rock jock
Member
Good point, ahenry. I will try to be patient and encourage others to do the same.
And they don't want us to pack in national parks...
- Thread starter longeyes
- Start date
- Status
longeyes
member
"What exactly have you done that makes you so positive that no steps
are being taken to deal with this issue? You do seem awfully sure of yourself;
surely you have researched matters..."
I live in the heart of Los Angeles and I am neither blind nor deaf. How's that? Whatever's being done, my friend, it ain't workin'. My city and my state are well on their way toward utter insolvency, with no small part of that owed to steady increases in demands on the social welfare structure.
If Mr. Bush really wanted to start turning the ship around, he could, with one forceful speech defending sovereignty, opposing give-aways of public monies, and proposing some kind of fair and progressive immigration policy that is compassionate not only to "migrants" but to American citizens and taxpayers. As we have seen, he's certainly capable of pounding the dais and talking from the heart, when the purpose matches his values. I infer from his actions that he has no intention of slowing down the influx let alone stopping it. I'm wagering that we will see him propose an amnesty for illegals prior to the '04 Election. My view is that while taking strong and necessary steps abroad, GWB is being undone at home by his own desire for votes and what looks to this observer like a bad case of upper-class guilt.
are being taken to deal with this issue? You do seem awfully sure of yourself;
surely you have researched matters..."
I live in the heart of Los Angeles and I am neither blind nor deaf. How's that? Whatever's being done, my friend, it ain't workin'. My city and my state are well on their way toward utter insolvency, with no small part of that owed to steady increases in demands on the social welfare structure.
If Mr. Bush really wanted to start turning the ship around, he could, with one forceful speech defending sovereignty, opposing give-aways of public monies, and proposing some kind of fair and progressive immigration policy that is compassionate not only to "migrants" but to American citizens and taxpayers. As we have seen, he's certainly capable of pounding the dais and talking from the heart, when the purpose matches his values. I infer from his actions that he has no intention of slowing down the influx let alone stopping it. I'm wagering that we will see him propose an amnesty for illegals prior to the '04 Election. My view is that while taking strong and necessary steps abroad, GWB is being undone at home by his own desire for votes and what looks to this observer like a bad case of upper-class guilt.
Then, I daresay my handle on illegal immigration is significantly greater than yours. It would behoove you to at least try and do some research into the issue. Expand your knowledge base...
I agree. I suggest you look at what your state has done to contribute to the problem first though. Both for practical reasons as it’s easier to influence change at the state level, and for accuracy reasons since California has hurt California on illegal immigration far worse the Fed Gov’t has hurt California. Since when did the solutions to a states problem require Federal intervention? Especially when a large part of the problem is of that states own making?
The success of the bully pulpit is a tenuous thing. Regardless of your assessment of the success of such a tactic, the fact that he has not chosen your particular “plan†hardly means the issue is being ignored. As I delineated in a prior post, illegal immigration is far from a back burner issue despite the lack of implementation your personal pet plan.
He certainly can. He can also handle various issues in other ways as well, for instance his handling of North Korea. Not every issue requires the same method of resolving. Not making an issue of it now doesn’t mean its being ignored, as you are fond trying to claim. As soon as Bush starts “pounding the dais†on illegal immigration there will be a political battle on the issue, by not doing so he is more able to quietly take the steps he deems necessary to deal with it. Did you read my extremely partial list of those steps? Do you doubt their veracity? Do you contend that those steps are not being taken with the purpose of dealing with illegal immigration?
That is just silly. His actions, which we always point to as a better gauge of intent than “mere†words, should tell you the exact opposite. That they don’t tells me that you aren’t interested in anything other than your personal solution to the issue. I should note that my personal solution to the issue is also different then the Presidents (and yours, BTW). However, I am willing to look at all the facts and draw a conclusion on them rather than looking at whether or not my pet ideas are being implemented.
longeyes
member
Ahenry,
I have read your posts. I am sorry to report that I remain unimpressed by the supposedly vigorous (but somehow cryptic) steps that you contend this Administration is taking to counter illegal immigration. I'll say it again: if Bush wanted to turn the tide, he could use the bully pulpit and expend some of that storehouse of political capital he has accumulated. It's clear that either he doesn't get it or he doesn't care. There's some reason he can't devote a few minutes to discussing why general acceptance of the matricula consular might not be the greatest idea in the world? Well, no, there isn't, unless he is hoping that just maybe some of those new arrivals will end up voting for him. He stood up to the Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, now he needs to stand up to Mexico. I'm not holding my breath.
The Republican Party made a pact with the devil when it refused to challenge the Dornan-Sanchez election. It decided that voter fraud was less important than the potential for new voters. Legality be damned, power be exalted! That's the ugly truth, and it will end up smacking the GOP in the rear end before all this is played out.
I have read your posts. I am sorry to report that I remain unimpressed by the supposedly vigorous (but somehow cryptic) steps that you contend this Administration is taking to counter illegal immigration. I'll say it again: if Bush wanted to turn the tide, he could use the bully pulpit and expend some of that storehouse of political capital he has accumulated. It's clear that either he doesn't get it or he doesn't care. There's some reason he can't devote a few minutes to discussing why general acceptance of the matricula consular might not be the greatest idea in the world? Well, no, there isn't, unless he is hoping that just maybe some of those new arrivals will end up voting for him. He stood up to the Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, now he needs to stand up to Mexico. I'm not holding my breath.
The Republican Party made a pact with the devil when it refused to challenge the Dornan-Sanchez election. It decided that voter fraud was less important than the potential for new voters. Legality be damned, power be exalted! That's the ugly truth, and it will end up smacking the GOP in the rear end before all this is played out.
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
I wonder who is getting the kickback? Surely not any Democratic legislators nor members of the governors staff? 
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
ahenry and longeyes, I guess I'm sorta in between your views. I think the BP is doing a bit better in dealing with the "normal" wetback problem, at least in Texas. I don't think anybody at the federal level is dealing appropriately with the problems that Simcox fulminates about. He is one of the few who give voice to the personal problems of those who are suffering from vandalism, burglary, etc. Most of the Arizona papers--and I read them regularly--nod in passing and give more column inches to those sympathetic to the illegals of whatever sort.
I note that Arizona's county-level LEOs say they're overwhelmed, so Simcox can't be too far off the mark.
Art
I note that Arizona's county-level LEOs say they're overwhelmed, so Simcox can't be too far off the mark.
Art
AZTOY
Member
Ok i live near AZ the border and we still have the illegal :banghead:
We have the drug dealers,illegals, coyotas and Mexio Army all crossing the border and some are sporting full autos AK, M16,and HK. :banghead: Then there is the problems with all the trash. I can't go anywhere with out seeing empty water bottles.
Simcox is right about the problems!!
The fact are that illegals are still coming!!!!!
Please read, this trail is ten mile from my house!!
Deadliest trail in U.S.
Can Bush do more YES .Will he i don't know!!
Sir Galahad
member
Color me hasty, but I don't think a strip of anti-personnel mines along the remote stretches of the border is such a bad idea. It's cost-effective. More bang for he buck, if you'll pardon the pun. It's environmentally sustainable because they can be equipped with triggers that require the weight of a human to actuate, thusly saving the native wildlife (the cows will just have to be called collateral damage; make them a tax write off.) As an added sustainability bonus, it will, eventually, feed countless vultures and ravens. Perhaps in the future, this could lead to a prime spot for release of California condors. After a while, the wide swath of bleached skulls will serve as a deterrant of its own. 
0007
Member
Careful, Sir G, that sounds awfully close to "hate-speech" and we know that's a high-profile federal crime... Certainly a higher one then stopping millions of ILLEGAL NOT "UNDOCUMENTED" aliens from crossing our non-exitent borders whether they come to grow pot in the Parks or flowers in some CA lefty's garden
So your entire basis for believing that the administration is doing nothing about illegal immigration is that the president isn’t making speeches about it? Way to be realistic.
How is it clear to you, because he isn’t making speeches about it? That’s intelligent. I know you are smarter than that.
Absolutely there is a reason. Every single word that comes out of his mouth right now will impact the election. The solutions to illegal immigration will not be an easy sell, except for perhaps some simplistic enforcement changes, and as of right now illegal immigration is not a major national political issue. Why make it one and create a problem for yourself when you can just not talk about it, which is not the same as ignoring it, so you can do what you want with the issue? Again, for the third time, there are things being done. You might not think they are enough (although I’d love to hear what makes you think you know what you’re talking about) and you might prefer a different approach but the point remains, steps are being taken to deal with illegal immigration.
Art,
I don’t disagree with anything you said. I think for the careful researcher though, one would have to look at everything before claiming that “nothing is being doneâ€. I haven’t seen comprehensive numbers, but I am pretty comfortable saying that about 500 new agents were sent to stations in Arizona in the past 6 months. They’d mainly all still be in training so you wouldn’t see many, or any, at their stations yet. California probably picked up close to that number as well. Now, in actuality 25%-50% never make it through the academy so the real numbers of new agents are probably closer to 200-300 for both states. There are currently over 1000 individuals waiting a staffing assignment and more are being processed every day. I suspect that when F.Y. 2003 is up the hiring will continue as well. That is a pretty significant bit of “something being doneâ€. Just throwing more agents on the border doesn’t necessarily accomplish anything of course, but it is pretty hard for an honest person to look at the situation and say, “illegal immigration is being ignoredâ€.
Every single state has their own unique circumstances impacting illegal immigration. I think one of Arizona’s is the reservation. To be fair, all of the states except Texas have been adversely impacted because of the various “hold the line†style operations. Texas was the first to come up with this concept and apply it and California was next. The net impact, IMHO, was to funnel illegal immigration into Arizona. The thinking was that nobody would want to try and cross such difficult territory. Oops. There are other issues that have impacted things as well that will never be solved with a greater BP presence, huge fences, military, mines, a moat or any of the loopy ideas tossed out. Things like the inability of schools to inquire about a students legal status or deny education to illegals (which was a Supreme Court decision in the early 80’s). More or less free health care to illegal immigrants is another problem that isn’t about to go away with more enforcement. I know that I am not telling you anything you didn’t already know, but you can’t look at one isolated facet of this and expect to come to any sort of valid conclusion.
I don’t disagree with anything you said. I think for the careful researcher though, one would have to look at everything before claiming that “nothing is being doneâ€. I haven’t seen comprehensive numbers, but I am pretty comfortable saying that about 500 new agents were sent to stations in Arizona in the past 6 months. They’d mainly all still be in training so you wouldn’t see many, or any, at their stations yet. California probably picked up close to that number as well. Now, in actuality 25%-50% never make it through the academy so the real numbers of new agents are probably closer to 200-300 for both states. There are currently over 1000 individuals waiting a staffing assignment and more are being processed every day. I suspect that when F.Y. 2003 is up the hiring will continue as well. That is a pretty significant bit of “something being doneâ€. Just throwing more agents on the border doesn’t necessarily accomplish anything of course, but it is pretty hard for an honest person to look at the situation and say, “illegal immigration is being ignoredâ€.
Every single state has their own unique circumstances impacting illegal immigration. I think one of Arizona’s is the reservation. To be fair, all of the states except Texas have been adversely impacted because of the various “hold the line†style operations. Texas was the first to come up with this concept and apply it and California was next. The net impact, IMHO, was to funnel illegal immigration into Arizona. The thinking was that nobody would want to try and cross such difficult territory. Oops. There are other issues that have impacted things as well that will never be solved with a greater BP presence, huge fences, military, mines, a moat or any of the loopy ideas tossed out. Things like the inability of schools to inquire about a students legal status or deny education to illegals (which was a Supreme Court decision in the early 80’s). More or less free health care to illegal immigrants is another problem that isn’t about to go away with more enforcement. I know that I am not telling you anything you didn’t already know, but you can’t look at one isolated facet of this and expect to come to any sort of valid conclusion.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
ahenry, I agree there's no one simple solution. Many of the problems were created by Congress or state legislatures, and only they can change the laws about healthcare eligibility, welfare benefits and conditions for employment.
It's the usual deal: Were there no profit in illegal drugs, there would be no druglords. Were there no economic incentives for illegal immigrants to come here, they wouldn't make the trip. This last requires some serious changes in the socio-economic structure of Mexico, which I don't believe will happen.
My own resentment comes from "official" disapproval of "non-official" people banding together in common defense during that interim before all these wondrous federal improvements occur. It's all well and good to talk of more BP guys in 2004 and 2005, but that didn't help the folks whose lives were screwed up by illegals in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and right now.
If I am threatened by an illegal and I kill him, I resent blather from folks who say I should not have protected myself. Those people should be the ones griping at Gummint for not interdicting the illegal while protecting me. After all, that interdiction would have protected his precious life as well, would it not? The anti-Simcox crowd is attacking the wrong targets--as is usual for that collection of cretins.
And so it goes...
Art
It's the usual deal: Were there no profit in illegal drugs, there would be no druglords. Were there no economic incentives for illegal immigrants to come here, they wouldn't make the trip. This last requires some serious changes in the socio-economic structure of Mexico, which I don't believe will happen.
My own resentment comes from "official" disapproval of "non-official" people banding together in common defense during that interim before all these wondrous federal improvements occur. It's all well and good to talk of more BP guys in 2004 and 2005, but that didn't help the folks whose lives were screwed up by illegals in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and right now.
If I am threatened by an illegal and I kill him, I resent blather from folks who say I should not have protected myself. Those people should be the ones griping at Gummint for not interdicting the illegal while protecting me. After all, that interdiction would have protected his precious life as well, would it not? The anti-Simcox crowd is attacking the wrong targets--as is usual for that collection of cretins.
And so it goes...
Art
longeyes
member
Ahenry,
I'm glad for you that you have so much valuable inside information. Use it well. I am sure there is a lot of action on the governmental flow-chart level that is designed to present the appearance of taking action. That is standard bureaucratic procedure. But unlike Mr. Clinton I know what "is" IS, and what is IS that illegal immigration IS a national problem already and if you don't know that you are seriously out of touch. Perhaps you can explain to us why a stalwart and clear-eyed leader, one capable of decisive action abroad, would have to pussyfoot around this kind of an issue unless his priorities are the same old sorry-assed vote-mongering we are forced to watch everywhere in this government. You ignore what I say, and that's fine, but millions of American citizens are fully aware that illegal immigration is not something that is just happening in California or the Southwest. When the next amnesty is sneaked in while we are all asleep or distracted by the World Series or more jihadic hijinx, maybe the national implications will begin to dawn on even you. When Congress and this Administration decide that in good of globalism and hemispheric partnership we should fund Social Security for millions of Mexican nationals at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars a year--and that IS what it would cost--perhaps, just perhaps the citizenry of this country will turn activist and hit the streets in protest against having their nation sold out from under them by scoundrels.
I'm glad for you that you have so much valuable inside information. Use it well. I am sure there is a lot of action on the governmental flow-chart level that is designed to present the appearance of taking action. That is standard bureaucratic procedure. But unlike Mr. Clinton I know what "is" IS, and what is IS that illegal immigration IS a national problem already and if you don't know that you are seriously out of touch. Perhaps you can explain to us why a stalwart and clear-eyed leader, one capable of decisive action abroad, would have to pussyfoot around this kind of an issue unless his priorities are the same old sorry-assed vote-mongering we are forced to watch everywhere in this government. You ignore what I say, and that's fine, but millions of American citizens are fully aware that illegal immigration is not something that is just happening in California or the Southwest. When the next amnesty is sneaked in while we are all asleep or distracted by the World Series or more jihadic hijinx, maybe the national implications will begin to dawn on even you. When Congress and this Administration decide that in good of globalism and hemispheric partnership we should fund Social Security for millions of Mexican nationals at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars a year--and that IS what it would cost--perhaps, just perhaps the citizenry of this country will turn activist and hit the streets in protest against having their nation sold out from under them by scoundrels.
keithernTN
Member
Bush and all administrations before him have not sufficiantly protected America from illegal invaders. If he truly wanted to do the right thing for this country he would address the situation. Put the military on the border, that is why we pay our taxes, to be protected from foriegn invaders. Illegal invaders are costing this country billions and the problem is only getting worse. If anyone thinks a few hundred border patrol agents is going to take care of the illegal invasion you are vastly mistaken and do not realize the magnitude of the problem. The only solution to the problem is action, and this is where the current administration is failing.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Demographic Changes
My wife and I married in 1989. Her home is not far from the small town of Coolige, Georgia, some dozen miles north of Thomasville.
From 1989 to 1992 or so, the predominant makeup of the clientele at the local grocery/gas store was local natives, black and white. By 1994, the owner of the store had started putting signs in Spanish around the store.
My wife, after a visit to the WalMart in Moultrie, around 1996-ish, commented, "It looks just like Del Rio!"
The Border Patrol is regularly in the news in this area, with busts of illegal aliens. Hasn't seemed to affect the makeup of the local clientele, however.
Art
My wife and I married in 1989. Her home is not far from the small town of Coolige, Georgia, some dozen miles north of Thomasville.
From 1989 to 1992 or so, the predominant makeup of the clientele at the local grocery/gas store was local natives, black and white. By 1994, the owner of the store had started putting signs in Spanish around the store.
My wife, after a visit to the WalMart in Moultrie, around 1996-ish, commented, "It looks just like Del Rio!"
The Border Patrol is regularly in the news in this area, with busts of illegal aliens. Hasn't seemed to affect the makeup of the local clientele, however.
Art
- Status
Similar threads
