Friday, May 18, 2007
|
|
Tony Snow On The Immigration Bill Fiasco
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
9:58 PM
|
|
Here are a few of my questions and Tony's answers from this afternoon. You can read the entire interview here. The audio will be posted here later tonight. My first question concerns one of the key areas where the immigration law intersects with national security:
HH: Are young men who entered this country illegally, or who overstayed their visas illegally, whose country of origin was either in Central Asia or an Arab country eligible for regularization under this bill?
TS: Well, they would be eligible for regularization only if they met a whole series of standards. If they have broken the law while they’re here, they’re not eligible. If they do not remain continuously employed, they’re not eligible for regularization. If they do not provide, do not present themselves for a tamper-proof ID that has biometric information, submit themselves to background checks, they are not eligible for regularization. If they do not master the English language and culture, they’re not eligible for regularization.
and
HH: Now you mentioned background checks, Tony Snow.
TS: Yeah.
HH: What kind? And who’s going to do them?
TS: The federal law enforcement…I’m sorry, the Department of Homeland Security and I think the FBI will be coordinating on those....
HH: But if it’s a profile along the lines of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom had had a previous run-in with the law, but all of whom had jihadist connections. They’d be waived through, right?
TS: Well again, let’s see, let’s walk through. No, because at least in one of those cases, you’d had, maybe in a couple of them, you’d had expired student visas, which are going to themselves be subject to far more scrutiny. And in terms of background checks, I’m going to have to go back and find out whether they kept their noses clean or not.
HH: Tony…
TS: But if you’re asking me, Hugh, if it’s going to be possible using immigration law to find out whether somebody has not previously broken the law, whether they are going to commit an act of terror, whether they are an American citizen or not? No, that’s not going to be what immigration law is about.
and
HH: But what I’m saying is if there are in fact hundreds or thousands of jihadists who have come here illegally, across the border or via visa overstays, that this law makes no provision for a special category of men, young men, originating from these countries. They’re going to be waived through. And so while immigration not may not…
TS: Well, wait a minute. What do you mean by waived through?
HH: They’re just getting in the same line with the decent, hard-working Mexicans.
TS: No, no, again, let’s step back here. What you’re doing is conflating two separate programs.
HH: No, that’s not true, Tony, because in law enforcement, you will…
TS: Well no, it is true.
HH: This law will end up adding to the cover of any sleeper. It has to.
TS: Well, no, what it does, in point of fact, Hugh, is something that the law doesn’t now do, which is to provide a comprehensive rendering of the folks who in fact are on our shores. And what it also does is gives us a greater ability to track and know who’s here, and therefore if you have actionable intelligence, much greater ability to go after these folks. So no, I strongly dispute the characterization here. What we have is the situation right now where you’ve got millions in the shadows, you don’t know who they are, you don’t know whether they have real or illegitimate ID. All of a sudden, if you’ve got tamper-proof identification that does have a biometric marking, it does make it possible for you to go through and do some analysis, whether it is using Interpol data, or FBI data, or any other data. These all get put into the database, and therefore, you still have greater capability, not merely on the basis of physical evidence that you now are going to have, that you do not presently possess.
HH: But all of a sudden, you’re also…
TS: You’re going to have that ability. And furthermore, you’re going to have the ability to track them, because you will have background checks, you will have requirements for continuous employment, you’re going to have employer reports, and so therefore, you’re going to have a much better sense of the whereabouts of such individuals.
HH: But you’re also going to legitimize their presence in the country. And if they’re good, Tony Snow…
TS: No, no…
HH: If they’re good at doing what they’re supposed to do, which is infiltrate, they will be here as long as is necessary, until they’re activated.
TS: But again, what you’ve just done, what you’re creating is a straw man here.
HH: No, I’m not.
TS: What you’re saying is…
HH: Tony, that’s not fair, because if they’re here illegally, they cannot function above board. Once they’re blessed, they will function above board, and the law does not make provision…
TS: Well no, wait a minute. What you’re saying is…I love the way that you slam this. They’re blessed? What you’re trying…what I’m telling you, Hugh, is that you appear to be advocating for a system right now where we don’t have any idea who the hell these people are…
HH: Not true.
TS: We don’t have any way of going after them.
HH: I want a provision that treats…
TS: And what we’re doing is we’re creating an inventory where you’re going to know who’s here illegally, and furthermore, you’re going to have unprecedented ability to try to focus in on those who are going to be subjects of concern. You’re also assuming that there is a complete disjunction between law enforcement activities and intelligence activity in this new database, which gives you much greater ability to figure out who these folks are. Far from being a blessing, this is an identifier, which I think is the sort of thing that you and I both would want to have.
and
HH: Which agency is actually going to do the background checks on the 11 to 12 to 20 million people who will be eligible? Which agency?
TS: Again, I have not looked at it, but I am assuming it’s a combination of DHS doing the coordination along with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, but people will find out.
HH: And how many people, how many people do you think it’s going to take to do 11…I’ve had three full field background investigations, each one of which took about six months. You know the drill on this. You know that there is not anywhere near the number of federal employees available to do a sophisticated search of 11 to 12 million people.
TS: But what you’re also saying is that you’re advocating a full field investigation on 12 million people.
HH: No, I want to find the people we should be worried about from a national security standpoint.
TS: Exactly, exactly.
HH: But we’re not going to be looking, because you don’t identify by country of origin in this law, do you?
TS: No, but what you do have is the ability, Hugh, once again, is to figure out who’s involved. And frankly, if you start taking a look at the evolving nature of the terror network, and this is interesting, because notice what we’re doing is we’re stepping away from the merits of the immigration proposal, and we’re talking about the complexities of doing counterterrorism, which is riveting topic, but not necessarily the chief area of focus when it comes to the immigration law.
and
HH: How many miles of fence, Tony, will be built and in place, double fencing, real fencing, not virtual fencing, before the first new visa comes out for these people?
TS: 370 miles.
HH: Where will those be built?
TS: Right now, I can’t tell you exactly where they’re going to be built, but what we’ve got right now is we’ve got 112 down right now, in terms of fencing.
HH: Double fencing? Or is it…you’re not counting the speed bumps, are you?
TS: No, we’re not counting the speed bumps. There’s 78 miles of speed bumps, the vehicular…actually, 59.6 miles of speed bumps, and 78 miles of vehicular barriers.
HH: So 78…
TS: And what they’re required to have, what they’re required to have by the end of fiscal year 2008, September a year from now, 370 miles of fencing, not fake fencing, not pseudo fencing, fencing, along with 200 miles of vehicle barriers, as well as 18,000 border patrol agents hired, 70 ground-based radar and camera towers, four unmanned aerial vehicles, along with support systems so that you can get at them, a lot more in terms of the mileages, special roads that gives you ingress and egress into tough areas and so on. That is required before you start the possibility of temporary worker program, or any of that other stuff. So all of that has to happen before you kick in the other elements of the plan. You see, we do agree with the idea of security first. Furthermore, the law written last year remains fully in effect. I know that Duncan Hunter was worried that they’re watering down his requirements. No, that law remains entirely in effect. But this is the baseline requirement before you get to the temporary worker program and all that stuff.
HH: Why didn’t the administration insist on the full 854 miles of last year’s bill prior to initiating the regularization of the millions of…
TS: Okay, there are a couple of things. First, regularization, again, keep in mind, when you talk about regularization here, you’re still talking eight years down the road, which means by that time, you will have all that mileage, you’ll have it completed. We’re talking about trying to lay on, let me do my math here, another, well, basically, another 248 miles worth of fence in the next 12 months, next 15 months. So the fact is, it’s going to get built.
HH: But why did the administration agree to cutting it in half, when they had the leverage, they could have gotten the whole thing.
TS: It didn’t. It did not agree to cutting it in half. That’s one of the great falsehoods here. What is says is this is a benchmark. You’ve got to get halfway, you have to demonstrate you’re busy doing this…
HH: I understand, I understand the administration’s position that the rest will get built. Why did the administration agree to do anything prior to the whole fence getting built?
TS: Well, because at this point, what you’re still talking about is putting together a system that is another eight years in coming. At this particular point, I think what you have to ask yourself is, what is most essential in terms of guaranteeing border security? And although the fence is important, if you don’t have anybody to patrol it, and you don’t have the technical means and the other stuff at that juncture, the fence isn’t going to do you much good. It’s going to be an architectural curiosity, rather than something that is actually going to be an effective way of policing the borders.
HH: Tony, I don’t find that persuasive.
TS: So what we’re doing here is we’re setting priorities in terms of what is going to be critical first. And so, Hugh, my sense is that we have already demonstrated with increased border presence that there has been a reduction in crossing, and there has been success. So our view is do you want to wait forever in doing this? Or do you want to get about the business also, while you’re dealing simultaneously with the borders, the folks that may be trying to come over, don’t you think you need to grapple in a very real and serious way with 11 or 12 million people, some of whom you are afraid of, rightfully so, that have terrorist connections? Why don’t you get after the program also of making sure we identify them, and start getting all the security aspects of that part of the program as well?
HH: Because we could do both. I’m not persuaded by your answer, because you could do both, and the administration could have had the 854 miles built.
TS: Actually, I don’t think you could get a bill in two years. I mean, I just think as a practical matter, and as you also know…
HH: Then we shouldn’t start regularization until three years.
TS: We’re not…will you stop this? The regularization doesn’t even…you’re talking about something that doesn’t begin for eight years.
HH: Tony, they’re not leaving the country, so you’re leaving them in place, and it doesn’t fly to say that they are leaving the country, or that there’s something other than…
and
HH: Now why the jam down? Why does it get one week of debate in the Senate? Why can’t they wait at least until the Senators come home over Memorial Day to hear the outrage in their constituents’ voices?
TS: It’s not a jam down. I think you understand the rules of the Senate, which is that what they’re really talking about, this is not a jam down. What they’re going to do is they’re going to have a motion to proceed next Tuesday, which opens up debate, but also Senate rules are such that you’ve got almost an infinite ability to go ahead and do amendments, and furthermore, you’re going to have a full debate in the House of Representatives.
HH: I don’t care about the House.
TS: I understand the importance…what you do have, and by the way, this is not highly unusual.
HH: Oh, it is.
TS: A lot of times you will have a…
HH: Tony Snow, come on.
TS: No, no, I’m serious about this.
HH: The most important law of these two years, with a massive impact upon the United States, is going to get five days of debate in the Senate, and you’re saying that’s not unusual?
TS: No, what I’m telling you is the kind of effort that went in at the front end, in terms…
HH: In secret.
TS: The administration…
HH: Secret.
TS: A lot of activity, a lot of people working on both sides, that quite often happens in crafting legislation. There’s going to be plenty of time to debate this.
HH: Tony, no there’s not. Tony…
TS: And what you’re talking about…
HH: It’s a week. That’s the Senate’s declaration.
TS: No, this thing, look, this thing could very well get held over longer. As I’ve said, you’ve got the ability on the Senate floor to do infinite amendments. I’m not sure that anybody’s nailed down what the rules are going to be. And as you know, people are going to want to take a good look at it, and it does go to the House of Representatives, too. This is not something where we’re going to have a magic wand, and the bill suddenly becomes law. And again, I look forward to your having a chance to look through it, because I think you’re probably going to have a lot more positive sense of it than your original take.
|
|
|
If the benefit of illegals is that they "do the jobs Americans don't want to do" (mow our lawns, trim our trees, clean our homes, wash our cars, paint our houses, serve us fast food, etc.), who is going to do those jobs in 20 years? We trust not their children, or why spend billions educating them as we do now? Either Americans are going to do the jobs they don't like, or we will need a perpetual semi-permanent population of 12-20 million "guest workers," none of them having babies, of course, and certainly none of them wanting to stay. |
|
Bruce wonders---
"Can't policy disagreements among conservatives be discussed without calling each other "traitors?"
Can't reasonable, deeply patriotic conservatives have good-faith disagreements?
Can't we have a calm, rationale dialogue without invectives?"
On Illegal Immigration?
NO!!! GIT MY GUN!!! (metaphorically speaking)
|
|
HUNTER EXPRESSES “FIERCE DISAPPOINTMENT” OVER SENATE AMNESTY PROPOSAL
I vow to oppose this legislation supported by Senators Edward Kennedy and John McCain.It provides a vast new immigration benefit to millions of illegal aliens who have broken our laws to live in the United States.I opposed the 1986 amnesty act because of this same reason.It proved to be the draw that we predicted it would be.I am deeply disappointed to see history repeating itself.
This package will confirm to the world that the U.S. does not really mean what it says when it comes to immigration enforcement.As a result of the citizenship benefit included in this legislation, despite the fine print, we will see a stampede across our borders.
This vast new amnesty and expansive guest worker program will surely be ridden with fraud and abuse, and ultimately lead to millions of public-assistance-dependent immigrants.
The Senate’s decision to blatantly ignore the Secure Fence Act signed into law last year and only require construction of 370 miles of fence, as opposed to the 854 miles mandated by the law, is a dramatic failure of this legislation.The San Diego border fence has proven that fencing works.The time has come to quickly implement the Secure Fence Act, not retreat from its mandates.
I believe that this package will result in lower wages for America’s already-struggling families by encouraging the importation of cheap foreign labor rather than investing, developing and growing a domestic workforce that will sustain our economy far into the future.
Amnesty is not the answer.Border enforcement must be first and it must be comprehensive.To do otherwise is to repeat the mistakes of the past.This Senate bill is bad for Americans, bad for our workers, bad for law enforcement and, most importantly, bad for national security.I will fight it.Please join with me.
http://www.gohunter08.com/shownews.asp?artid=42
|
|
I do not care how this bill is spun, it is amnesty. Teddy Kennedy and the other libs will not allow any changes to the bill that takes away amnesty.
Here is what needs to happen, all of you moderates pay attention to the following:
1. The border with Mexico needs to be secured from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. NO ONE GETS ACROSS W/O GOING THROUGH A BORDER CHECKPOINT.
2. The Department of Homeland Security needs to round up the illegals and deport them. The more scared the illegal aliens get the better.
3. The only benefit that illegal aliens should get is emergency care. Other than that there should not be one cent of taxpayer money spent on illegals except to deport them. |
|
Another remarkably plain spoken Marine was Smedley D. Butler. He was twice awarded the Medal of Honor, but was no one's sap. He wrote a book called War is a Racket, that if Eisenhower had read, could certainly have served as a basis for his warning at the end of his Presidency.
We dearly need plain spoken General Officers like Chesty these days. I have a good friend that served under Anthony Zinni years ago, and he was/is very straightforward, though with considerably more tact. Anything he has to say I place great stock in. Anyhow, we have some folks in Congress who haved served recently now (along with honorable men like Duncan Hunter, who was an Army Ranger) and will bring a measure of frankness to this debate.
Hopefully we have enough folks left in Congress who will draw a line in the sand, understanding the true nature of this travesty.
This is no trifle, and neither is the sacrifice that our heroes have made; consider what it cost Chesty's heroic son. We honor them by ensuring that the sacrifice they have made is not in vain insofar as perpetuating our Republic is concerned.
Thanks for your post. |
|
Marine,
Read Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
Chesty Puller's autobiography was totally awesome, but if you only saw the movie, you will be far more impressed by the amazing philosophy expressed at the beginning of this novel.
We are all on the same page here, even though now I guess they are virtual pages. |
|
Will these same standards we'll be requiring for these amnestied non-citizen immigrant be applied to our existing pool of non-citizen immigrants?
Or will we have dual classes of non-citizen immigrants where one group can be unemployed parasites and social pariahs and anther group of non-citizen worker/slaves?
We know the answer, our courts won't allow any discrimination on any basis for any reason, they seek to maintain a blind stupid brain dead un-responsive America with no berders |
|
nothing else of this proposal, knowing that Ted Kennedy coauthored it is enough to sound the alarm claxon. Calm down? I'll calm down when our "representatives" understand that this government is of, by, and for the People of the United States of America.
Any path to citizenship for an individual who broke our laws to come here, who breaks our laws to stay here, is one thing only: AMNESTY.
Our troops are not hazarding their lives so feckless politicians can pander and an equally feckless business community can have the "cheap labor" they so lust after.
This is down to brass tacks. If you want a country for your posterity tell your elected representatives. If they turn a deaf ear then,
SEND HOME THE SELLOUTS IN '08. |
|
In case you missed this post the first time, remember Iwo Jima. Here's a cut-and-paste from Marine (see above).
Unpleasantness?
Tony Snow is advocating a plan that will mean the end of this nation as we know it. My children will have no future in this nation should this madness be codified into law. Moreover, past actions are often the best indicator of future action, and the will to implement effective border security has not been demonstrated. But I believe fully Ted Kennedy's resolve to make it happen, NOT.
There is a word for Mr. Snow's speech, sophistry. Most of the posts here are anything but naive, and most of the folks comprehend the enormity of the stakes.
The time for deference and decorum is long since past, because I guarantee you the architects of this nightmare care not the slightest for those of us who will bear the brunt of its consequences.
We were once a great melting pot. We are fast becoming a Balkanized, tossed salad. And anyone who wants to level specious charges of Racism is full of it; folks are so over that there isn't a drop of humor left in it.
Any of us who served in the military didn't have any qualifiers in our oath about representing only a certain segment of our populace. But mark it down it was all about the United States of America and its citizenry, regardless of race or creed.
No one has an inherent right to come here. It is a privilege. If you want to avail yourself of this privilege, then you abide by our rules, period. No group should be afforded special privilige.
If you are allowed to come here, you respect our nation, you play by our rules; end of story. We aren't changing the rules because you think you merit it.
Trust? I trust what I know. I know that this nation was born and perpetuated at a heavy price.
I both know and trust that it falls under no one's purview to make merchandise of the United States of America.
|
|
You aren't shouting into the darkness on here.
My dad earned a silver and two bronze stars in the European Theater, and he's still alive and well.
I was born in America, but my parents were born in Canada. My dad became naturalized right after WWII and he brought my war bride mom across the border.
I don't think this Congress should do anything right now. But if they wanted to pass a very limited bill, they could give citizenship rights to any illegal willing to serve a double stint in the military. |
|
First of all, we know the main points of the bill because those who crafted it have told us. So we should just "shut up and take it" until cloture has already been voted on on Monday? I dont' think so.
Secondly, that the bill wasn't available until LAST NIGHT is one of the main problems with this thing. Something so complex and huge as an issue and they are going to rush out a 1000 page or so bill on it and vote for cloture THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY?
How many will actually get a chance to read the whole thing before the cloture vote?
This is one of the main things - they are clearly trying to pull one over on us by rushing this out there so fast.
So we can't register our own opinion on it until they have already voted for cloture. Dont' you find that disturbing? That's reason enough to oppose this - they are obviously trying to pull a fast one on us, and would not be behaving in such an extreme way if they thought that the bill could withstand debate.
But you say "they are smarter" than us. Yeah, right. These are the same people who have failed miserably granted amnesty TWICE before, which has only made the problem worse and invited more illegals each time. But we're supposed to trust them AGAIN and with the SAME APPROACH?
Why do we reward failure in government with more of the same?
Politicos are just ambitious power-grubbers - they are not "smarter" than us, and we should not swallow a bill just because they want us to, by laying down and not registering our opinion before they vote for cloture because they rushed the bill out to try to avoid hearing from us on it.
Screw that.
|
|
I still have big reservations about it. But it is hardly a sell out and is better than the current status quo (assuming its regulations and work place rules are enforced and the border security happens). Those are very big "ifs."
But you all need to take a chill pill and stop hyperventilating over this. President Bush and Senators McCain, Kyl, and others are supporting this for a reason. Even Mitt Romney is just parroting Hugh with his anti-McCain attacks and not really coming out against it (because in the general he will give a nuanced position of why he actually supports it--like he did in 2005). |
|
In a previous post, I asked:
"Can't we have a calm, rationale dialogue without invectives?"
Ordinary Coloradan responded, in pertinent part:
"I think your gullibility marks you as one of those pseudo conservatives who talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, you are nothing but sheep."
Well, it appears I got my answer.
How pathetic.
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
Republicans WILL have permanent minority status for sure if we embrace amnesty. Hispanics break hard for Democrats, by a 2 to 1 margin, which is why Democrats are so hot to trot to import them by the tens of millions into this country.
How is it that you guys can't crunch the demographic numbers here? The nation is 50/50 right now, but import 50 million(current illegals plus family and higher immigration) hard leftists from socialist countries and turn them into voters and it's just over for Conservatism in the United States. And the Republican party will be doomed to permanent minority status.
You say that we COULD become a minority party if we're seen as anti-Immigrant. I don't believe that for one second, as the polls consistently favor the position of us "yahoos". But if we allow amnesty we will CERTAINLY be the minority party - by sheer demographics.
Is not "could become" favorable to "certainly will become"?
Despite an extreme effort, we were not able to make much of a dent in elevating the numbers of Hispanics that voted Republican in 2004 over 2000. Bush DID NOT get 44% of that vote, as has now been proven. Those numbers were based on the initial "Kerry won" exit poll numbers that they had to massage back into some kind of reality, and a lot of their numbers got hopelessly skewed. The numbers for the Hispanic vote don't add up at all when you crunch the raw data from the same survey. In some states, Bush would've had to have gotten 190% of the Hispanic vote for the numbers to match. At best, according to analysis, Bush got about 38% or maybe 39% of the Latino vote in 2004.
This is probably a ceiling, because as Democrats gleefully note, Hispanics have voted Democrat for President from 90% to 60%, with an average of 2 to 1 Democrat over the years. Thinking this will change is a mere pipe dream. You don't move large populations so easily - just look at the black vote.
And even if we could possibly change this in the future, the odds are that we will not, so we will be putting the entire future of the party on the line with the HOPE that we can defy the odds and change Hispanic voting patterns over time? That's ridiculous. Very risky, indeed. Even worse, we will certainly be starting off in the hole, with extreme disadvantage compared to Democrats electorally, and will face a long climb of "converting" all these new voters to vote Republican. This is a situation you find advantagous for the Republican party? |
|
Don't bring the race card into this. It's stupid. This is not about race, it's about ILLEGAL immigration.
|
|
or even Hugh Hewitt, for that matter, even know what the heck it is they're complaining about, because the "bill" wasn't even printed or distributed at the time this interview took place.
In fact, in the next post by Hugh you can already see the walk-back (from intentional mass hysteria) beginning.
It's awfully hard for smart and sensible guys like Tony Snow to stay so calm and pleasant when people are going off on matters on which they know virtually nothing, and are ascribing all manner of ignorant assumptions into a bill they have never actually read (and probably would have trouble understanding the language even if they read it). This is all plainly a hysterical shriek-fest by the rabid anti immigrant faction of the Republican Party ... mob rule ... ignorant posturing. Disgusting, in other words.
Wait until the bill has been read by people smarter than you, give the professionals the benefit of the doubt by letting them explain exactly what the words say and what the words mean. Agree or disagree then. Until then, shut the heck up!
|
|
Yes we can have it without the invective.
But first you need to abandon the uncritical and willing acceptance of whatever the RNC and Bush hand to you.
Otherwise you are deserving of all the invective heaped upon you.
You did notice this bill expand Social Security, Welfare, in-state Tuition, Legal Aid and Medicare/Medicaid to the recipients of amnesty - and is that conservative at all, or is that a betrayal of conservative values?
Where would be the "good faith" for a conservative in supporting the abolition of the illegals and their expansion of entitlements?
And, justifiably, the term traitor does come to mind when you have someone that is supposedly "on your side" and in whom youhave invested a lot of hopes and support, only to have them turn their coat to the other side and actively promote and implement the plans of the opposition.
So Traitor may very well be a fitting epithet for Conservatives to use on McCain and Bush, and given the "jam it down your throat" attitude, the invective has been earned.
So Bruce, are you really a conservative, or simply one of those peopel the RNC, Melman, Rove and Bush have learned they can reply on no matter what they do? I think your gullibility marks you as one of those pseudo conservatives who talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, you are nothing but sheep. |
|
Pasadena Phil wrote: "He also hates Giuliani, McCain and all of the other white flag, open borders politicians. He is not so obsessed with the Dems anymore. Traitors are worse. "
C'mon Phil,
Can't policy disagreements among conservatives be discussed without calling each other "traitors?"
Can't reasonable, deeply patriotic conservatives have good-faith disagreements?
Can't we have a calm, rationale dialogue without invectives?
Bruce Sherman
Oakland, Oregon |
|
I like Tony Snow but he is only parroting what Bush wants him to say. When I think how happy I was with Bush's re-election in 2004, I could kick myself.
Even if this abominable bill is passed, you and I both know that the Federal government will never close the borders. People like O'Reilly are naive to believe that they will. Bush is obsessed with leaving the borders open and slimy Democrats like Hillary, Schumer, Reid etc. are positively watering at the mouth at the prospect of 12 - 20 million new Democrat voters. All of us American citizens who don't like it can basically go to hell.
This bill must be defeated and every RINO like McCain must be defeated as well. |
|
|
My "dark side" reference was about your shilling for Townhall's version of Jerry Springer, Steve of Ambridge PA who spams Townhall trying to get everyone to listen to his "vote for Giuliani" nonsense. Your comments are fine by themselves. You lose credibility by association. I listen to Mark Levin, including the past two shows, and he "gets it" He also hates Giuliani, McCain and all of the other white flag, open borders politicians. He is not so obsessed with the Dems anymore. Traitors are worse. I don't get how that connects to anything Steve has written and I'm not clicking over to find out. |
|
No, I haven't flirted with the dark side.
My economic analysis is the same exact one that Mark Levin made on his talk show Thursday and Friday.
This bill will have a depressing effect on wages, by increasing the unskilled labour pool. As a growing, robust economy increases demand for labour, thus driving up wages.
Supply and demand.
A thirst for labour, thus a demand, will drive up wages.
A surfeit of labour, through massive immigration for instance, will either stagnate wages, or sharply depress them.
This effect on wages won't be uniform. But it will mostly strike at UNSKILLED positions. Those very positions that high school dropouts in the inner city will need to claw their way out of their slums.
The reason I drew this to your attention is that it is a way of GAINING additional opponents to this bill which won't just alter the fabric of this country, but will also alter the future chances of scores of millions of young Black Americans.
|
|
And if you are who you seemed to be, before you singed up to be Bush's mouthpiece, then you know this is bad law and it is being badly handled.
Resign in protest, tell people that you could no longer support this administration due to their deception and dishonesty in handling immigration and border security.
Resign in protest and go back to FoxNews and start commenting and freely speaking your mind. You'll be a hero.
|
|
|
We don't need to hear from an another Steve. Are either of you two paying attention? Just post the Giulliani campaign talking points and let it go. |
|
Tony Snow is advocating a plan that will mean the end of this nation as we know it. My children will have no future in this nation should this madness be codified into law. Moreover, past actions are often the best indicator of future action, and the will to implement effective border security has not been demonstrated. But I believe fully Ted Kennedy's resolve to make it happen, NOT.
There is a word for Mr. Snow's speech, sophistry. Most of the posts here are anything but naive, and most of the folks comprehend the enormity of the stakes.
The time for deference and decorum is long since past, because I guarantee you the architects of this nightmare care not the slightest for those of us who will bear the brunt of its consequences.
We were once a great melting pot. We are fast becoming a Balkanized, tossed salad. And anyone who wants to level specious charges of Racism is full of it; folks are so over that there isn't a drop of humor left in it.
Any of us who served in the military didn't have any qualifiers in our oath about representing only a certain segment of our populace. But mark it down it was all about the United States of America and its citizenry, regardless of race or creed.
No one has an inherent right to come here. It is a privilege. If you want to avail yourself of this privilege, then you abide by our rules, period. No group should be afforded special privilige.
If you are allowed to come here, you respect our nation, you play by our rules; end of story. We aren't changing the rules because you think you merit it.
Trust? I trust what I know. I know that this nation was born and perpetuated at a heavy price.
I both know and trust that it falls under no one's purview to make merchandise of the United States of America.
|
|
If you do nothing else today, calm down, take a deep breath and be open-minded just enough to read today's column by Steve Maloney at
http://camp2008victory.townhall.com/
Here's a sample:
"IMMIGRATION & REPUBLICAN SURVIVAL
Saturday, May 19, 2007 9:17 AM
RED STATE ALERT: CAMPAIGN2008VICTORY OFFERS QUALIFIED SUPPORT TO IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION.
Note: To this point, I’ve said nothing about the proposed legislation on immigration. Unlike, say, Hugh Hewitt, I’d at least like to read the proposal before I condemn it – or, in my case, offer unqualified praise. I’ve been writing recently about “traps” we conservatives fall into, many of them set by the Democrats. When we end up in those traps, we lose elections. Immigration is about a very large issue: whether the Republican Party has a future. I welcome your comments, although I will not respond to hate mail or name-calling.
On the question of immigration, most of you know I’m not a big fan of Robert Novak, who long ago ceased being a “conservative” columnist. Novak has gone through something like total immersion in the Beltway culture, and his writings now seem mainly an effort to avoid offending the DC crowd.
That said, not everything he writes is suspect. In today’s TH, Novak says the following about a meeting of a Republican Study Group: “At a recent internal debate by the conservative House Republican Study Committee, Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina warned that the GOP ran the risk of looking like the racist National Party of South Africa on the immigration issue.”
I would ask my fellow conservatives to consider the implications of Rep. Inglis’ comments. He is a conservative Republican. He is NOT a turncoat. He is raising a serious question about the future of the Republican Party.
Frankly, we conservatives are NOT going to get immigration legislation that we like. We are in the minority in the Senate and the House. Many good Republicans, including people like Jon Kyl and John McCain of Arizona, as well as Saxby Chambliss and Jonny Isakson of Georgia, participated in the immigration “compromise.” They aren’t in love with the proposal. They do believe it’s the best we can get. They are very aware we’re in the minority.
When Hugh Hewitt condemns McCain – an authentic American hero – for “McCain-Kennedy” and the so-called “Gang of 14,” Hugh is engaging in what I’ve called “bumper-sticker politics.” He’s playing to the small minority of the country that is truly appalled by the current proposal.
If John McCain, for all his human failings, is not an authentic Republican, then our Party has no future. McCain, unlike, say Mitt Romney, has been pro-life for his entire political career. John McCain, unlike, say, Mitt Romney, was tortured in a North Vietnamese prison for five-and-a-half years. John McCain, along with Rudy Giuliani, has the courage to speak the truth about what’s necessary to win the War on Terror.
Hewitt, who has none of the above credentials, sickens me with his criticism of John McCain. In fact, Senator McCain has criticized Hugh’s favorite candidate, Mitt Romney, for changing his stance just about every important issue. Is McCain wrong on that devastating charge? No, he is right on target.
In 2005, Mitt Romney praised what was known then as McCain-Kennedy, which is basically the same proposal that’s now coming up for a Senate vote. This week, Romney, who’s apparently never held a position he can’t “adjust,” condemned what two years ago he commended.
Frankly, Romney turns my stomach. Hugh Hewitt must have a much stronger stomach than I.
Why is John McCain doing what he’s doing on immigration? To answer that, let’s turn back to Congressman Inglis.
These two good, albeit imperfect, men don’t want the Republican Party to deliver itself a mortal wound. They don’t want the Republican Party to lose – for generations – the votes of people of Hispanic heritage. They don’t want the Republican Party essentially to disappear.
The Republican Party has lost the vote of the second-largest minority group in this country, African-Americans. In national elections, we get perhaps 8%-10% of that group’s ballots.
McCain and Inglis – in contrast to, say, Hugh Hewitt – don’t want us to lose for generations the votes of the LARGEST minority group, people of Hispanic descent. Note that I’m NOT talking about Hispanic illegals. I’m talking about Hispanic citizens.
At the same time, we conservatives have fallen behind in the battle for the votes of women, who are NOT a minority when it comes to registered voters. In general, women vote for Democrats nationally by a rate of about 55% to 45%.
The only way Republicans have won if federal and national elections is by getting a huge chunk of the white male vote. In recent history, we’ve gotten nearly two-out-of-three votes from American male Caucasians. In 2006, we didn’t do nearly as well with white males, and we suffered disastrous losses.
When the Hugh Hewitt types are condemning McCain [whom I don’t support for the presidency], perhaps they might meditate on some of the realities people like McCain and Inglis are raising.
No, most conservatives are NOT anti-immigrant. But some people who get portrayed as conservatives – Pat Buchanan is one – are in fact anti-immigrant. They don’t like Mexicans. The are nativists, and they do great damage to our Party.
Frankly, the number of minorities in America just reached 100 MILLION. In contrast, a Pat Buchanan is one man who seems bent on outraging minorities in general. I've never heard him say one positive thing about Hispanic immigrants.
Most conservatives are anti-illegals. They want our laws enforced. They want our borders secured. But surveys show that most Hispanics don’t see it that way. They should see it that way, perhaps, but they don’t. They identify with immigrants, legal or illegal.
McCain and Inglis – and Kyl and Chambliss and Isaacson – may be right. This may be the very best deal we can get. If we manage to defeat the proposal in Congress, we could end up with no deal – or, more properly, end up with what we have now, which is a disaster.
If we lose the Hispanic vote for a generation, as we early lost the Blacks and women professionals, our future is extremely bleak. We will cease to be a significant factor in American politics. I don’t know what people like Hewitt think about this situation – if they reflect on it at all.
We can’t win many elections appealing just to the Republican “base,” i.e., to white males. From the evidence available, that base consists of about 30% of American voters. With that base in presidential elections, we can win Utah, Idaho, Mississippi, and maybe Alabama – and that’s about it. We can win perhaps 20 Senate seats and, at most, 100 seats in the House. We would never again have any influence on who’s nominated to the Supreme Court.
A war hero like John McCain sees that future – and it scares the heck out of them. It frightens me, and it should so the same to you. This is not a time for pandering. It is a time for pondering -- and even prayerful reflection.
It’s essential that we conservatives act wisely and practically on the issue of immigration. When conservative heroes, people like McCain, Chambliss, and Kyl, say this is the best deal we can get, let’s not call them turncoats. Let’s consider that they may be right.
Knowing what I know now, I intend to support the legislation proposed. I hope it’s possible to strengthen the enforcement procedures, but this is a lot better than the alternative: nothing."
|
|
|
|
Tony is one of my favorite talk show hosts of all time. He must have taken a huge pay cut when he left his syndicated show and the FOX network. Tony kind of reminds me of local hero Pat Tillman, who cared so much about the War on Terror that he left a multi-million dollar contract with the Arizona Cardinals and entered the Special Forces.
But the Tony Snow who was interviewed by HH (I've only skimmed the transcript because it is so disgusting) isn't the old Tony Snow I love so much. All I can do is guess that sitting in too many high-level meetings with the President and his advisors puts so much pressure on you that you finally have to change your honest ways in order to sell a load of crap to the country.
Nobody is going to come up with an answer to this complicated immigration issue for a long time. And that's the way it should be. Don't take legislative action at this time. Just wait. Even my wacko senator-from-hell John McCain is using the f-bomb behind closed doors (perplexingly attempting to get on board with this bill????).
We should build a fence, use every technological means at our disposal to stop the invasion, and at the same time... pass a one-page bill that everyone can get on board with. In other words, require any illegal alien residing in the USA to serve a term of no less than 6-8 years in the US military. After they serve their term, they can apply to become a US citizen. As for the rest of their family... I don't know, but I'm not in favor of leaving it up to Tony Snow or GWB.
|
|
|
Listen to him. He makes sense. You all sound rabid. They are working on the fence. They are rounding up people. They are trying to keep track of those here. I hear no solutions except "send them back" on the extreme right. Of course that can't work! Why do you think Jon Kyle came on board? The election showed him that people want real solutions to the problem and those unwilling to compromise on our side lost. You all sound insane and, frankly, there is an unpleasant racism here that shocks me. |
|
For those who care about these things here's something to consider. If the usa calculated its unemployment rate the way we did in the past (and the way Europe does now) the rate would be 8.2%.
The labor pool is shrinking since after 6 months of unemployment a worker is not counted in the pool. So as the labor pool drops the unemployment rate drops as well. This methodology gives a false sense of economic prosperity in my view.
If you care to learn more go to bls.gov and get the data for yourself.
My hunch is that the unemployment rate is higher than 8.2%. Out of professional pride I'll bet many folks tell surveyors that they are in business for themself, even though they have little to no income. |
|
Bullheadedness, unwillingness/ inability to listen to anyone outside his "bubble," demanding one-way loyalty from his subjects- that the shrub has dmeonstrated for six years in the White House in Texas before that, and in his business failures before that!
Why are you rightists acting so surprised? This is exactly how he's acted, how he's treated everyone in the world for his entire "adult" life. And now that you RaHoWa types are an unmitigated liability, you've been cut loose. |
|
Bullheadedness, unwillingness/ inability to listen to anyone outside his "bubble," demanding one-way loyalty from his subjects- that the shrub has dmeonstrated for six years in the White House in Texas before that, and in his business failures before that!
Why are you rightists acting so surprised? This is exactly how he's acted, how he's treated everyone in the world for his entire "adult" life. And now that you RaHoWs types are a liability instead of an asset, you've been cut loose. |
|
|
I'm surprised you would find it appropriate to allow 20 million illegal aliens to remain. In your interview, you've not addressed any constructive actions Congress could take to eliminate incentives. This is the __ONLY__ way to reduce the immigration problem. Examples would be: 1) eliminate the ability of children born on U.S. soil, to illegal aliens, to automatically become citizens, 2) eliminate the ability of illegal aliens to own real estate or businesses, 3) eliminate any public services to illegal aliens. Eliminating incentives is the only action that will work. This is basic Economics 101! I guess the media and politicians aren't interested in any such logic. |
|
|
Tony has a master who tightly controls loyalty. This is the first thing that he values in his staff. Everything else is secondary. That's why people around our obsessed President are so bleak and secondary and not creative. Tony, in this case, was trying hard to make worst look just bad, but will all his skills he couldn't make it look at least reasonable. That's how bad this deal really is! No spin master, even so sophisticated as Bill O'Reilly can save the faces of the Bill founding fathers. That's how really bad it is! But what can we expect from the Imperial Senators and lost President who apparently answer to higher authority, never mind that we voted for him twice and supported him in the atmosphere of hate for six unproductive years! Apparently he wants to leave a mark in History, like great Presidents from the past. But those Presidents won a war of atrocity against Europian fascism and Pacific imperialism; they won over the evil Soviet Empire. He, on the other hand, cannot even enforce the Immigration law in his own country, in peace time... What if he doesn't want to?! |
|
|
The intention of Republican elite is obvious: to provide cheap labor for small and not so small businesses that support Republican Party for exactly the one purpose: PROFIT. Profit in capitalist society is a healthy thing when it results from new technology, innovations, better organization. Of course, it is much easier to make money using cheap labor but charging customers prevailing American rates. To fix your roof will cost you $1,200 whether workers make $400 a day or $100 a day. The difference of $300 goes to the business owner. He, in turn, shares some with the Republican Party bureaucrats. And all are very happy. Who cares that another Che or another Fidel or Hugo will be elected President next time -- apparently not our elected Senators. I came from the former Soviet Union and I know a little about communism: trust me, you don't want to go there. If this Bill becomes law this transition will quickly become a harsh reality. |
|
|
just like they planned. There was a time when the city of Bierut Lebanon was beautiful, and life was good. Then the palestinians decided that sence they were not welcomed in Jordan or Syria, or Lebanon, they would co-exist with the Israelis in Israel. The Israelis even said you have every right, except to serve in the IDF......The problem was that the Palestinians accepted the offer, but deep down inside felt, "You stole our land!"...And there lies the rub. So, as time went by, they found leadership!(Yasser Arrafat)Who claimed NOT to be a terrorist nor operate an underground movement to take Palestine back.......All hispanic Mexican immigrants may not be activist, but certainly believe that President Polk stole their land! They understand "Manifest Destiny" and the history of the Mexican American Wars.............And those Mexican flags that they march with are not because they lost their U.S. Flag on the way to the march! And those T-shirts and posters of CHE is not because he was a famous U.S. President! Revolution in Latin and South America is in the fabric of their culture. And eventually, a charismatic leader will rise up with magnifico oratory skills!..................And we too will live in day to day conflict as the Israelis do now. There will be no assimilation.....Only chaos. |
|
I assure you that I'm quite Conservative.
I've assessed this bill through the prism of the underclass to demonstrate how this cuts clean across the premises of Reaganomics.
As our economy grew, the thirst for labour would also grow.
Within a fixed population therefore, the price of wages would therefore grow, as the laws of supply and demand gained traction.
But with an influx of new cheap labour, UNSKILLED wages won't really grow, or certainly won't grow at the pace they would ordinarily have without this interference with the market, through population tampering.
If you have a problem with that economic analysis, would you please specify your beef.
And not just throw around artful uses of quotation marks.
If you have an economic point to make, then damn well make it. Clarify my error, expose my mistakes.
Illuminate.
|
|
the only rational explanation is that Bush has sought to destroy the GOP from the start.
it explains taking out the keystone of the ME in his war of folly.
it explains his "tax cuts with expiration" gimmick.
it explains profligate spending with no vetoes.
it explains his refusal to defend his policies.
it explains his deference to the State Dept.
it explains this most vile betrayal on immigration.
and it explains the forthcoming bipartisan Iraq surrender.
either that or he really is as dumb as the lefties say |
|
To the poster who mentioned their report above about today's calling - where did you find that on their site?
Their site doesn't appear to have anything "new" on it to me, or no blog style format that would show that information.
Where is it?
Thanks.
|
|
|
i won't respond to your "insightful" economic analysis other than to point out that your useful idiot liberal buddies are the ones who brought this on. |
|
Just ponder one and all, for a moment, what impact this bill will have on our inner cities.
Just ponder, for a moment, what impact this bill will have upon the career prospects of young Black Americans, who will grow up in the shadow of this neoslavery created in our midst.
We are creating a new dark empire in our midst.
Just as in the Deep South of yore, there was no real Caucasian middle class when there was plenteous cheap slave labour.
So today, there will be no real movement of Black Americans into the middle class with the creation of this new slave empire in our midst.
Instead of elevating illegals into citizenship status, we are really ensuring that most of them will become America's new poor, new slave class, the new downtrodden in our midst.
Reaganomics was designed to lift ALL out of poverty.
But this bill SLASHES into the core structure of Reaganomics, by ENSURING THAT WAGES WON'T RISE.
Whereas before we were told "that a rising tide lifts all boats," whereas before we were told that the perks of a Supply-side Economy would "trickle down" to one and all, NOW WE ARE ENSURING that the tide won't rise for all, now we are ensuring that increased wages WON'T "trickle down" to one and all.
THIS MAKES SURE THAT physical labour wages WON'T RISE.
This is an attack upon all of Black America.
Good God!
|
|
Why didn't you ask Tony about the demographics of this bill and the resulting end of the Republican party?
Memos from Democrats are online now gloating that Republicans have been tricked into destroying their own party by going along needlessly with the importation of 50 million or so(illegals plus family members) new voters that will pull the lever 2 to 1 for the Democrats. This will forever alter the electoral balance we now have in this country at a precarious 50/50 and plunge this nation into perpetual leftism.
Why are Republicans going along with the death of the party? And for no reason? When the solution of just enforcing existing laws and removing the abilities of illegals to get jobs is so simple and will have them out of this country ON THEIR OWN. There is no need for mass deportations. Without jobs, they'll deport themselves. It's that simple.
The thinking must be that we can "convert" the Hispanics into Republican voters. But that's a pipe dream. Despite all of our best efforts, we didn't convert them at all between 2000 and 2004.
The original notion that Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 was based on the flawed "President Kerry" exit poll, and it has been now shown that Bush only actually got about 38% - 39% of their vote in 2004. The high end for Republicans, but no new ground. And that's despite a massive campaign to get their votes.
Just like the black vote, we stand little chance of "turning" these Hispanic voters to our side. And even if we could, that's one hell of a gamble to take, is it not? That MAYBE, JUST MAYBE we'll be able to change their minds and not get creamed in every election from here on out?
Do we really want to take a gamble, for no apparent reason, on something with such a small likelihood for success? And something that puts us at an IMMEDIATE disadvantage for now?
So again, why would any Republican be for this bill when it certainly spells the end of the party as a viable national force? Why help the Democrats slit our own throats?
Why won't somebody ask Tony Snow that?
|
|
|
At some point, we're going to have to forget about democrats and republicans. Neither party has this country's interests at heart. I've supported Bush for longer than most people have and I think I've reached my limit. This is utter bullcrap. |
|
This bill makes sure that young Black men continue to think that the only way out of the inner city is through athletic excellence or a career in entertainment, rap for instance.
It's a war against Black Americans.
I feel so sick to my stomach over this.
A thirst for labour in America's economy was slowly driving up wages, WHICH MEANT THAT BLACK AMERICANS were slowly but surely rising from poverty.
BUT NOW, the few jobs they get will have dirt wages.
But dirt wages don't provide for car insurance.
Don't provide for health insurance.
Don't provide the kind of wages that enables marriage, family and the values that ordinarily follow marriage and family.
Everyone's car insurance will soar.
Everyone's health insurance will soar.
The costs of this bill, the cost of this new slavery in our midst will be spread across the fruited plain. All of us will be tarnished, will be stained with this new Peculiar Institution that George W. Bush in his bewilderment has given us.
This bill makes ALL OF US participants in this neoslavery.
THE GRAND OLD PARTY WAS BORN in the ABOLITION MOVEMENT.
THE GRAND OLD PARTY WAS BORN IN THE FIGHT AGAINST SLAVERY.
How can we at this late date embrace a quasi neoslavery FOR THE VERY BLACK PEOPLE IN OUR MIDST, which our forefathers fought to free from the grinding poverty and inhumanity of slavery.
THIS LEGISLATION BETRAYS THE VERY ROOTS OF OUR PARTY, the GRAND OLD PARTY.
We fought slavery then, how can we embrace neoslavery today?
|
|
George Walker Bush is out on some Messianic binge, he's out there trying to fashion a Kingdom of God on Earth.
He's completely lost his mind, and what's worse, for some weird reason people around him are parroting his nonsense.
I was just listening to Dom Giordano tonight, who is a talk show host in Philadelphia.
He was calling the whole bill treason, flat out treason, betrayal, treachery, war against ordinary workers in America, who will have their wages SHARPLY depressed by this tsunami of cheap labour.
How is this not an absolute attack upon the lower middle class?
How is this not an absolute attack upon the Black poor in our inner cities. Jobs that they could do, and rise from poverty into the lower middle class, they now WON'T EVEN BE CONSIDERED FOR, because employers will follow the harsh laws of the market place, and will give those jobs to people who aren't even American.
This bill is a declaration of war against poor Black men in the inner city.
I'm so sick at heart thinking of the poverty in our midst that will be made permanent, that will be set in stone, wrapt in concrete by this obnoxious bill.
Those who favour the legislation ONLY look at the plight of these illegals. But NOBODY seems to give two damns about the poor in our own inner cities.
THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF Reaganomics is that a robust economy would provide jobs for all, and that wages would ultimately rise because of the thirst for labour.
INSTEAD we're seeing an ferocious influx of cheap labour that THWARTS THE WHOLE PREDICATE behind Reaganomics.
There are so many levels of betrayal, of sick, sick betrayal throughout this evil legislation.
And yet it's Bush, McCain and Graham that adorn themselves in the robes of the blessed, while we're supposed to be wearing the hard-hearted horns of the Devil himself.
|
|
|
|
What would happen in 2008 if dems win? You mean Ted Kennedy writing amnesty bill with La Raza, spending like crazy?
1: Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson can lead the public figth on TV (and youtube).
2: House reps can shut down the house and threaten to support impeachment and troop withdrawal if Bush does not veto the bill
3: Pelosi needs 70 republican votes in the House. Make sure this will not happen
4: Senate is lost..Still, make sure they get the message. Every republican who votes for amnesty will face a conservative primary challenger. No money for amnesty supporters.
|
|
|
According to NumbersUSA.com, the emails, calls and personal appearances by citizens is closing down the Senate offices. The blowback has been shrill. Tony Snow can do nothing but parrot his boss. It is his boss along with McCain, Kyl, and Specter who now have given Teddy Kennedy to write the Education Bill, the Immigration Bill, and other bills in which we citizens thought we had elected the President and GOPers that chance to do when the GOP actually held power. Elections have consequences. The GOP lost and now we conservGOPers are reaping the whirlwind from the The Stupid Party who was outfoxed by the Evil Party. God help us in '08. If we stay home, Her Highness wins and Teddy reigns as the King Maker and Deal Maker supreme. The nation loses its sovereignty and its culture. I can only say, keep the emails and calls going. 41 votes are needed to vote NO on cloture. Somebody in the GOP has to realize that to kow tow to Mexico and its lobbying allies in the USA plus the wolfish Democrat Party, is relegating itself to being out of power, perhaps forever. |
|
Al-Qaeda looking for talented new recruits with Z-Visas for positions in the US.
You must be able to demonstrate:
*You have not broken the law while in the US.
*Continuous employment while in the US.
*Willingness to present yourself for a tamper-proof ID that has biometric information, and submit yourself to background checks (disgruntled Muslims from Bosnia are ideal candidates)
*Mastery the English language and culture
Nice work Republicans. Instead of sealing the borders and securing the country, you have created yet another bloated and unmanageable bureaucracy for 19 more hijackers to slip through on their way to Allah.
God have mercy on us all. |
|
|
Tony Snow is nothing more than a shill. He hasn't changed his stance on this one iota. He is as faithful an open borders advocate as you will find, check his record. |
|
You can tell by Tony's pathetic spinning that he has bought the nonsense of the Administration's immigration policy. A sad performance for an otherwise nice guy.
Then again, there isn't anything "good" in this legislation to begin with. He had an impossible task. |
|
The House is where this might be killed. The Senate will pass it. They sold us out last year. The only thing that has changed is that we lost a few. We all know the President will sign it. Every House member is up for re-election in 2008. Democrat and Republican. Everyone has to contact their House member, get your neighbors, friends, co-workers, etc. to do the same. Whether you voted for them or not, they need to hear from you. You can find them here:
http://www.house.gov.com/
|
|
|
I've always liked Tony and I hope he is just doing his job and doesn't really buy what he's spinning. |
|
I thought he was a better guy than this. Do they put some magic condescend-to-the-people vitamins in the water over at the White House? Did Snow pick this up from Bush? Are our elected officials being replaced by KGB robots from Teddy Kennedy?
What a disgrace. |
|
|
|