President's immigration speech

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by Detonics

All he had to say was "There are no jobs, no state benefits for anyone in this country illegaly. There is no path to citizenship for those here illegaly or born of parents here illegaly. We are beginning a program of strict enforcement of the current worker eligibility laws and plan to vigorously prosecute any employer found with workers in violation of the law. I call on the legislative bodies to begin debate on a reasonable plan to allow legal guest workers and plan to streamline the process for persons of good character who desire to become American citizens."

I'd bet that illegal entry would drop by 50% within a week and we'd lose over that percentage of the illegals within the first year.

That is what I wanted to hear. And severe penalties for employers who hire illegals....many of them knowingly do just that.

[Five-O]

The fact that the drunk motherf....... I mean Senator Kennedy endorses the President's plan is all I need to hear.

[dmgedgoods]

#

[Slantwire]

More lunacy. I apologize in advance for the CNN link, but Mexico is threatening to sue in US courts if Guard troops touch "migrants."

It's OUR damn country, and we'll deploy OUR soldiers on OUR land to arrest criminals illegally entering our country if we damn well please.

[QRQ 30]

Originally Posted by Five-O

The fact that the drunk motherf....... I mean Senator Kennedy endorses the President's plan is all I need to hear.

HOOOAH!! Don't consider thoughts or proposals, just vote for the name!!!

[SRT31B]

I think that even the most liberal of judges (9th "circus") would throw out any case brought by the Mex government... at least I hope they would...

Even if it was to be heard, I think anyone with any legal sense at all would realize what a ridiculous claim they have.

I agree that we can put our military anywhere in our country that we want, but I still believe that it should be the border patrol's sole responsibility for security of our borders. Thats what they're there for.

[groundup]

The following states are going to be supported with National Guard troops (Soldiers and Airmen) - California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas. Of those, one has decided to not allow any troops to be armed while serving - Arizona.

WTF are they going to do? Stand there with their hands out and tell people "stop... please?" What is the point in even sending them than? They might as well send a bunch of preschoolers out there. They can do the same thing "hey mister policeman, I see a Mexican crossing the border." I can't stand stupid bureacracy. It is up to the states helping where they want the troops to be sent and I can tell that I know of one state that won't be sending troops in harms way to AZ!

[QRQ 30]

Originally Posted by groundup

The following states are going to be supported with National Guard troops (Soldiers and Airmen) - California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas. Of those, one has decided to not allow any troops to be armed while serving - Arizona.

WTF are they going to do? Stand there with their hands out and tell people "stop... please?" What is the point in even sending them than? They might as well send a bunch of preschoolers out there. They can do the same thing "hey mister policeman, I see a Mexican crossing the border." I can't stand stupid bureacracy. It is up to the states helping where they want the troops to be sent and I can tell that I know of one state that won't be sending troops in harms way to AZ!

The Gov. of AZ as well as Sherriff Arapajo say they are perfectly able and willing to do the job themselves. A case in point, Arapajo has some pretty full pens. I am also a firm believer in State's rights. Any Federal Troops should only be at the request and under the control of the State. They will accept support but no armed troops. Arapajo alone has a posee of 200 men and reserves of 2000.

IIRC Federal Troops moving into VA had a lot to do with a previous war.

[groundup]

I am fully for the state's right to choose if they want armed troops or not as well. They are technically Title 32 which is state active duty, not federal. My problem is with their choosing to do so. Then again, they aren't just a state's border, they are the border of the entire nation and it is the job of the Federal government to ensure that it's borders aren't challenged. This is a national issue which affects all states, not just those on the border. Since it is the National Guard, and under state orders, the Federal Government doesn't have the right to tell the state otherwise though.

I realize that the American borders aren't technically a war zone, even if some of us do think that they are, but putting troops on the borders without any weaponry is making them a target. When the gangs of Mexico put a price on the heads of any Soldier, Border Patrol Agent, DEA, Sherrif, and pretty much all other law enforcement agents working in the border states that should send a message to those in power that they mean to do damage before letting their sources of income (drugs, smuggling, human trafficking) go away.

[QRQ 30]

I am under the impression they are there for techno;ogical support and not as sentries on the Border.