A message to the president: No Amnesty!
FOXNews.com - Politics - Bush Outlines Border Security Plan:
"Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told FOX News that it would be virtually impossible to send back to their home countries the 10 million to 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
"'The cost of identifying all those people and sending them back would be stupendous. It would be billions and billions of dollars,' Chertoff said, adding that the guest worker program would presumably siphon off a portion of the illegals who would register with the government, allowing law enforcement to focus its resources on illegals who don't want to follow government guidelines."
What Secy. Chertoff is trying to hide by this statement is that every day in this country illegals fall into the hands of state and local police and his department refuses to deal with them. Interior enforcement is a bad joke. Federal officials stage occasional raids for the purpose of getting some favorable publicity, but they ignore the larger numbers of illegals available to them for deportation proceedings that they don't even have to look for.
President Bush did make a useful commitment to provide the funding needed to eliminate the "catch and release" policy in effect at the border, but nothing to deal effectively with the problem of getting all those who have previously slipped past border enforcement or benefitted from catch and release back into the net.
And, of course, the centerpiece of the president's "plan" is still amnesty. There are procedures in place for Mexicans and others to apply to enter and work here legally and many thousands do. Why does President Bush insist on saying that those who chose to come here illegally should be treated as well, or even better, than those who came legally?
posted by J. Keen Holland @ 5:46 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
This nation really, Really, REALLY needs a major catharsis--any definition one chooses.
I've been a Dubya supporter for a while now. However, I'm beginning to think it's OK for him to go down in flames--he's kicked his conservative base in the shins too often. He started out as a Republican, but he's transitioned into a RINO.
Most all presidents tend to move to the center, but he's gone far overboard trying to out Dimo-crat the Democrats on domestic issues.
He was definitely the lesser of the evils in both elections. Having said that, one of my friends reminds me from time to time that voting for the lesser of the evils is still voting for evil.
No, I don't think Dubya is evil per sé. He recognizes appeasement doesn't work with radical Islamists who want to kill us all. Yet, he has worked "overtime" trying to appease Dimo-crats. That will never work. No amount of apppeasement ever works--it only stiffens the opposition by thinking they've won "one more." So far they've won several more through his appeasement attempts.
Catharsis? How about cutting (out) the federal welfare programs--all of them! When the freeloaders have to work for their food and housing, then perhaps there won't be so many jobs available for illegal aliens that "Americans don't want to do."
Let the states do what they will with welfare--get the feds out! All welfare should go back to the local churches (synagogues, etc.) and charity organizations.
With the feds out of welfare we can cut both the budget and taxes.
Another budget/tax cut would come with getting the feds out of education. Again, let states and locals handle education.
To use an old aviation idiom, Dubya being a former aviator, he has "screwed the pooch." What's worse, he continues to do it. (That terminology ain't got nothing to do with Lady Laura!)
There's more, but that's sufficient for now.
Hugh,
I want to see the "exit strategy" for the 40 year old "War on Poverty". It is truly a "quagmire". We need a timetable for withdrawal.
Ed,
Care to add the "exit strategy" for the "quagmire" we're in with the War on Drugs?
Read an excellent commentary a few years back about this being the third time we've "lost" a "war on drugs." Wish I'd kept it.
As I recall, the first loss had to do with the opium trade (late 1800s-early 1900s?). The second loss was prohibition in the '30s.
The latest rounds of the federal attack on the constitution (Patriot Act, etc.) began with anti-drug laws, e.g., property and cash confiscation without due process.
Ed,
Care to add the "exit strategy" for the "quagmire" we're in with the War on Drugs?
Read an excellent commentary a few years back about this being the third time we've "lost" a "war on drugs." Wish I'd kept it.
As I recall, the first loss had to do with the opium trade (late 1800s-early 1900s?). The second loss was prohibition in the '30s.
The latest rounds of the federal attack on the constitution (Patriot Act, etc.) began with anti-drug laws, e.g., property and cash confiscation without due process.
Post a Comment
<< Home