“Big Speech” on Immigration Last Night…

bush%20immigration%20speech.jpg

,,,the text of which can be found here.

Curious as to your reaction to this speech, Chicagoland. Talk to me!

16 Comments so far

  1. Dave! (unregistered) on May 16th, 2006 @ 10:42 am

    It makes brilliant sense to me…

    We don’t have enough troops in Iraq to do the job right, so we should divert some troops to stop people from coming to America to work…

    We have a problem with military recruiting and even a stop-loss program in place because the Guard is stretched thin, so when soldiers come back from their third tour of Iraq, they shouldn’t go back to their families, they should sit along the border…

    Instead of focusing on immigration reform, and finding better ways to allow people to come to America *legally* we should put soldiers along the border to shoot people who are so desperate to come here to work that they’re already risking their lives…

    Yep. Brilliant. Oh, and by brilliant I mean, “Way to pander to the conservative base who is starting to hate you as much as the rest of us already do!”


  2. TLB (unregistered) on May 16th, 2006 @ 11:46 am

    “Finding better ways to allow people to come to America *legally*” won’t solve anything, it will just increase the numbers of both legal and illegal immigrants.

    No one who’s serious thinks the NG will be allowed to shoot people.

    The solution is to support our current laws, especially the part where Bush has completely failed: workplace enforcement.


  3. Dave! (unregistered) on May 16th, 2006 @ 1:07 pm

    TLB: what’s wrong with increasing the number of legal immigrants?

    Unless you are a Native American, chances are pretty good you or your family were once immigrants, too.


  4. Marty (unregistered) on May 16th, 2006 @ 1:23 pm

    “No one who’s serious thinks the NG will be allowed to shoot people.”

    They are going to be a “support role,” but, just because they won’t be allowed to shoot people doesn’t mean that they won’t shoot people. Soldiers, even ones in the guard, are taught to shoot people. The National Guard are still soldiers, and this redeployment to the border represents, contrary to the Presidents words, a more militarized border.


  5. nikkos (unregistered) on May 16th, 2006 @ 1:48 pm

    “Illinois Citizen Group to Build Wall on Indiana Border”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/illinois-citizen-group-to_b_21111.html


  6. joe (unregistered) on May 16th, 2006 @ 2:40 pm

    “…just because they won’t be allowed to shoot people doesn’t mean that they won’t shoot people.”

    If they are even issued ammunition. When my brother was deployed for both Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Rita, they walked around with M-16s, but no ammo the entire time.


  7. Gabe (unregistered) on May 16th, 2006 @ 3:48 pm

    It’s funny listening to people talk about the military who’ve never experienced it.

    ….

    He never said that the military would be walking the border. They will use NG men and women to help in support roles like survelliance. THEY WILL HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO APPREHEND, DETAIN, OR GUARD BORDER CROSSERS. They won’t even have a weapon in their hands. They’ll be sitting in front of a computer analyzing aerial photographs.

    And as to your point, Dave, about recruiting and stop loss, those are for the active duty component. The NG does not have an issue with either of these. On top of that, they will be using the units that are not deployed to Iraq. In other words, they will not use units that have been away from their families for a year or more. They don’t want ground-pounders. They want those individuals with high tech skills like flying drones and gathering reconnaissance from aerial survelliance. They will not deploy the units. They will have them do their 2-3 week field exercise on the border instead of at a military installation.

    ….

    Dave, he did talk about immigration reform. Remember the words “guest worker program”? Or did you turn down the volume and ad lib the words for him?

    ….

    I do think that immigration reform needs to be dealt with but I think an even bigger issue is the border and our lack of control. We can enact as much reform as we want but without a way to control the flow, it’s pointless. It’s like trying to control water flow without a faucet.


  8. Dave! (unregistered) on May 16th, 2006 @ 10:57 pm

    Ah, yes, the “guest worker” program. Because “guest worker” programs have worked so well in Europe.

    You know, for a bunch of asshats so desperate to distance themselves from French policies that they *renamed French Fries*, the Republican’s sure seem anxious to adopt failed French immigration policies!


  9. TLB (unregistered) on May 16th, 2006 @ 11:57 pm

    TLB: what’s wrong with increasing the number of legal immigrants? Unless you are a Native American, chances are pretty good you or your family were once immigrants, too.

    Every person on Earth is descended from immigrants. So, unless anyone has the right to move anywhere, that means nothing.

    As for increasing the numbers of legal immigrants, what’s planned is a massive increase: 100 million over the next 20 years:

    http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14820


  10. nikkos (unregistered) on May 17th, 2006 @ 8:52 am

    OK, let’s cut through the crap and be honest- opponents of illegal Mexican immigration are often opponents of Mexican immigration in general (even legally), as you can plainly see from some of the comments in this thread.

    If the proponents of the border wall and militarized border were serious, they would be clamoring for stepped-up security along the Canadian border as well. Hell, if you were really worried about border security you’d probably want to do something about the literally thousands of miles of undefended coastline in America.

    Given that no one is advocating anything of the sort leads me to believe they are defending the militarization of the Mexican border via disingenuous arguments for “national security.”

    I suspect that what you really fear is the “Mexicanization” of America and American culture. You fear being a white minority. Yet you can’t talk about this openly because people like nikkos will call you a racist (and he may be right).

    So you tell me: what is it really that you fear? What aspects of American culture do you fear will disappear?


  11. Joseph J. Finn (unregistered) on May 17th, 2006 @ 12:27 pm

    “So, unless anyone has the right to move anywhere, that means nothing.”

    Everyone should have the right to move anywhere; this whole archaic system of “national borders” is just plain silly and should be completely scrapped.


  12. Dave! (unregistered) on May 17th, 2006 @ 1:13 pm

    TLB: Why shouldn’t anyone be allowed to move anywhere? We live in a global economy. If you are comfortable with the language, culture, and society of an area, why shouldn’t you be allowed to move/live there?


  13. Gabe (unregistered) on May 17th, 2006 @ 3:33 pm

    “So you tell me: what is it really that you fear? What aspects of American culture do you fear will disappear?”

    That must be it. I must be afraid of losing my American cultural identity because my mother didn’t love me enough as a child. Thank you so much Dr for getting to the root of that problem. /Sarcasm/

    Nikkos, that post ranks up there with your Jack Nickolson impression. aaaannd scene!


  14. nikkos (unregistered) on May 17th, 2006 @ 4:06 pm

    No, I’m quite serious.

    And the fact that I have received no substantive replies to my query only confirms my hunch- this isn’t about “national security,” the “rule of law” or any other canard.

    Thus, opposition to Mexican immigration- both legal and illegal- is primarily about maintaining a mythological white American culture.

    I have offered comprehensive policy proposals on this issue, yet from across the aisle, all I see is hand-wringing, teeth-gnashing and fear-mongering. Clearly, I do not share their fears of a brown planet, and yet, no one has stepped up to explain to me what it is exactly that they are so concerrned about.

    (To be clear: Not saying that you are guilty of this in this particular instance Gabe, I am referring to other commenters that have been vociferous in their support for an armed troop presence on the border).


  15. Gabe (unregistered) on May 17th, 2006 @ 5:45 pm

    I think ‘No response’ is because people aren’t taking you seriously. You draw conclusions from the lack of response but as you found with a previous post, it was simply because people get burnt out on issues. Your perception isn’t always reality but you can think that if you want. You can be quite serious but I don’t think people are taking you seriously. Your post seems more like a distraction from the real issue than a serious post about immigration reform. An analytical attempt to resolve a political issue through psychology.

    And you are correct, I’m not opposed to Mexican immigration. I was born and raised in California as well as being able to speak spanish. I’ve worked side-by-side with migrant workers and some of my best friends in school were Mexican.

    And yes, they’ve been talking about beefing up security along the Canadian border as well as doing something about it but Canada doesn’t see millions of people trying to cross it’s borders illegally for work every year.


  16. nikkos (unregistered) on May 17th, 2006 @ 8:01 pm

    You could be right- I might very well be misinterpreting the silence. And I’m no stranger to not being taken seriously, but that’s never fazed me. Plus, it’s not ME that I want people to take seriously- it’s the ISSUES I’m talking about. That’s I want people to take seriously.

    I tend to think of a post like this in terms of an ongoing discussion we’ve been having here on Metroblogging and I sometimes forget not everyone that’s commenting has being playing along at home.

    That’s my roundabout way of saying that I think I’ve covered this topic pretty well here on the blog, and yes, humor plays a role at times, as does provocation.

    At the same time I will continue to demand that people advance a real argument in support of their positions, which is what I demand of myself.

    Maybe my rough rhetoric will shake something up in somebody, show them things from a perspective they have not yet seen. I’ve learned a lot from kickin around the issues too, even from those I often disagree with- viciously (cough, Gabe). So I wanted to throw out this open thread, to let people say their piece, but also, yes, as a crude barometer of public opinion.

    Occasionally I will stoop to yelling “pussies!” out into the silence left by fleeing opponents. Overall I think I’m fairly restrained- you should see the stuff I DON’T post (I have also found I learn a lot from just doing the thinking that is demanded by the writing). (And yes, it is hard to contain oneself as the Emperor’s party barge smashes against the hard shoals of reality.)

    For some reason, people keep reading. I can’t figure it out either.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.