move the Guard to the border is BS. A feel good sop thrown to the conservative base to show that G.W. is "working hard" to solve the illegal immigration problem. The Guard will have NO enforcement role in stopping the flood of illegals into the US. There will be NO Guard units patrolling the border.
There will be NO Guard LP/OPs watching for illegals crossing into the US and then calling Border Patrol units to catch them. I heard on CNN that the Guard units won't even be armed!!!:eek:

The Guard will only be doing support work like repairing fences, building roads,
and shuffling paper work! I bet that will stop the flood of illegals in it's tracks! :rolleyes: This is political grandstanding at it's best/worst...

[eghad]

LOL.....

Calling out the National Guard :scrutiny: till the furor dies down and till the election in Nov is over. :cuss:

[NCP24]

After the new law passes we won't have a border to "patrol." Why bother when it's everybody-come-on-in?You got that right! The entire speech was blah blah blah blah Mexicans have a right to be here. . . . . what ever!

[longeyes]

What motivates Bush? He must be about His Father's Business. He has the New World Order confused with some sermon he heard in childhood. He is nation-building again: Mexamerica.

It will make the soccer moms sleep better.

Soccer moms are well medicated. And what Bush is purveying is one more mother's little helper.