- ‹ previous
- 5672 of 8934
- next ›
Bush Doles Out EVEN More B.S. On the Border
Yesterday, Cameron wrote about Bush's trip to Yuma, Arizona to gain support for his immigration bill. Bush heralded tighter border security put forth last year and how it has lead to decreased apprehensions. Border Patrol reports the apprehensions in the Yuma Sector have fallen by 68 percent. "It's amazing progress that's been made," Bush said. As Cameron noted, this is fairly amusing, since last year, Bush was touting more apprehensions as a sign of success. But, more importantly, it is also sort of bogus reasoning. Yes, it appears that increased surveillance and more boots on the ground has lead to a decrease in crossers in this specific area of Arizona and California, but as history has shown us, this is simply how it works. You tighten restrictions in one area, apprehensions are sure to go down. Immigrants will just cross elsewhere. As I reported in September of last year, immigrant experts call this the "balloon effect," meaning if you build a wall or increase manpower in one section, border crossers will just move down the line. It is not an absolute sign of success, by any means. And, aside from fencing off the entire border and manning every inch of it, this ebb and flow will always occur. As for the lull in increases elsewhere (apprehensions along the entire Mexico border are down 30 percent)? Experts say "immigrant smugglers [are seeking] out new crossing routes."
To give Bush a little credit, he does need to work hard to gain the acceptance of hard line and skeptical GOPers (although it does seem like he has done enough catering to them) if he has any hope of passing comprehensive reform. Nancy Pelosi has said she will not even consider voting on a bill unless the president has 70 Republican votes. But, nonetheless, a few words of advice to Bush: a.) be consistent and b.) get your facts straight.
Bush should be doing a lot more to secure the border. Giving up and allowing the problem to continue as many liberals suggest, is not the answer. And for you environmentalists, you may also want to consider the devastation caused by the tons of trash left in the desert by those "undocumented workers" coming to clean toilets and pick fruit here. Yes, Bush is much more of a centrist on this issue since the rest of the Republican Party is calling for a zero tolerence kick em' out policy. I certainly support doing something within reason. Securing the border is very important- it's also a matter of security. America will blow it off until Johnny Jihad figures out that it's an easy way in to the US.
Bubbles,
I am an independant swing voter and I intensely dislike you Bushies and your Republican Party of war-kill-death for profit and world domination. But there is one thing I agree with some of the few Republicans like Tom Tancredo about and that is illegal immigration and border security.
Although I remain a centrist, left leaning, I am totally opposed to Bushs plan on Comprehensive Immigration. Bush is nothing more than a corportist and will sacrifice america to corporate fascism. You and your Bushie Rethugs are as wrong as the liberals regarding illegal immigration.
If you want to understand where america is headed you should read a speech Scalia of the SCOTUS gave in May 2000. In that speech Scalia(a staunch catholic) advocated the end of the rule of law in america. He also advocated the end of democracy in america. Add that to Karl Roves statement that the Republican Party, the party of the catholic church, my church, but not me,m when Rove said the deomcratic party will be destoryed. Scalia speaks for the catholic church and reflects the thinking of the Pope, of that there is no doubt and don't believe otherwise no matter what any one especially any catholic says.
When and if the democratic party is destroyed america will become a "Totalitarian Republican Jihadist Theocracy" very little different than fundamentalist Islamic theocracies.
Bubbles if you are not a catholic beware.
Finally, there will one day be a war in america between the catholic fundamentalists, which most catholics are, and evangelical fundies.
Hi there Bob DAmico- I don't know what you are smoking but I'm not a Republican nor did I claim to be. I've voted for mostly Democratic canidates. Thanks for the doomsday warning- let me guess? Will I be microchipped for the new world order? I'll start digging my bunker. Look man- I've never supported Bush or Republicans. I just think the far left is out of touch on the immigration issue. They are complacent to do anything about it. Know your audience before you go off on your Neocons taking over the world tirade. I'm mid 20s, surfer, Californian here, not some evil neo-con like you imagined. I suppoort Dems on some issues but in many areas Dems are out of touch, as are Republicans.
Well, Bob- you need to know your audience before making claims against others. I, aka Bubbles, aka Nu Whirled Order, am not a neocon as you have dreamed up nor did I claim I was a Republican. I just happen to think the far left are a little to soft on immigration; they would rather ignore the problem and not address it. Bush is actually not as hardline as much of his party on immigration. Also, the article is about immigration- how is it you manage to rant about the Catholic Church in every posting? Did you have a special relationship with a priest?