Bush’s response to immigration question makes 13-year-old girl cry
posted at 5:30 pm on July 10, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
She must be a Republican.
“Mr. President, I know immigration has been a big problem in the U.S. And what is your next step with the immigration bill?” Jessica asked Mr. Bush, during a question and answer period after a speech Mr. Bush gave to a Cleveland business group.
Mr. Bush’s sarcastic reply — a wry “yeah, thanks” — drew laughter from the crowd of 400. But the attention caused young Jessica, who characterized herself in an interview afterward as very shy, to immediately tear up.
“No, it’s a great question. No, I appreciate that,” Mr. Bush said, as he saw Jessica’s reaction.
Jessica, in the interview, said that she was crying because she was so nervous.
But when the president’s sarcastic answer was mentioned, she said, “I heard that too.”
It’s been on my mind lately so I’m going to ask you flat out. Moment of truth. Yes or no?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
this and the first LegendHasIt post have been the best repsonses so far to a Poorly-Worded Question
Janos Hunyadi on July 10, 2007 at 8:28 PM
My mother-in-law is a naturalized US citizen, a first generation immigrant. She worked her ass off for that honor and places her first allegiance with this nation, rather than her original home. Amnesty cheapens everything she did to become a citizen.
Immigration without naturalization (read: assimilation) can never be acceptable if we wish to preserve our Republic. Border security is a huge issue in my mind, but it has never been as important to me as assimilation – which is one of the primary purposes of the legal hurdles involved in immigration.
ConfigSys.boy on July 10, 2007 at 8:29 PM
Build the wall, enforce the laws on the books by prosecuting, fining, and jailing those who hire illegal workers, stop any type of Federal or State taxpayer funded assistance, ban their children from using our schools, with the jobs gone and no longer able to live off the backs of the American taxpayer, they will go home. No amnesty not now not ever!
KC-135A on July 10, 2007 at 8:32 PM
bmac-
You’re projecting your own delusions of “racism” on those who want to keep this a nation of laws and not of men [or "races"]. Same with Enrique. Strawmen on parade. (Tapdancing furiously.)
I don’t want Russian or Nigerian or Chinese or Polish or Syrian or Dutch or Mexican or Ukranian or Jordanisn or Javanese or Guinean or Swedish or Australian or Iranian or Tanzanian or Belizean ILLEGALS.
Race-baiting is the first refuge of the b.s. artist.
profitsbeard on July 10, 2007 at 8:37 PM
My son was thrilled on the day that the Mexicans skipped school to march that one time. He said it was so peaceful and uncrowded. One of the many reasons I am pulling out my kids to homeschool them.
StephC on July 10, 2007 at 8:41 PM
That’ll learn me to leave a brief comment and then not look back at the post for a few hours. Concurring with some of the posters here, My acceptance of (inevitable) amnesty would certainly exclude law-breakers (beyond the 100% of them that broke the law to get here), and only happen after the mythical completion of perfect border security. Which, like someone said above, would include ports, visa loopholes, entry/exit verification, etc. Only after we were 100% secure, would I allow some kind of amnesty to occur for law-abiding (after they illegally snuck in)peoples.
Bryce on July 10, 2007 at 8:42 PM
I think you’ll find that conservative American’s still have that cultural confidence of which you speak, (which has been lost by the left), and thus wonder why we should exacerbate the problem.
Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t try to stop the border invasion unless we take care of the liberal problem first?
FloatingRock on July 10, 2007 at 8:44 PM
I agree as well… but there are two important things to note. “Border Security” would also need to include a workable system (no more overstaying visas, etc.) It can’t just be the border that gets secured in exchange for amnesty. Secondly, absolute border security is impossible (and are you including the Canadian border? National guard and a fence on both border would do a damn good job, but I don’t think it’s ever guaranteed.
By the way, why has no one signed on to my plan (that I’m too lazy to retype at the moment as I’ve done in the past)? I know why, because our pols are vote fishing b**ches. Anyway, the long and short of my plan is, after boosting penalties for companies hiring illegals to terrifying levels (huge fines and serious jail time), we’d then give some sort of ID to the illegals, so we can have them on the books. Then, triple tax them! You think I’m kidding? Maybe for 5 years, then after that double tax them for the rest of their lives. They can never have voting rights or collect social security, yet they must pay in to it. There’s more, but that’s the gist (of course this is after the border is secured).
RightWinged on July 10, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Just for the record, I’m a conservative. I am a conservative because they are usually the most informed, reasonable, logical people. It’s my feeling conservatives are wrongly branded as racists most of the time. My concern was this was a pretty simple question, with a pretty obvious answer. Amnesty for perfect border control, would seem a small price to pay, to regain control of our country. Is it perfect? Of course not. The reality is, nothing will ever be. To just flat-out say NO, is to not be reasonable enough to be willing to even think about a compromise. Believe me I know the impact of out of control immigration, I just expect conservatives to be a little more open to solving problems, not just closing their ears and saying NO NO NO.
bmac on July 10, 2007 at 8:48 PM
PERFECT?
It would be 100% imperfect by default because of the quid pro quo nature of the deal.
Here’s an idea. If you cheated, go home. Wait your turn.
Here’s a simple test. If Mexico were Haiti, Russia or some dissident nation, how tall would that wall be? Would amnesty even be a question?
We romanticize Hispanic culture in this country. But we are unwilling to recognize that very few of these immigrants are assimilating.
Many of our cities hold city meetings in Spanish. American values and traditions are often mocked. Try going to any sporting event where Mexico is a competing team.
Blah blah yada yada. I’m rambling and PO’d.
The Race Card on July 10, 2007 at 8:54 PM
No blanket amnesty. Period.
Fine them. Give them a path to citizenship. A requirement that they never achieve that citizenship until legal immigrants before them have been processed.
And they should not be permitted to vote until they achieve that citizenship either. That way, the Democrats cannot immediately achieve the electoral demise of the Republican party that they wanted. (Fat chance Congress would go along with that proposal.)
No need to deport, so long as they do not break the law (again). The minute that happens, they’re gone, and can never get back in.
And thus, the legal immigrants should be allowed into the country quicker. It’s only fair. If we’re going to allow the illegals to stay, we need to allow the legals to come in as well. It’s either that, or deport the illegals. Only fair.
Create a tamper proof ID card for all citizens with a magnetic bar code that would allow employers to immediately know their legal status and police record. Make it a federal mandate that employers have this system. The ones that refuse, do not stay in business.
Build the fence. Station all necessary guard troops and border patrol agents. Speaking of which, pardon Ramos and Campeon. Disallow prosecutors from ever giving pardons to illegal immigrants in exchange for testimony.
My pie in the sky wishlist, which will never happen while Congress, the President, and business wanting cheap labor continue to sell us out.
Only when the majority of politicians truly want to do what is best for the country will any of this happen.
Hawkins1701 on July 10, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Since complete and total amnesty means that all those visa overstays, enemies of America, drug cartel members, Nigerian scammers and only God knows who would be included I have to vote NO!!!!
Now if you phrase the question to where the non criminals who truly want to be Americans and value our freedoms and responsibilities I certainly don’t have a problem with forgiving their criminal trespass on US soil provided they meet the requirements of other people who patiently wait to come to this wonderful nation.
Buzzy on July 10, 2007 at 9:07 PM
By the way, all you people that think we should deport all illegals even after we’ve built a fence – Do you just not like Mexicans? Or do you HATE THEM? :)“You just hate the brown people! Admit it!” [Fixed]
Enrique on July 10, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Pure bullshit.
It isn’t a “Mexican” issue. It’s an issue of we (the People) don’t have any real control whatsoever over who comes across that southern border, thanks to our current Federal Government. No matter their nationality or intentions, the odds of successfully gaining entry into the US across the southern border is just ridiculously positive.
Our northern border would be just as bad if not for the efforts of Canada. They at least TRY to work with us (with some successes and some failures) while the Mexican government seems to deem it their God-given right to penetrate our souther border at will. That’s not acceptable to me.
It’s cut and dry to me. Step 1, build the friggin fence I’ve already had appropriated from my taxes. Step 2 is to perfect that fence. Chain link isn’t going to cut it. As an American citizen, I have the knowledge to rapidly bypass a simple chain link fence even if it’s electrified. Step 3 is to expand it to cover the whole southern border (I’ll willingly cough up more in tax money for that). Step 4 is to look north and help all the Canadian Border Agents that everyone hates for doing their job effectively.
As an average, blue-collar Joe, I know all this security crap is going to cost me. I’m also willing to cough up the bucks to ensure the future of this nation. My “for the children” thinking is to leave them a nation more safe and secure than the one I presently reside in.
America is man’s last, best hope (to paraphrase). I owe a more secure “best hope” to those who will live when I’m dust in a grave.
When “undocumented Americans” are found, they need to get the boot (regardless of race and on MY dime, mind you) back to wherever they came from. We have millions of immigrants awaiting the chance to come here legally. Those who flout our laws earn zero sympathy from me whatsoever.
American_Jihadist on July 10, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Glad to see that you’ve abandoned the “good faith” argument.
The particulars of those who oppose amnesty in the real world have been laid out over and over again: rule of law, past congressional inaction on the topic, security, etc. ad infinitum. Additionally, some who are in the “hell no” camp have said that they are married to Mexican-descended persons, are Mexican-descended Americans themselves, are legal immigrants from various nations or first generation Americans (I’m one of the latter).
In the face of that, for you to say that it’s “reasonable” that the proponent of some sort of compromise would think that the “hell no” camp is composed of racists is itself ignorant, said in bad faith or racist.
Sister.
And it indeed does work that way in many cases–just not all of them.
baldilocks on July 10, 2007 at 9:09 PM
By the way, all you people that think we should deport all illegals even after we’ve built a fence – Do you just not like Mexicans? Or do you HATE THEM? :)
Enrique on July 10, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Why do we need to promote a bilingual society now after 250 plus years of English as the national language?
sonnyspats1 on July 10, 2007 at 9:12 PM
profitsbeard-
Race baiting!? My only point all along has been, I expect more from conservatives. When people are screaming HELL NO, and NO AMNSETY EVER!, in ALL CAPS!, that just feeds into the perception of the “angry white guy”. I did not call anyone a racist. It’s a volatile issue. I’m on your side.
bmac on July 10, 2007 at 9:14 PM
If we granted amnesty to all the current lawbreakers, including many who are likely here specifically to harm us, how exactly does that make border security “perfect”?
TexasRainmaker on July 10, 2007 at 9:16 PM
baldilocks-
Sorry, didn’t know you were a girl/woman.
bmac on July 10, 2007 at 9:22 PM
After listening to the president–a man who I think most conservatives posting here tried to support through thick and thin–say that opponents of CIR didn’t want to do “what’s best for America”; after seeing one of his minions (Chertoff) say that opponents to CIR wanted the death penalty for illegal immigrants; and after hearing other conservatives say that opponents “just don’t like Mexicans” (Linda Chavez) or don’t want any immigration (WSJ editorial board), I should think that you might understand why feelings are a bit high in this matter.
Also, the secretive manner in which the CIR (I had dubbed it the Illegal Immigration Compromise) was composed and the way the senate attempted to bum rush it into law left a bitter taste in the mouths of many of those same opponents.
baldilocks on July 10, 2007 at 9:29 PM
No worries. I realize that the handle doesn’t exactly say “chick.” :-)
baldilocks on July 10, 2007 at 9:30 PM
baldiocks-
I too, am furious with Bush/Republicans. In the context of the question first posed, to me, amnesty would be worth securing our borders. Gotta go, no hard feelings!
bmac on July 10, 2007 at 9:36 PM
None, indeed. Later.
baldilocks on July 10, 2007 at 9:39 PM
I also said no. I agree with some of the other commenters that some people (like terrorists, drug lords and gang members, etc.) who are not good for America are unfortunately already here probably. I just can’t grant them a free pass to stay.
Also, I think assimilation should be necessary. I heard on FoxNews this morning that some schools in south Texas are actually going to make English speaking kids learn Spanish, rather than the other way around. That is ridiculous. I wouldn’t even think of just rolling into Mexico/France/Germany/wherever and saying “okay, everyone learn English to make things easier for me, oh it’s your country? Too bad.”
Then again, this is America and we certainly seem to be portraying ourselves as a bunch of suckas lately…
hollygolightly on July 10, 2007 at 9:51 PM
As usual, the question leaves me scratching my head.
If the amnesty applies to convicted criminals, or people with terrorist or gang affiliation, or people who have injured others financially by having accidents without insurance and not paying the damages, stole someone’s identity and caused the victim financial harm, etc… then NO.
If the amnesty includes anyone who is dependant on the welfare system,… then NO.
If the amnesty includes only law abiding, self-supporting people,… then YES.
And “perfect border security” would have to include a “perfect background check” for amnesty applicants, including checking the County voter roles for voter fraud.
jaime on July 10, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Blackhawk45 on July 10, 2007 at 10:02 PM
Hollygolightly;
I live in Washington State and a grammar school in my town is switching from bilingual to monolingual—in Spanish, and if the English speaking kids don’t like it they’ll have to go somewhere else for an education next year.
FloatingRock on July 10, 2007 at 10:25 PM
bmac, I’ll give you this. Philosophically, I’m opposed to any compromise. That said, I understand that the odds of getting what I want are next to nil. To me, the answer is to move the whole debate as far over to where I want it to go as I can.
I’ll give an example, I’m sure there are gun owners who opt to be members of the more absolutist GOA over the NRA, to offer an example. They might not even be as absolutist as the GOA is in its mission statement, but if the GOA is strong, they can drive the whole issue to their favor (in this case in favor of gunowners), and then by the time the DC water-down of policy happens, they are much closer to where they want to be in terms of said policy.
Bad Candy on July 10, 2007 at 10:32 PM
In theory my answer would be yes. Perfect border security is, in my opinion, THE most important challenge facing this country right now. However, since perfect border security is an impossibility, I would vote no. It’s not a realistic question. Might as well have a poll asking people whether they would be willing to accept all the ills of illegal immigration for absolutely nothing in return.
Guardian on July 10, 2007 at 10:33 PM
So the English speaking kids just have to get over it or THEY have to get out, huh? Wow, is this a public school? Unbelievable.
hollygolightly on July 10, 2007 at 10:34 PM
If you don’t mind my asking, where exactly in WA? I live in WA (in the SE). Just curious.
StephC on July 10, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Could someone please define perfect border security?
Sounds like having zero crime. If everything is legal, there can never be any crime. So if we no longer have borders, security is perfect.
eclark1849 on July 10, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Hell no
Offering Security in exchange for Amnesty is exactly how Kennedy etal were trying to pull the wool over the public’s eyes.
franksalterego on July 10, 2007 at 10:44 PM
If either Billary or Osama are elected in 08, there are new reports out, that they want to unite with the independent party, and are going to make the honorable Sen. John Mcinsane their Homeland Defense Secratary….so whatever fence has been built will most likly come down anyway..
Legions on July 10, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Hollygolightly and StephC;
http://www.wenworld.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070411/EDU/704110338/1001
FloatingRock on July 10, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Please tell me that’s a joke. So if the kids want to go to an English-only school they have to find their own transportation too if there isn’t one within their school district? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, wow.
hollygolightly on July 10, 2007 at 11:00 PM
FR, thanks for the link.
My daughter’s school here in the Tri Cities had this option, also. I didn’t sign her up for it, so I don’t know just how many kids were in the program. All I can say is, “WOW.”
StephC on July 10, 2007 at 11:01 PM
StephC and heather,
Just out of curiousity, how did your in-laws treat you before you got married?
PRCalDude on July 10, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Wow. Thanks for the link.
Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Haha, I just went to your blog and read the story about the guy who had fake testicles made for his dog. Hilarious!
hollygolightly on July 10, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Sorry, that was definitely OT but I couldn’t help myself!
hollygolightly on July 10, 2007 at 11:10 PM
PR, they treated us fine. My FIL is defintely more OK w/ the fact that ALL of his kids who are/have been married (6 of the 7) have all married white people. He defintely has some old Mexico types of thinking when it comes to what a woman should be doing, which has caused some tension (to put it nicely!) I think my MIL was really, really wanting a Mexican daughter-in-law. She doesn’t say anything to any of us, but what she has told others lets me know if I were brown, she’d love me. :)
StephC on July 10, 2007 at 11:12 PM
:) It was a slow day at work that day!
StephC on July 10, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Hollygolight, it’s no joke.
I’m glad the link worked. They used to require a paid subscription to the paper for access to most of their articles.
FloatingRock on July 10, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Sorry if anyone already said this. But when I read this story there already 222 comments. didn’t read them all. Was this the girl that cried at Sanjaya on American Idol, looking for more publicity?
PowWow on July 10, 2007 at 11:18 PM
No I do not hate mexicans – Just people who break the law and then expect me to pay for their healthcare and welfare…
CrazyFool on July 10, 2007 at 11:21 PM
I guess on one hand they are learning two languages which is always a good skill to have. And learning it as a child is certainly the easiest time to do so. But…I still just can’t get over how speaking English only warrants a punishment. Can you imagine the hooplah if they said, “well, if you only speak Spanish, you’ll have to provide your own transportation, too bad.” Immigrants can’t be MADE to learn English generally, but now American kids DO have to learn Spanish or pay for their own transportation to school???
hollygolightly on July 10, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Haha, well thanks for giving me about five minutes of nonstop laughter. It helped with the annoyance after reading the link FloatingRock gave us!
hollygolightly on July 10, 2007 at 11:25 PM
What is it going to take to get our representatives to take the integrity and border security of our nation seriously?
What is going to take for our representatives to look to the good of the nation and abandon special interests that favor the illegal alien for short term profit and the lure of political advantage?
omegaram on July 10, 2007 at 11:28 PM
I don’t disagree, although it would be preferable that the Spanish speakers learned English in an English speaking country rather than the other way around.
FloatingRock on July 10, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Amnesty? No freakin’ way! At this point, it isn’t possible to deport millions of illegal aliens. Secure the border to stop the traffic. Enforce current laws to deport those who are here illegally. Force businesses to stop hiring illegals by levying huge fines against them. When the jobs dry up folks, they will go home on their own. Those that don’t, will commit crimes and must be deported or jailed.
thedecider on July 10, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Agreed. We’ve gone so far into PC land that we would rather put ourselves out than mandate things that are required of immigrants in any other country. I just don’t understand what we think we’re proving, that we are indeed the world’s biggest suckers??
hollygolightly on July 10, 2007 at 11:51 PM
I’d have to say no… it simply is not fair and I honestly don’t understand why they have to be tied together.
tshell on July 10, 2007 at 11:52 PM
I voted yes but perfect border security is impossible. Maybe if God was a border patrol agent.
Wanting all the illegals deported is also an impossibility but wanting a lot of them deported doesn’t mean you hate Mexicans. It means that you realize that when technology catches up to current labor needs there will be a lot of unemployed farm workers, day laborers, etc. and that is going to be a huge problem.
Bill C on July 11, 2007 at 12:03 AM
I voted NO, but if you tossed in that I’d never ever again would have to hear that freakin’ awful polka-based-accordion-and-trumpet-pitiful-excuse-for music, I might change my mind ..
now that’s how they could’ve gotten the Shamnesty bill passed .. have all of the illegals swear off of Mexican music ..
:-)
-FatOldGuy
Fogpig on July 11, 2007 at 12:03 AM
You forgot to throw in Jessica Alba as my love slave, which is at least as likely to happen as perfect border security.
The Monster on July 11, 2007 at 12:06 AM
No.
Secure the borders and repeal all immigration reform provisions enacted since 1964, then set new quotas based on the proportion of population using the country of origin/ancestry as reported in the 1960 census. Cap total immigration for 40 years at 150 thousand total. Dig up that General that Eisenhower appointed to run the Border Patrol, reanimate the guy and cut him loose. Heck, even if he’s just a drooling zombie, he’ll be better than Chertoff.
As I see it, going back and ripping this out by its nasty roots Teddy Kennedy dreamed up in 1965 is the only way to truly make it right. By the way, what I wrote is pretty close to precisely what Congress did in 1924. How un-PC of them.
And, I reiterate, no amnesty. Never.
kdaddy on July 11, 2007 at 12:07 AM
This online poll illustrates why real border security will never happen. If even an unrealistically optimistic trade-off between amnesty for those already here (and let’s face it, they’re not going anywhere) and perfect border security going forward can’t garner a majority, how the hell could any more realistic (read: messy) compromise pass?
Xrlq on July 11, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Yep, true enough.
Allahpundit on July 11, 2007 at 12:12 AM
To understand the results of the poll would require several other questions to determine how various individuals interpreted such a subjective poll question.
FloatingRock on July 11, 2007 at 12:26 AM
I am the King of Compromise in most of my political beliefs, almost to the point of questioning my own conservatism. Two things I refuse to compromise on is the war against radical Islam and illegal immigration.
Just before you get any ideas, there are only two things that make me well-up with patriotism/tears: Hearing the national anthem and seeing and immigrant granted citizenship. I have worked with both types of immigrants in the hotel industry and it’s not fun going from heart felt pride to sheer disgust all in the span of ten minutes. They are easy to spot too.
mojowire on July 11, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Funny. I never knew there were so many Americans who had bought into defeatist agendas. Eisenhower took care of the same problem…by executive order alone. To say that we cannot do anything about any person who does not belong on our sovereign soil is an absurdity that flies in the face of American traditions and it’s “can do” spirit. It’s another crock along the lines of “jobs that Americans won’t do,” or “America’s greatest strength has always been it’s diversity.”
If there is some “rebranding” going on in this nation, and perhaps there is, I’m not about to buy or start drinking that rancid Kool Aid. Those of you who would, have at it. But don’t be surprised when your nation is diminished by your can’t do attitudes.
kdaddy on July 11, 2007 at 12:29 AM
It seems that America is in a new period of malaise not seen since the Carter era.
FloatingRock on July 11, 2007 at 12:36 AM
If you voted no because “it’s impossible” then you rejected the prerequisite of the question and shouldn’t have voted at all.
If you hold the physical security of the country higher than the non-physical principal of ignoring illegal activity then you should have voted yes.
And one of the 2 things that we learned from the ‘84 amnesty is that the country will not fall apart because of amnesty alone.
I voted yes.
tadams1138 on July 11, 2007 at 1:22 AM
And for those who said “it’s not fair that they jumped the line”, I can’t say I entirely blame them (no I don’t condone criminality). Accepting only the skilled is not what we were founded on. I know a woman in her 50s who has lived here since she was a child and is still trying to get citizenship but keeps being passed up by every skilled shmuck from the Philippines. I believe in first come first served, skills be damned.
tadams1138 on July 11, 2007 at 1:28 AM
Don’t get all sensitive Enrique. I could care less about whether someone is Hispanic or not. My Grandfather immigrated from Barbados legally. If someone truly wants to come to this country, then they should do it the right way. I know the immigration system is broken, so don’t go off on that whole deal. Obviously that needs fixing. But, to insinuate that just because someone wants people held accountable for committing an illegal act they must dislike or hate that person is complete leftwing emotional garbage. There’s nothing intelligent about the question. Honestly, those kind of questions get you no where.
j_ehman on July 11, 2007 at 2:03 AM
^^^ should read “couldn’t care less”
j_ehman on July 11, 2007 at 2:03 AM
From the perspective of the young girl, she is likely like I am, choking up at instances that I consider very patriotic and moving…meeting the POTUS is one of them. Being in the White House is another, and seeing flags at a veterans funeral is another. Doesn’t matter if I knew him.
As for his response, review any video or audio since he assumed the office. Many of his initial responses to the press, to a variety of questions, was EXACTLY the same.
“yeah thanks”
“No, I appreciate that”
I recall his responses only because they seemed strange then, as they do now…which I have come to assume is just his way.
91Veteran on July 11, 2007 at 2:35 AM
I’m actually starting to wonder whose side you’re on, Allah. Does Michelle actually pay you to stir dissension in the ranks, or are you just funning us?
Fact is, that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between “perfect” border security or poor border security if neither is enforced, now is there? And we’ve been down this road before. Our current border laws may not be perfect, but if they had been enforced all along instead of being ignored or circumvented there wouldn’t be 12 million plus illegal aliens in the country.
eclark1849 on July 11, 2007 at 3:03 AM
I just cannot beleive that people think a fence will stop the problem. Border guards would, but it can’t be solved until someone decides to enforce it.
Remember, thats why we were against the bill. First liar does not have a chance.
creative dude on July 11, 2007 at 4:06 AM
Dey tuk awr jawbs!! Rawww! ;)
Seixon on July 11, 2007 at 4:15 AM
No to Amnesty. Period.
And maybe Jorge Boosh can try being sarcastically negative toward TEDDY KENNEDY next time, instead of a shy 14 year old girl.
He just proves more and more how tone deaf he really is.
Always Right on July 11, 2007 at 5:37 AM
Acceptance is surrender, pal. #ELL NO!
Black Adam on July 11, 2007 at 6:00 AM
At first I thought this was an article from The Onion,
then I reread it and saw how this occurred.
…and the fox eventually cam to rule the hen house.
Alden Pyle on July 11, 2007 at 7:39 AM
Class action suit anyone?
That’s your tax dollars and you have no say in the matter?
Our kids spent their formative years in the French system – not a US immersive, but the National French system. When you go to France, you get French curriculum. Non French speakers get the equivalent of ESL : FLE. Finished. German, Spanish, Arabic, Latin are all offered as electives.
To convert a US school to Spanish only is agenda-driven crap. Bilingual is harder than people think. The vocabulary one learns in school is not the same as one uses at home. That school is not doing any Hispanic kids any favors by promoting the maternal tongue when it isn’t being used outside. They will not be able to function in English – kids who speak a language still have to learn how to read and WRITE in it. It doesn’t come naturally, it has to be learned and practiced constantly for proficiency.
The only reason to argue Spanish only is to colonize, set up enclaves, not to assimulate.
Anyone want to set up, say a Youruba language school? After all there are 100 million Nigerians out there.
naliaka on July 11, 2007 at 8:29 AM
Dey tuk awr jawbs!!
tadams1138 on July 11, 2007 at 8:40 AM
this whole debate for me has not been about the amnesty – its been about their absolute refusal to secure the border first. If that border was completely secure, fence built and everything, then i would be OK with z-visas or whatever. But the illegals who have committed crimes after they got here need to be deported as they’re found
Keli on July 11, 2007 at 8:51 AM
I saw a story about that on Fox yesterday. Its happening here in Texas too, mandatory Spanish classes for ALL students. Instead of them assimilating to the USA we have to assimilate to Mexico. Unbelievable
Keli on July 11, 2007 at 9:03 AM
I had to vote no on the poll but I’ll explain why. I’d love the perfect border security but giving away citizenship will never be something I embrace. People tend to value that which they work for more than what they are given freely. So, in my mind, it makes far more sense to make them earn citizenship as so many have done legally over the years. That way they value it and they have some sort of allegiance to the country. They are taught to understand our history and what the country is about. It just seems like a much better option to me.
Now if the cap on legals needs to be raised to accommodate the demand then so be it but let them earn citizenship so they value it.
Benaiah on July 11, 2007 at 10:14 AM
I voted no. I’m a hard case, that beleives that amnesty should not be applied so liberally. Blanketing anything is due to bureaucratic laziness. Let’s not think through the exceptions to the rule. Let’s just apply an across the board swipe to this problem and not worry about the details. We all are fully aware of what’s in the details.
And Enrique, no, I don’t hate Mexicans, I just believe their actions are shameful and cowardly. Viva la peaceful Revolution in Mexico for their brothers and sisters maybe; instead of LA.
captivated_dem on July 11, 2007 at 10:23 AM
You know, folks, I was JOKING about the hating Mexicans thing. Hence the smiley.
But, it does beg the question – Why would you want to deport people that haven’t committed any other crime than their illegal presence here? If someone is here illegally but hasn’t committed any crimes since, I don’t see the point in deporting them. If they haven’t committed any crimes while they’ve been here, they aren’t a threat. Which is why we should give them amnesty, right after we’ve built that bigass fence.
Enrique on July 11, 2007 at 10:32 AM
My girlfriend is from the Philippines….
EnochCain on July 11, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Just thought you should have a head’s up. Some grumbling about on other threads – a few people have left and didn’t get it, so don’t be surprised if you get jumped on later.
About the pretty straightforward bunch – any rational plan should recognize that the people working here should be separated into two groups – those who want citizenship and those who just want work permits. In the case of Mexico and Canada, it’s probably not anywhere near a 50-50 split – with work permits seekers the bigger group of the two.
One thing that puzzles me. All these years of Leftists providing sanctuary dodges and so forth, legal assistance for illegals – why didn’t they spend that time walking these people through the legal processes – filling out the forms, etc.? You know, so all these families wouldn’t be split – legals kids, illegal parents? For a group that is heavily populated by activist lawyers, why didn’t they follow the law? Maybe they wanted this chaos to happen to force a particular direction and crisis? After all, it’s not their households torn asunder.
naliaka on July 11, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Its happening here in Texas too, mandatory Spanish classes for ALL students. Instead of them assimilating to the USA we have to assimilate to Mexico. Unbelievable
Keli on July 11, 2007 at 9:03 AM
This has become like an unstoppable friggin virus. How can there not be a national uproar about this? These are public schools funded by US taxpayers, why do we pander to the invader?
Alden Pyle on July 11, 2007 at 12:01 PM
The answer is no. Bush’s answer to the little girl should have been nothing.
SIJ6141 on July 11, 2007 at 12:06 PM
That’s easy Enrique. I can field this one.
Now Enrique, we’ve got two groups of people who would like to be immigrants, you can take one.
Group 1 violates the rules, cheats to get in, engages in fraud and will repeat their actions when caught.
Group 2 has been working at paperwork and jumping through hoops to follow the rules as they’re laid out for the past two years. Legally.
Not knowing the makeup of criminal percentages, or who is in which group, etc. … Which group do you want?
Do you support those who have no regard for the law and the process of beciming a citizen legally pushing their way in at the front of the legal immigration line?
Or do you think that people who don’t follow the rules, and aren’t willing to obey the laws involved in working here are perhaps slightly less desirable than those who have spent months or years working to follow the proper procedures to become citizens?
That’s the consideration and comparison that you’re not getting. If you see a kid cut into line at the candy store, do you buy him something; or tell him that cutting in line isn’t acceptable behavior? And since you likely don’t buy the kid stuff, why do you support adults who have cut into line just as clearly as that kid?
I’m sure to have any paperwork, they’ve engaged in fraud (Driver’s License, and Social Security) and likely forgery at a bare minimum in most cases. Or do you really believe that most of them haven’t used a fake social security card, DL, or other information while here?
Do you think they’ve paid State & Federal income taxes; or do you think that they aren’t liable for those taxes?
Or do those crimes “not count”? I’ve noticed that a lot of crimes that would get a citizen 3-5 years or more in prison just don’t count when an illegal has commited those crimes.
gekkobear on July 11, 2007 at 12:30 PM
No, no, no.
No compromise, thankyouverymuch.
Border fence + improved entry prodecures + enhanced patrol techniques + ruin of fraudulent businesses + NO AMNESTY = the ONLY acceptable government response, in accordance with the Constitution.
Period.
Freelancer on July 11, 2007 at 7:03 PM
naliaka, I could agree with that in concept, but in practice, consider this. The moment our government determines a set of rules to accomplish such a separation into groups, the illegals’ frontmen will immediately go to work teaching them how to take advantage of the situation and be identified with the more favored group, even if it isn’t true. Remember, they are lawbreakers, for whatever reason, so there is no expectation that they will stop lying, cheating, and defrauding this nation to get what they want.
NO COMPROMISE FOR LAWBREAKERS.
Freelancer on July 11, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3