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: 1 2 3 Next »
The answer is “NO.”
Beo on July 10, 2007 at 5:32 PM
NO AMNESTY. PERIOD. Go home, come in again the RIGHT way.
tickleddragon on July 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM
I would without a doubt accept complete amnesty along with a border fence, and if we could also make it easier for people to immigrate legally that would be dandy as well. As the shamnesty shills have always said, we can’t just round everyone up and deport them. What we can do is stem the flow of illegals through a BIG ASS BARRIER.
Although Trent Lott might think that illegal immigrants will still defeat the fence, and he’s probably right. Obviously no barrier can be 100% effective. However, I hear that the fence Israel put up around the West Bank has had an amazing impact in reducing suicide bombings. If a fence can stop people who think God wants them to kill Jews, I’m pretty sure it will stop Catholics that merely want to build retaining walls.
Anyway, I think FENCE + AMENSTY = WORKABLE COMPROMISE.
Enrique on July 10, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Much as I’ve disagreed with the President lately, he’s always struck me as at least semi-genuine, especially with kids and real-life tragedy. He’s at his best relating to regular joes. I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
BillLalor on July 10, 2007 at 5:36 PM
NO
RobertCSampson on July 10, 2007 at 5:37 PM
tickleddragon on July 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM
NO AMNESTY. PERIOD. Go home, dont come back again because you couldnt come the RIGHT way the first time.
doriangrey on July 10, 2007 at 5:38 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
I agree with Enrique. Perfect border security? Sign me up.
Allahpundit on July 10, 2007 at 5:39 PM
He’s such a cavalier little frat boy, and not a President.
SilverStar830 on July 10, 2007 at 5:39 PM
No, no, no. If the 12 million + criminals in this country are legalized in any way, we have already lost. A person who breaks the law to enter the country will break numerous more laws to remain concealed and stay in the country. One lie demands another to sustain it. I think anyone who has ever violated immigration law should be deported and disqualified from legal re-entry. Otherwise we make a mockery of our own rule of law.
Beo on July 10, 2007 at 5:39 PM
I voted YES, only because of your use of the word “perfect” which I would define as not-one-single person illegally crossing any of our borders, frontiers, or entry-points ever again. Zero.
Bryce on July 10, 2007 at 5:39 PM
By the way, I just want to note for posterity that I was the very first person to vote “Yes” in the above poll. I’m a trendsetter!
Enrique on July 10, 2007 at 5:40 PM
it’s very simple…. NO!
They broke the law, to not to punish them makes this countries law a joke… Get in line and do it right.
Bob on July 10, 2007 at 5:40 PM
No, you do not reward law breakers.
EnochCain on July 10, 2007 at 5:40 PM
I have heard him use that line over and over again in these settings. He says it with a smirk and then goes about an answer. I am sorry the little girl got upset, I am sorry the President wasnt more sensitive, but good grief.
Seeing as how she phrased the question, she obviously KNEW his views. What did she (or whomever put her up to asking this question) expect? If she wanted a gushy response, why didnt she ask another kind of question? I guess he thought someone was using a kid to sandbag him…not farfetched at all these days.
labwrs on July 10, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Just perfect border security? No.
Perfect border security AND perfect enforcement of immigration law (secure borders won’t prevent someone on a tourist visa staying illegally)? Yes, but I’d want to see the magic wand first.
Hollowpoint on July 10, 2007 at 5:41 PM
So when somebody made you that promise, are you telling me you would actually fall for it?
Beo on July 10, 2007 at 5:41 PM
If you add that they can never ever become citizens or vote then “maybe.” Having an unassimilated, aggresviely unassimilated population, with an irredentist claim against us is dangerous.
Theworldisnotenough on July 10, 2007 at 5:43 PM
When you integrate people who broke the law into citizenry, you change the nature and value of the rule of law.
Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Enrique, I already hate you. I hate freeloaders.
Build a fence, enforce the law. Why is that a problem to comprehend? If we make it difficult to be here illegally, they will go home. We won’t have to deport all of them, but let’s certainly deport those who are caught breaking the law.
doginblack on July 10, 2007 at 5:46 PM
I’m something of a squish on this compared to most Hot Air people. Or maybe I’m more of a hardass on border security. But I’m pleased to see the poll is running closer than I thought it would.
see-dubya on July 10, 2007 at 5:46 PM
That’s quite a loaded question for a “moment of truth” poll.
First of all, Perfect Border Security is impossible.
Second, it’s NOT JUST ABOUT BORDER SECURITY. Border Security should have been priority one of the United States Governement a helluva long time before 9/11/01 to begin with.
Illegal Immigrants flooding into another country by the millions is about SCOFLAWS and criminal acts. Sure, it’s not murder, but it is still a criminal act. It’s about cheating other, LEGAL immigrants, out of a piece of their dream, no matter how small the piece may be.
Criminals shall not be rewarded, cheaters shall never prosper, period, end of story.
SilverStar830 on July 10, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Absolutely NOT~!!! That would be like…like…putting an iphone into a blender!!! ;)
DCJeff on July 10, 2007 at 5:47 PM
OBQuiet on July 10, 2007 at 5:48 PM
No, simply because I don’t believe the 12 million number.
Just as during Reagans amnest they thought it was only 1.2-1.5 million, and it was more than 3 million…
And 12 Million is a number given by those who want to MINIMIZE the problem…
I think its closer to 30 million… crap, go drive through California… they are NOT assimilating. They still wish to be Mexican citizens…. not Americans.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Eliminate all criminals from the poll and you’d get a no also. There has to be more punishment for illegals to make it fair for the people who are in the pipeline doing it legally.
csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 5:48 PM
No.
“What is a moderate interpretation of the Constitution? Halfway between what it really says and what you’d like it to say?” — Justice Scalia
What’s a compromise here? Halfway between what the law says and what you’d like it to say?
They’re criminals. They should never be allowed back in. I would compromise a little for the sake of expediency, but not that much, and — since this is a theoretical poll — not here.
kate q on July 10, 2007 at 5:48 PM
I voted No but the poll is too narrow. I would accept limited amnesty for those that are not felons, pay a fine and pay back taxes. They would also have to follow the legal pathway from than on out and assimilate into the country.
unseen on July 10, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Having immigrated from Canada legally, I think that everyone should do it. Oh, it’s hard, but I’m kind of the type that says, “Do everything legally so you don’t get in trouble.”
But hey, other than the occasional speeding ticket, I’m a law abiding citizen…
mjk on July 10, 2007 at 5:50 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?”
What total BS. I am so sick of being told if you want immigration to be legal you hate Mexicans. Last time I looked at the stats, it wasn’t only Mexicans in our country illegally. There are tons of others.
Furthermore, since when is it alright to pick and choose which laws are to be obeyed? And why should ANYONE who came here illegally be rewarded with being allowed to stay? Sorry, if you didn’t come here legally, FROM WHEREVER YOU CAME FROM, go back and do it the right way.
And before the racist cracks start flying my way, my father-in-law came here legally from Mexico years ago and this is his and his family’s attitude also. The race card is always played when you don’t have a good defense for your twisted thinking.
katieanne on July 10, 2007 at 5:50 PM
In exchange for truly perfect border security and a verifiable entry/exit system, I would accept allowing otherwise law abiding illegals who are already here to sign up for a guest worker program. I would prefer that the guest worker program be specific to agriculture and that it be phased out over time. If a guest worker commits any criminal offense, they should be deported after serving their sentence. Before being accepted into the program they should have to pass a real and thorough background check.
Frankly, building a fence on the southern border is not a perfect solution. They will still find ways to get here as long as our laws continue to be un-enforced and then someday we’ll be right back were we started.
FloatingRock on July 10, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Why should we capitulate to anyone who won’t assimilate, won’t learn English and is slowly turning the southwest into little Mexico? They demand everything be in Spanish, they demand “rights” … and they came here illegally? Not to mention the enormous burden on the taxpayer.
It’s not that they’re mexican, it’s their attitude and behavior that’s neither wanted or needed. Too many people who really don’t want to be Americans, they just like the bennies.
darwin on July 10, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Absolutely NOT. My sister-in-law is STILL waiting (for 3 years now) to be with her husband in the US (She’s still in the Philippines). Are you telling me all these people can hop the line just because they had the guts to break the law? Some of us have ethics and morals.
StaticElectricityMan on July 10, 2007 at 5:52 PM
I’m probably on the same side of the illegal immigration question as the parents of the girl, but if that child isn’t emotionally ready to play with the adults, then perhaps her parents should have noted that beforehand–especially with a subject like illegal immigration–and not pushed her forward to do ask that question. ‘Cause I suspect that’s just what they did.
baldilocks on July 10, 2007 at 5:52 PM
No barrier can work alone. Until you stop the hiring of the illegal aliens they will continue to find a way. Stop there ability to earn a wage illegally and they have no reason to come here. There has to be implementation of a system to verify that the person being paid is a legal resident. Whether that be tamper-proof ID or something else, there has to be a way to shut down the loopholes and severely punish any employers hiring illegal aliens and jail time as well as massive fines for those employers trying to circumvent the immigration laws.
So, NO! This idea in and of itself, does nothing for me or this country for that matter.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
paratisi
paratisi on July 10, 2007 at 5:52 PM
WE simply should not have to accept amnesty under any circumstances
Ann on July 10, 2007 at 5:53 PM
No amnesty, ever again. We don’t seem to learn from our history. What about the ‘84 amnesty makes anyone think a new amnesty is a good idea?
conservativecaveman on July 10, 2007 at 5:56 PM
I’ll take a guest worker program for total border security though.
Rustyw on July 10, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Perfect border security is impossible… so no.
jeffshultz on July 10, 2007 at 5:58 PM
“Perfect border security”, huh? And I presume the enforcement of this magical “perfect border security” will be tasked to the equally magical duo of Santa Claus and Superman?
No administration, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, will EVER be physically able to offer “perfect border security”; to think that Bush’s administration, a collection of frat boys and college drop-outs that has reached unprecedented depths of ineptitude, will offer “perfect border security,” especially when they are so obviously against enforcement, is ludicrous.
What, will Bush declare “Mission Accomplished” on illegal immigration, too?
Remind me how that ended up working out, won’t you?
tad on July 10, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Very, very tempting, but no. You’re still rewarding people for breaking the law, and punishing the people who stood in line legally and waited.
In two weeks, we’re going to make it so no one can ever steal anything, ever again. But all of the thieves get to keep whatever they can steal, up until that day. (You don’t need your car or jewelry, right?)
Tanya on July 10, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Oy, and I’m not calling Mexicans thieves, so don’t even start.
Tanya on July 10, 2007 at 6:00 PM
The operative word is illegal I don’t care where they come from they are here illegally and should be made to leave. The whole bigot thing is an argument made by people who have no way to compete in a logical debate.
conservativecaveman on July 10, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Really? I’m an easy yes on this. Perfect border security? No more illegals ever again, when you’re only going to end up legalizing the ones who are here anyway?
No brainer.
Allahpundit on July 10, 2007 at 6:01 PM
OK, let me explain why such a “compromise” is impossible.
It might help if you were old enough to remember the promises made on behalf of Simpson-Mazzoli. In 1986, we were told, “OK, amnesty now, security in the future.”
The problem is, a willingness to allow amnesty represents a lack of will for security. Foreigners are smart enough to understand this. “Hey, the stupid gringos just amnestied 2 million people!” they said in 1986. “So if we can just get across the border — or get a tourist visa and overstay — we’re in like Flynn. They’ll never deport us!”
And they were right. Unless we have the will to enforce the law, nobody will respect the law. No government that would enforce the border would grant amnesty, and vice-versa.
Ali-Bubba on July 10, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Allahpundit on July 10, 2007 at 6:01 PM
I suggest you view it as a matter of expedience and not principle. So of course to you it’s a no brainer.
Spirit of 1776 on July 10, 2007 at 6:02 PM
It sets a really bad precedent.
Tanya on July 10, 2007 at 6:02 PM
You’ve got to think your poll questions through before asking them. That one is too ambiguous.
How about “After total and cerifiable border security is obtained, would you consider amnesty?” or “After total and cerifiable border security is obtained, would you accept those in the country illegally still being eligible for amnesty?”
peacenprosperity on July 10, 2007 at 6:02 PM
I voted no. Americans shouldn’t have to make compromises for border security. Besides, what we should be doing is making legal immigration way easier, not rewarding law breaking.
apollyonbob on July 10, 2007 at 6:03 PM
First usher through the roughly 75% of my team who are still on the waitlist to get greencards as far back as summer 2003, then we’ll talk about a new program. We can’t even get through 1% of the number of people we’re talking about legalizing, even with the thousands of dollars worth of attorneys, per person, guiding the process.
I don’t need strawberry pickers on my team, I need DB experts, architects, testers, coders, managers, program managers, ops guys, and more.
askheaves on July 10, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Then here’s the next question (no doubt just as stupid as the “do you hate Mexicans?” question):
When Nazi Germany fell, a bunch of Nazi SS officers came here and lied to immigration about their war crimes. Essentially becoming illegal. Would they become Amnestied under this “perfect border security”? I mean, they just want to come here. Does it matter what they did in the past?
Can you say the same for terrorits?
mjk on July 10, 2007 at 6:04 PM
When I lived in Atlanta I used to tell my American guys that if I could speak spanish I would fire them and have an all Meaxican crew. If they are here illegally though, they have to leave the country and go the legal route.
peacenprosperity on July 10, 2007 at 6:05 PM
There are serious problems with trusting the government to enforce laws they have not enforced in the past. Because the government failed the citizens in the past we now have the problems of today. What have they done to gain your trust?
One hell of a different between the government of Israel guarding the fence and out government. We do not even watch the back of our current guards, That will never change because some 13 year old might cry.
Wade on July 10, 2007 at 6:06 PM
I think it depends on the amount of time between the two (law enforcement and amnesty). I know that if we are serious about building a wall and cracking down on employers as well as illegals we catch breaking laws here (in addition to the whole immigration law thing) then most of them will go home on their own. Therefore, before we even consider any type of Amnesty it would have to be years after we have taken the law enforcement seriously. By that point we would have greatly reduced the size of the Amnesty being granted and we would have given the few here time to assimilate. So, what I think I’m proposing is serious border and law enforcement for 5 yrs and then an amnesty/continued border/law enforcement at that later date. At that point our illegal immigration problem will have solved itself and we will have the situation under control. But we should probably get cracking on that while we still have a country.
Zetterson on July 10, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Perfect border security is possible. Just check with Kim Jong (makes me) Ill. Or ask the advice of the East Germans. Or how about Mexico-they seem to have gained control of their border.
What we have now might as well be amnesty. These people ain’t leaving anytime soon.It is de-facto amnesty, so we might as well make it official.
And build the damn fence! And enforce the laws! And stop lying to us!
If we are stupid enough to crate a “guest worker” program, we are only fooling ourselves. Most who come in on this type of visa will never leave. So stop the shell game and grant amnesty already and seal the dam border! In the future set up quotas and stick with them.
Why is that so difficult?
polokfla on July 10, 2007 at 6:07 PM
But you’ll never need that precedent again! It doesn’t even qualify as a precedent.
Allahpundit on July 10, 2007 at 6:08 PM
I voted yes. I view amnesty for those already here as an inevitability and “perfect border security” as a complete and utter pipe dream. And I will gladly trade an inevitability for a pipe dream any day of the week.
World B. Free on July 10, 2007 at 6:08 PM
I guess its the comprehensive aspect that I have a problem with. Doing everything at the same time makes the whole situation an impossibility. Doing Amnesty first makes the whole thing and impossibility. Doing law enforcement and then years later considering an amnesty is the only doable situation.
Zetterson on July 10, 2007 at 6:09 PM
The question is worded very poorly.
To me, border security is much more than just a fence on the Southern Border, it’s also a fence on the Northern Border as well as significant Coast Guard reform to control our waters and vessels entering via the coast. Let’s also add efficient monitoring of all air traffic, passengers and cargo as well.
As for amnesty, I could be talked into it IF all of the above were guaranteed and perfect, but I’d also be VERY clear that the “amnesty” was only to excuse the illegal behavior of entering the country illegally. TO ME, Amnesty would merely be the beginning of the LEGAL immigration process for these “new” legal immigrants. They’d have to go through the process of vetting and assimilation that all current legal immigrants go through, with a guarantee of immediate deportation for felony crimes past, present or future. Also, I want payment for all services rendered and back taxes taken care of in a timely manner or else face deportation.
Jason Coleman on July 10, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Yea, I hate Mexicans, that is why I married one. Sheesh, you can’t come up with a coherent argument, so you pull out the race card. Dumbass!! Quit calling me a racist!
StephC on July 10, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Maybe with a whole mess of caveats.
If all of the paperwork was magically done overnight by amnesty fairies, so the people who are waiting legally don’t have to wait even longer.
If all of the criminals, gang members, and (god forbid) terrorists were also magically weeded out. (They can learn to fly commercial airlines, but they can’t learn to speak Spanish?)
If they all learn English. And all of their families have to come later, by the file-and-wait legal route. And no dual citizenship. And they all have jobs (like we have to have to get even a long-term visa, anywhere).
How long ago did this become impossible?
Tanya on July 10, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Enrique, Enrique, Enrique….
Why oh why does Illegal Immigration always seem to be just a “Mexican” issue? Are there not illegals from other countries here in the US?
I am tired of being called a racist by Mexicans because I believe in securing our borders and exporting criminal illegals of all races.
I married a Hispanic American who’s father came into the country illegally, but applied for citizenship and received that after about 20+ years.
It is so easy to play the racist card with people who disagree with you. Trust me, I am NOT racist aganist Mexicans, heck my 2 kids are half…duh.
heatherrc77 on July 10, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Uhm….NO! The two issues ARE mutually exclusive.
SouthernGent on July 10, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Reporter: Mr President, is it true that you have decided to put a fence along the border with Mexico after all? And a follow up question sir, if so what will it look like?
George W. Bush: That is a very good question and yes I have. What will it look like? Well it will run the full length of the border and have special gates every 100 feet.
All the gates will have on them:
1) Press one for Spanish (with a response of “Welcome Amigo”).
2) Press two for Arabic (with a response of “Welcome honored member of the Religion of Peace”).
3) Press three for English (with a response of “Go to Hell you damed bigoted nativist who does not want what is right for America!!!”).
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Hell no, it will not matter, Will not matter all the disease they carried over the border either, although I suppose by that time our citizens will have paid to have them cured, while our citizens become infected.
Wade on July 10, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Rewarding criminals is never going to happen again, under any circumstances? Can you get that in writing?
Tanya on July 10, 2007 at 6:13 PM
I voted yes. I’m not convinced that “perfect” border security is possible, but if it is, it’s probably worth keeping illegal aliens, especially since we’re probably going to keep them anyway.
I almost voted no, thinking that we should at least deport the ones who have committed other crimes since breaking in here, but to me, the security issue is just too important.
If I have to take one over the other, I’ll take the security. I wouldn’t be completely happy about that, but I’d take it.
Esthier on July 10, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Perfect boarder security is easier when no one wants in!
conservativecaveman on July 10, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I just watch the America’s Most Wanted piece on “lil” Johnny Sutton’s next political target over at Jawa’s and I’m sorry; if you can round up a truck load of illegals to testify against a sheriff and win the witness protection lottery, you can sure as hell find them and kick them the hell out.
Sorry folks, you know the saying; “you don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here…..”
liquidflorian on July 10, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I vote no. I live in California. I’m still stuck paying the bill.
Blake on July 10, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Amnesty certainly seems worth magically perfect border security to me. I’m guessing society hasn’t collapsed under the weight of the illegal immigrants already here.
I’d also accept amnesty in exchange for a million dollars.
frankj on July 10, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Done that, got the shirt. Didn’t work.
No Amnesty for you, NEXT
Wade on July 10, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Checked the national debt lately?
Wade on July 10, 2007 at 6:19 PM
It’s not that I don’t like them, it’s that most of the ones I know don’t like this country and don’t want to speak English or be Americans.
PRCalDude on July 10, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Total and immediate amnesty would no doubt include gang members, terrorists and foreign nationals who have no interest in assimilating. If this poll were actually to decide our nations policy it would only serve to increase the level of balkanization in our nation in addition to the other points people have already mentioned.
No brainer?
FloatingRock on July 10, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Wow, just about everybody said NO. Kinda starts to sound like the racist attitude we were branded with. The question was “perfect border security”. If that’s not enough for you, or too ambiguous, maybe you need to gut-check yourselves. I said YES.
bmac on July 10, 2007 at 6:19 PM
In an effort to keep it real, I voted yes. I keep saying that it’s not the 12 million I’m worried about (it’s not), it’s the 50 million that’s part of the total package.
Perfect? Hell, yes.
Jaibones on July 10, 2007 at 6:20 PM
um NO
No
No
NO!!!!!!!!
Mojack420 on July 10, 2007 at 6:20 PM
ONLY if perfect border security means:
a) ginormous fines for companies that hire illegals: ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
b) immediate deportation of all illegals caught for any criminal conduct, unless it is a capital offence in which case they ride home on ole sparky
c) free fire zones along the border with
d) static anti-personnel weaponry (aka mines) and
e) a lethal electric fence decorated with the decaying corpses of previously encountered illicit crossers
AND only if amnesty means:
f) paying boocoo cash money to reimburse taxpayers for previously used services.
I may be exaggerating a bit.
Also I would like to see (being 100% serious here, though):
No racial quotas for legal immigration.
Decreased wait times and expense for legal immigrants.
Increased immigration quota overall, and no (or greatly scaled back) guest-worker programs.
Let’s bring in the people who want to join us, not the ones who want to exploit us and then go home to compete against us.
TABoLK on July 10, 2007 at 6:21 PM
EXACTLY! I was told by my husbands Aunts that I should learn to speak Spanish so that I can talk to them. This was in South TX, a.k.a. Little Mexico.
heatherrc77 on July 10, 2007 at 6:22 PM
I could be wrong guys, but, I think the fact that Enrique put the smiley after his “do you not like Mexicans? or do you really hate them?” question was supposed to indicate that it was a joke…..like a “when did you stop beating your wife?” question.
JadeNYU on July 10, 2007 at 6:25 PM
I gotta go for the perfect border security on this one. In the age of terrorism, we could definetely use it. I’m assuming AP’s definition would include impenetrable borders, closing all the student and other shame visa loopholes, and port security as well. If perfect border security meant no terrorists under illegal documents, and no more, not a single one illegal immigrants, than it would be worth it. But how does that joke go:
“So Satan Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Perfect Border Security…”
Dkshideler on July 10, 2007 at 6:27 PM
I gotta go for the perfect border security on this one. In the age of terrorism, we could definetely use it. I’m assuming AP’s definition would include impenetrable borders, closing all the student and other shame visa loopholes, and port security as well. If perfect border security meant no terrorists under illegal documents, and no more, not a single one illegal immigrants, than it would be worth it. But how does that joke go:
“So Satan Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Perfect Border Security…”
Dkshideler on July 10, 2007 at 6:27 PM
File that under, “When hell freezes over.” Ah the joys of the “Raza” supremacism. Spaniards traveled to south and central America, decimated the native population with their diseases, enslaved the rest, and left the survivors with their mentality.
PRCalDude on July 10, 2007 at 6:28 PM
If this is the case, then I apologize. I’m just tired of being called a racist by the WH’s administration and people in congress trying to bully others.
StephC on July 10, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Yes. “Perfect border security”.
Is this an option? No.
The bill recently squashed granted amnesty with no border security whatsoever.
Anil Petra on July 10, 2007 at 6:29 PM
and assimilate into the country.
unseen on July 10, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Why would they want to assimilate having apox 10 TV stations and countless radio stations. Do you really believe all these spanish channels are just going to pack up and leave..These are the Mex. elites who own and operate them and their going nowhere….I don’t recall the Irish, the Germans or any other immigrate populace with this kind of demand on our airwaves..
Legions on July 10, 2007 at 6:30 PM
B I N G O ! ! ! The first rule of interpreting Government estimates, if the number is for something bad, multiply by at least 2, or possibly 3. If the number is for something positive, divide by at least 2, or possibly 3.
Only then will be close to the actuality!
cmdrsubfleet on July 10, 2007 at 6:30 PM
A lot of you guys are sounding like full-blown isolationists. Our whole disagreement with the immigration bill was border security. We can assimilate the ones here. It’s about stopping the tsunami of new arrivals.
bmac on July 10, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Just as mental exercise, Enrique, let’s play a game: why does Mexico, which annually deports in excess of 100,000 illegals back to Guatemala, Bolivia and other locales, hate Central Americans–mostly, in this case, full-blooded indians–so much?
What about the inter-Raza love, ese?
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2005/08/24/018n3pol.php
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37894
tad on July 10, 2007 at 6:32 PM
No…our issue was Border Security and AMNESITY. AP is asking for Amnesty and PERFECT Border Security.
heatherrc77 on July 10, 2007 at 6:33 PM
I’m still thinking this issue through. Can anyone help me out on this one: How does amnesty punish the people who stood in line legally? If all the illegals went through the legal channels, wouldn’t there just be that many more people in line, clogging things up even more?
tikvah on July 10, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Well all the ones who are already here aren’t going anywhere anyway, so if perfect security was an option, I think I’d have to take that.
brak on July 10, 2007 at 6:35 PM
heatherrc77
Yeah, good luck with that.
bmac on July 10, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Yes, it would. That’s why, before amnesty, we need to secure our borders and fix the CURRENT system to get the legal aliens through faster.
heatherrc77 on July 10, 2007 at 6:36 PM
It’s a fantasy world. :)
heatherrc77 on July 10, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Let us just pretend, for a fictional moment, that perfect border security can be achieved.
What about visa stay-overs? What about people who knowingly come to America on travel visas, tourist visas, work visas, or student visas, and then they stay, knowing full well that amnesty will be granted to them in the near future.
After all, amnesty and “path to USA citizenship” has been given 7 separate times since 1986. At what point does one say, “Enough is Enough!!”
The American government has a proven track record of rewarding people who break our laws with USA citizenship. The word on the street is out. Stay in America, because amnesty will eventually be given.
It is wrong and unconstitutional to reward law-breakers with USA citizenship.
ColtsFan on July 10, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Let us just pretend, for a fictional moment, that perfect border security can be achieved.
What about visa stay-overs? What about people who knowingly come to America on travel visas, tourist visas, work visas, or student visas, and then they stay, knowing full well that amnesty will be granted to them in the near future.
After all, amnesty and “path to USA citizenship” has been given 7 separate times since 1986. At what point does one say, “Enough is Enough!!”
The American government has a proven track record of rewarding people who break our laws with USA citizenship. The word on the street is out. Stay in America, because amnesty will eventually be given.
It is wrong and unconstitutional to reward law-breakers with USA citizenship.
ColtsFan on July 10, 2007 at 6:38 PM
They’d be at the end of the line, not pushing in front of all the people who’ve been waiting.
Tanya on July 10, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »