Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Nobody cares? Apathy is not something that's good for either party. Thing is, it was just more of the same. Releasing most of the details of the speech (a common practice, but usually there are key details left for the speech itself) blunted the impact of the event later on, and having it at 5:00 p.m. out here meant that most of the West Coast missed it because we were on our way home from work. So from reading about it, I don't get the sense the borders are going to be appreciably more secure than they have been. Too bad.
Originally Posted By SuperDry You haven't noticed this delayed reaction here before? It happens every time when something important happens in the evening - many people need to wait until Rush comes on the next day before they know what to post here. Let's see - he comes on in about 90 minutes. I predict that we'll see some posts after that time, and that they will bear a very suspicious similiarity to what Rush has to say.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I thought that Bush was taking a thoughtful and well-balanced approach. I'm sure the neo-cons are sitting there with their heads about to explode while waiting for Rush (I just LOVE the mental image I get from that!) to tell them what to do. You know they all think the plan sucks, but they would be loathe to criticize Bush. Rush will end up saying it's all good because Bush has a secret plan to take all these "guest workers" and put them in the military so they'll have adequate forces to continue the administration’s adventure in Iraq. ;-)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You know they all think the plan sucks, but they would be loathe to criticize Bush.> I'm a neo-con, and I've criticized the President in the past, and will probably do it again in the future. That said, I don't think the plan sucks. It's not bad for a first step, but we'll see how well it's followed up. We need a multi-pronged approach to discourage people to come here illegally.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <,I'm a neo-con, and I've criticized the President in the past, and will probably do it again in the future. >> You are correct. I should not have said all neo-cons would be loathe to criticize the President. My statement would apply to the "Either you're with Bush or you're against Bush" conservatives with a black and white view of the world, but not to all. Thank goodness few of you neo-cons can actually make a reasonable argument!!
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I thought that Bush was taking a thoughtful and well-balanced approach. >>> I didn't watch the speech last night, so I don't know if he's changed his approach recently. But I've always thought that the President's plan from last year regarding immigration reform was on the right track. I thought it was both thoughtful and well-balanced, and we do need both in order to fix the problem.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger We need both to fix the problem... eventually. What we need to see first is enforcement. When Congress and the President both demonstrate that they _can_ enforce the law, and _will_ enforce the law, then I'm willing to talk about guest worker programs etc. As it stands now, Bush is making token moves to say "Lookit! Lookit! I'm soooo tough on enforcing the border! Take _that_ Vincente Fox!" in hopes of getting what he really wants - the guest worker program/amnesty-lite. If he gets that, expect the National Guard troops on the border to be declared "unnecessary" - probably right after the November election.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Troops on the border, particular ones who have no power to arrest anyone (which the Guard won't have), won't do much unless they get serious about enforcing sanctions against employers. That is THE necessary component to enforcement, and the one least likely to be implemented. We have employer sanctions already on the books not being enforced. And there are too many powerful interests who like the cheap labor and contribute to politicians (especially GOP, but both parties) - and without this component, all the border enforcement in the world won't mean much.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I didn't watch it. Had no intention of watching it. I have little faith in a government that has no intentions of carrying out the law. Why would I believe that the current government would act of any changes in Immigration Law. The Democrats and Republicans are missing the boat on Immigration. The majority of US Citizens want the current immigration laws enforced.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh At least there are some Republicans trying to get the laws enforced. Are there any Democrats?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 There are still old-school labor-centric Democrats who oppose too much immigration as a depressor of wages, and particularly favor enforcing employer sanctions against hiring illegals to force them to hire people at at least minimum wage. Nationally, however, the party seems more or less content to let the GOP fight it out amongst themselves. It might be wimpy (I would argue it is), but it might be smart politics.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy OK, I thought the speech was predictable and boring. But... Bush seems to at least be engaging in the debate. How he can call Mexico a friend is beyond me. The best guy I have heard on "the shows" has been Geore Allen, the guy I plan on supporting for president in 08. Dabob, nice take on this stuff. It is interesting how the democrats have decided to sit on the sidelines for this issue. Am I surprised? No.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy From an NPR report in early April regarding if a fence on the border would work. As Congress looks to revamp immigration policy, some lawmakers are pushing to extend fencing along the U.S. border with Mexico. Proposals range from beefing up existing fences in Arizona to constructing new fences that would span 700 miles. Those advocating expanded fencing already have a model they can look to: a fence the federal government built more than a decade ago along a 14-mile-stretch in San Diego, Calif., that borders Tijuana, Mexico. Before the fence was built, all that separated that stretch of Mexico from California was a single strand of cable that demarcated the international border. Back then, Border Patrol agent Jim Henry says he was overwhelmed by the stream of immigrants who crossed into the United States illegally just in that sector. "It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year." Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double -- and in some places, triple -- fencing. The first fence, 10 feet high, is made of welded metal panels. The second fence, 15 feet high, consists of steel mesh, and the top is angled inward to make it harder to climb over. Finally, in high-traffic areas, there's also a smaller chain-link fence. In between the two main fences is 150 feet of "no man's land," an area that the Border Patrol sweeps with flood lights and trucks, and soon, surveillance cameras. "Here in San Diego, we have proven that the border infrastructure system does indeed work," Henry says. "It is highly effective."
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Can someone define "neo-con?" Is it different than just calling someone a conservative? Who created this "word?"
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N eoconservative</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The prefix "neo" can denote that many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism>> So if I'm reading this correctly, Beau's a lib and maybe even a socialist, right?? LOL
