Video: Who’s in the mood for a little border fence?
posted at 10:43 pm on October 17, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
How are you going to get a fence built with the Democrats likely holding 55-60 Senate seats and god knows how many House seats come 2009? If the GOP takes the White House, the next president’s job will be, purely and simply, to hold the line and wield the veto pen like a saber. Fred will have served his country well if he does no more than block whatever disastrous amnesty the Democrats are likely to try to cram down his throat in his first term. And the sick irony is, thanks to McCain, Specter, and the rest of the open borders sellouts on our side, the left will probably have the two-thirds they need to override the veto. It’ll all come down to the House. Worry about that, not the damned fence. Click the image to watch.
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:
Heck, anyone who is in favor of it is ok by me.
I wish someone would ask these damn open border folks if they lock their own damn houses.
Mr. Bingley on October 17, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Wait…Don’t we have an over 300+ mile fence already funded and being built? Haven’t we only built 11 miles, and part of the vehicle barrier had to be redone because it was done improperly?
amerpundit on October 17, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Your wrong…
The President is the Commander in Chief of the military.
He can redeploy troops INSIDE of America to anywhere he wishes… without Congressional approval or an Act of War.
He also runs the National Guard, Border Patrol, and Homeland Security…. which could do the job if someone up top was not sabotaging their efforts.
Romeo13 on October 17, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Sounds like a good answer to me.
abinitioadinfinitum on October 17, 2007 at 10:54 PM
If I’m not mistaken, the Constitution prohibits a standing military in a time of peace. The National Guard was deployed to the border under the control of their respective governors.
amerpundit on October 17, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Put a fence around Washington and we might get somewhere.
profitsbeard on October 17, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Congress approved $4 billion for border security, our el presidente simply hasnt put the resources down there to get the job moving.
paulsur on October 17, 2007 at 10:57 PM
What’s Fred gonna do about this? What’s anyone gonna do about it, we had to break the damn phone system last time around. There’s not a damn thing Fred or any other candidate can do about the idiots in Congress, if pandering gets them ahead, so be it, if it gets someone in the White House that’ll at least put up a fight against a disastrous amnesty bill.
Sorry Allah, I’m fine with criticizing Fred for the pandering, but its unfair to criticize him for the numbskulls in Congress that he has no control over, they don’t even listen to their own voters, what makes you think they’ll listen to him?
Bad Candy on October 17, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Yes, because Bush would have signed the bill. That’s worth 16 Senate votes — the difference between a simple 51-vote majority and a veto-proof 67-vote supermajority. My point is, given the certain gains the Democrats are going to make in Congress, you’re kidding yourself if you think a fence is in the offing. Don’t promise stuff you can’t make happen.
Allahpundit on October 17, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Please show me where in the Constitution it says this… I’d be very interested in it seeing as how I spent a LOT of time doing drug enforcement ops in the Navy…
And I’m sure all the Army guys stationed in America would be interested in it as well.
Gee… I thought it was part of the oath to protect America against enemies, both foreign and domestic…
Musta missed that part of the Constitution.
Romeo13 on October 17, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Two things: First, it is a pander but it is an answer to a question. Second, the bill for the wall is already passed, no? That why some of it is already built, yes? The issue is the execution, and the execution of the law is the Pres’s responsibility.
Spirit of 1776 on October 17, 2007 at 11:03 PM
MB4 on October 17, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Eh, I guess.
Bad Candy on October 17, 2007 at 11:06 PM
What?! John Adams funded up an army during peace. While that was disbanded because the threat of war faded temporarily, we’ve had a standing military for ages now.
Spirit of 1776 on October 17, 2007 at 11:06 PM
But if we build a fence how will the illegal immigrants from the South get to Canada for free healthcare? /snark tag off
I say, let’s go from 300 miles of fence to 1,970 miles (That covers a few miles out into the oceans at either end).
USCitizen on October 17, 2007 at 11:11 PM
While I was just watching the video, a thought hit me. What’s with the Fred08 logo. White and beige?
cvasquez on October 17, 2007 at 11:15 PM
I’m not a huge fan of the border wall idea, although I’m not apposed to it, because people will still find ways into this country as long as crooks continue to employ them or give them entitlements. What I still want to know is does Fred support workplace enforcement? Does he support a verifiable entry/exit system? Perhaps he does, but I’ve never heard him say so, and with Spencer Abraham playing a prominent role in his campaign I’m beginning to think that we never will.
FloatingRock on October 17, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Maybe that is what is rong with the conservative politicans now. They dont stand up for what is right
That more than anything is what lost us congress.
William Amos on October 17, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Good point.
But I do not think these “open borders folks” (referring to John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Trent Lott, John Kyl of AZ, Democrat Party) worry too much about “locking their doors.”
You see, illegal immigration poses a problem for the middle class and lower economic classes, not the rich.
Here is my take:
The American Southwest will never secede because Mexico depends upon 20 billion in annual “free revenue” with no expenses.
The USA will not degenerate into “Balkanization”, like it currently exists in the former Yugoslavia.
Rather, the USA will degenerate, over time, into a cultural context resembling South Africa.
The rich will not experience the daily, negative effects of illegal immigration, unlike the rest of us.
The only exception is that I do think the rich’s tax burden will increase to pay for the growing welfare state. But that economic fact again will probably be pushed off of the shoulders of the rich and onto the rest of us middle class.
ColtsFan on October 17, 2007 at 11:17 PM
MB4 on October 17, 2007 at 11:17 PM
That is the snakes head of the matter.
MB4 on October 17, 2007 at 11:20 PM
The Republicans need to remind the general populace exactly what the soon-to-be Clinton/Obama ticket tried to get passed. (They won’t, and I’m not sure why)
SouthernGent on October 17, 2007 at 11:20 PM
Agreed.
Spirit of 1776 on October 17, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Workplace enforcement is the most important thing. If the jobs dry up many of the illegal will go home. This is already working in Arizona and should work for the rest of the country. Getting the beauracy to cooperate might pose a problem but some key firings should do the trick. And someone needs to figure out that you can fire government employees for insubordination immediately, so kicking out the deadwood that refuse to enforce the laws shouldn’t be that difficult.
Buford on October 17, 2007 at 11:27 PM
They won’t because most of the Republican congressmen want the same law passed.
Buford on October 17, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Nothing is for certain. The assumptions on which you are basing your forecast of a Democratic supermajority seem to me to be predicated on a liberal candidate winning the WH. If a conservative leaning candidate wins the WH then circumstances will have changed somewhere down the road and your forecast will need to be reappraised from scratch.
FloatingRock on October 17, 2007 at 11:30 PM
It’s the LAW. Build it NOW!!!!!!!
or “substantial unanimity”
shooter on October 17, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Oh, geez, guys. I’m sorry. I’m thinking of the government not being permitted to force citizens to take in the military during a time of peace. That’s why I usually try to put that “If I’m not mistaken” disclaimer in front of my late-night posts.
Sincerest apologies.
BTW, I agree on the workplace enforcement thing.
amerpundit on October 17, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Sounded clear to me. Build the fence that will keep out diseases, killers, rapists, gang members, terrorists, free-loaders, AND future dhemocrats.
Mojave Mark on October 18, 2007 at 12:01 AM
I dont buy the premise that democrats are a shoe in to pick up major seats.
bj1126 on October 18, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Work place enforcement would make a fence unnecessary for general border security. I’m sure there would still be some who want to come here just to cause trouble because they aren’t concerned about being part of the system.
csdeven on October 18, 2007 at 12:20 AM
So now it’s a bad thing to say that we should build the fence AP? I don’t get it.
The public- on both sides of the isle- are in favor of border enforcement and the law states that the fence must be built. We’re not talking about something that’s completely untenable politically here. The Dems aren’t going to be able to override every veto, and that means they’ll have to compromise if they want anything passed.
As far as the “platitudes mania!” snark, how much more specific should he be in answering whether he believes the fence should be built? Specifying what brand of brick to use?
No one believes that amnesty-supporting Bush is all that eager to finish the wall; I don’t believe that amnesty-supporting Rudy or McCain would be either.
Hollowpoint on October 18, 2007 at 12:26 AM
This moment of self-contradiction brought to you by csdeven.
Hollowpoint on October 18, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Right now, we have no one in the White House with any brains to protect our borders. The least you can say is, Fred! will favor protecting our borders.
Captain America on October 18, 2007 at 12:29 AM
That’s an important part of it, but it doesn’t solve the problem- criminals and those who would otherwise do us harm aren’t here to get regular jobs. Besides, it’s pretty difficult to enact workplace enforcement against day laborers working under the table.
Hollowpoint on October 18, 2007 at 12:30 AM
That’d be gangs and drug dealers. People who are not interested in being part of the job force system.
csdeven on October 18, 2007 at 12:32 AM
*rolls eyes*
The fence is as much an ideological tool as it is a deterrent to illegal immigration. Without that ideological tool in the bag the disaster you see coming becomes all the more likely.
House races in which the Democrat does not endorse the fence which is already paid for and by law should be built vs. a Republican that supports it draws a dsitinct ideological and cultural fault line. We need the fence to be an issue.
Your point is moot. Fred as President can build all the fence he wants. To keep the fence from being built Democrats would have to repeal the law. How likley is that? They caved on Iraq when the media could no longer hide the progress and they’d cave on the fence. As if they would dare to repeal the law once it stats getting built. They know it is suicide. For the same reasons they took Iraq of the table. They cannot win the issue, and they cannot stop the fence.
Not to mention as President Fred could increase the Border Patrol at will, and change out immigration judges to speed the process of deportation.
Theworldisnotenough on October 18, 2007 at 12:35 AM
And- potentially- terrorists. Point is, they are the most important reason to build a fence in the name of border security. I’ll take 100 illegals here to work farm fields over one gang banger- but without border security, we’ve no way of knowing which is which.
Hollowpoint on October 18, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Wake up and visit your local Home Depo. All of those day labors wont be affected in the slightest by work place enforcement.
doriangrey on October 18, 2007 at 12:40 AM
It’s less a lack of brains than a lack of will. Bush only pushed for border security measures as a way to sweeten the pot to build support for amnesty.
Hollowpoint on October 18, 2007 at 12:41 AM
Once again, Fred! speaks straight to the voters.
No slick talk or buzz words, I find that refreshing.
omnipotent on October 18, 2007 at 12:45 AM
I don’t know if they will or not yet, but if they do they’ll follow their formula for 2006 and run Blue Dog Dems outside particularly liberal districts- candidates more likely to listen to the public outcry over our unsecured borders.
They’re slow to learn, but unfortunately they did learn that campaigning on gun control, higher taxes, ignoring illegal immigration and other leftist positions isn’t a winner in most of the country.
Hollowpoint on October 18, 2007 at 12:45 AM
Once the polarization of the magnets that attract illegal aliens to America are reversed, only be a small portion will remain for long. The resources we use to protect our border will be able to concentrate on those few that continue to attempt unlawful entry into the US instead of the vast numbers that we currently have to deal with. The scale of the problem will be massively reduced in magnitude, and combined with technology and perhaps a partial fence, we should be able to seal off the southern border without too much further difficulty.
Interior enforcement is the cornerstone of the solution, not a fence.
FloatingRock on October 18, 2007 at 12:49 AM
And a fence would?
FloatingRock on October 18, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Absolutely! Chertoff is blabbing about apealing the CA judge’s order to block the employees’ social security matching initiative. Now let’s see if it’s just talk or reality. That’s what Fred and all others s/b talking about.
That judge happens to be the brother of Supreme Court judge Bryar.
Entelechy on October 18, 2007 at 12:59 AM
What’s the point of deporting illegals if they can just walk across the border the very next day? How are they going to target every small business, farmer, and those hiring day laborers picked up outside Home Depot? And what about the criminal element? Or even terrorists?
The fence isn’t the only solution to the problem, and neither is workplace enforcement- they’re both necessary and neither will work by themselves.
Hollowpoint on October 18, 2007 at 1:03 AM
Rudy would probably sign the amnesty bill. And remove whatever wall was built. And redirect the Border Patrol to start taking guns from ordinary Americans. As would Clinton.
I’ll take Fred, please.
AZCON on October 18, 2007 at 1:06 AM
If illegal alien day laborers have to switch locations several times a week how will anyone know where to locate them to hire them? Sure it’s possible, but only the most crooked employers will bother, and when we make a habit of throwing the book at them when we catch them, before long they’ll stop trying.
With a little effort it’s quite easy to dry up illegal alien day labor hangouts.
FloatingRock on October 18, 2007 at 1:11 AM
I get such a “fireside chat” vibe from ol’ Freddie boy. I’m ’bout ready to send him another $100. I refuse to send in to the Republican party itself (till they fix the border) but I’ll donate directly to the candidates.
Mojave Mark on October 18, 2007 at 1:11 AM
You are totally clueless regarding the whole day labor concept aren’t you. The people who hire those day laborers do so maybe once or twice a year. They are the home do it yourself’ers who decided to put in a wood deck in the back yard add decide on a whim to have a day laborer dig the holes for the footings. They for the most part are not regular contractors. They are just regular people with a few hours of manual labor they need done who don’t want to do it themselves.
It’s the day labors who get deported and the next day recross the border and are back in front of the Home Depot. and there are way more of them then you realize. work force enforcement isn’t going to affect them because they don’t work for legitimate companies. But the fence will affect them because it will make it harder for them to enter the US illegally.
doriangrey on October 18, 2007 at 1:31 AM
Jorge Arbusto has enough brains to do it, he was an F102 pilot after all, he just does not have the heart for it as his corazon esta en Mexico.
MB4 on October 18, 2007 at 1:31 AM
Unless they are part of the small fraction of illegal aliens who are engaging in heinous crimes against our country, why would they bother coming back after deportation? They would probably be grateful for the free ride.
With the resources of our government it would be easier than you can possibly imagine.
If there were only 30,000 – 100,000 illegal aliens still in this country and they were rampaging through our streets and selling drugs, etc, how long do you imagine they will last before they are picked up and spend some time in prison before being deported?
Workplace enforcement shuts the illegal alien floodgates on all of our borders. Only criminals and enemies will continue to try to enter the US illegally. There will be such a paltry few of them that with technology and perhaps a partial wall combined with manpower, we should be able to put a virtual end to the invasion.
We won’t be able to stop them all, some might still slip in on our coast or who knows where or how, but it will only be a small trickle of what it is now. Even if we built a fence on the southern border that extends from shore to shore, criminals and enemies will just enter through Canada or through other means. Right now they can probably just hop on a plane.
FloatingRock on October 18, 2007 at 1:33 AM
If the employers don’t do jail, we won’t hail.
If the employers don’t swing, it’s got no ring.
If the candidates just talk, we will walk.
MB4 on October 18, 2007 at 1:37 AM
Yeah, who needs a fence?
Gregor on October 18, 2007 at 1:43 AM
In that regard I’m with you. My dislike of both Rudy and Hillary predates 9/11 by several years. Trying to sew our gun manufacturers out of existence to work around the 2nd amendment is antithetical to the position of President of the United States.
FloatingRock on October 18, 2007 at 1:43 AM
I agree. Who needs it? Next time that happens, lets shoot back with everything we’ve got.
A fence isn’t going to stop Mexico’s army anyway. They can just blast through it if they’re that determined.
FloatingRock on October 18, 2007 at 1:46 AM
Uh, no.
Exactly my point. How are they going to hire a day laborer when the day laborers are never in the same place twice? The reason why the day laborers will have to move around is to avoid capture and deportation. If they sneak back in they go to jail. If that doesn’t solve the problem we’ll start putting the people who hire the day laborers in jail. If a short stint doesn’t work, the second offense will be for much longer.
The truth is that once the day laborers have to start moving their hangouts on a regular basis and people are unable to hire them because they’re not hanging out at “Home Depot”, the problem will go away regardless of deportation.
FloatingRock on October 18, 2007 at 1:58 AM
MB4 on October 18, 2007 at 1:37 AM
MB4, check out the Fred-thread, below, just so you know what you have to do to earn that drink. Some day you’ll also have to explain the MB4.
Entelechy on October 18, 2007 at 2:01 AM
In fact, I hope that the Day Laborers are so bold that in spite of regular ICE patrols at Home Depot they’ll continue hanging out there all the same, making ICE’s job that much easier. And if we deport them and they reenter our country, I hope they’ll head right back to the Home Depot parking lot. If they do, it shouldn’t take long to round them all up and end the problem that way.
Of course this scenario is absurd. The illegal day laborers might try changing locations but would soon realize it was untenable and they’d give up trying.
FloatingRock on October 18, 2007 at 2:17 AM
AP are you a Rudy shill or what? does the truth sting? maybe you need to come to my neighborhood and see the reality of this invasion.If that’s the kind of pandering that Fred puts out it’s fine with me,BTW where exactly do your priorities lie HMM? Maybe the Boss just hired you to stir things up(and I love MM)HMM?
Bob
Bobnormal on October 18, 2007 at 2:20 AM
Like I said you are pretty clueless, several of the cities here around San Diego already tried that approach, guess what…It didn’t work. It’s not where they congregate, its how they congregate. When you see 30 or 40 Mexican men standing idly along side the road, everyone knows who they are and what they are doing.
Cities like Encinitas, Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos, Poway, Ramona and Julian have been trying to disrupt their hangouts for years. Send immigration to pick them up outside of the Home Depot on Monday and by Wednesday’s they’re back but now they are outside of Wal-Mart. Send immigration to pick them up outside of Wal-Mart on Thursday and Saturday their back but now their at Stater Brothers. It’s just like playing whack-a-mole.
doriangrey on October 18, 2007 at 2:24 AM
This a lot of empty speculation based on false premises, including a notion of politics as something static. There’s no reason to presume that the next Congress will seek to reprise the failed immigration bill, and every reason to expect that the next attempts at reform will look different in key respects.
Regardless of whether or not the country gives the Democrats significantly increased majorities, a newly elected Republican president would fall down on his knees and give thanks to God above for the gift of such an easily politicized bill, and a congress inept enough to try to force it down the country’s throat.
CK MacLeod on October 18, 2007 at 2:34 AM
There’s nothing wrong with Fred letting the single issue voters out there know that he is for immigration enforcement and that he is for building the fence already mandated and DHS has the money to build.
If a GOP pres. makes it into a second term a good Pres. record could help put in place another GOP majority ala Reagan.
Speakup on October 18, 2007 at 2:57 AM
I guarantee you that it’s possible to virtually end the day labor problem, even in California. You’re correct that I’m not familiar with the specific examples at cracking down on illegal day laborers in California that you’ve mentioned, but I am familiar with simple economics and human nature. Show me a failed attempt to disperse illegal day laborers in a locality and I’ll show you the obvious reasons for its failure.
Without knowing the details of the operations you’ve referred to, I’d guess that half-hearted and toothless attempts were made at partial enforcement for short periods of time, leading to failure. Considering California politics the operations probably had less to do with ending illegal day labor and more to do with political propaganda. By showing the people, “See? We’ve tried and it’s absolutely impossible to stop the illegal day laborer problem.” The politicians hope the people will agree with them that, “Since it’s totally impossible to end illegal immigration and day labor hangouts, let’s all demand ‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform’.” Which of course most of us call Shamnesty.
I agree with you that a wall would help, my point is that workplace enforcement is even more important and that I’m aware of, Fred has never mentioned it once.
FloatingRock on October 18, 2007 at 3:09 AM
It was “The Hill” at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. If you got demerits (like for not having your shoes shined well enough or your brass not polished well enough or your bed not made tight enough) at the U.S. Army Field Artillery school, you had to run it Saturdays and/or Sundays. 4.2 miles up and 4.2 miles back as I recall.
Most weekends my “dance card” was full.
MB4 on October 18, 2007 at 3:20 AM
An addendum to my post above: If the crackdown on illegal day labor is made in concert with the crackdown on all employers of illegal aliens, and as a result the numbers of illegals streaming across our borders were reduced to a fraction of what it is now, then the Home Depot day laborers who are deported and try to come back will be part of a much smaller group trying to sneak into our country. The chances of them being caught at the border will be far higher even without a fence.
FloatingRock on October 18, 2007 at 3:31 AM
Can we citizens just donate our time, material, and labor and start on our own? Maybe it will shame the politicians into doing their jobs.
Oops, my bad… they have no shame.
Texas Nick 77 on October 18, 2007 at 5:04 AM
Some of you are referring to the Posse Comitatus Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act ) but even that doesnt prohibit military engineers from building a wall or defending our country from terrorist invaders, drug dealers and the mexican military.
Aaaaand if Fred declares martial law along the border to stop the anarchy there, he sure -can- use the military.
We need a President with some BALLS.
dogsoldier on October 18, 2007 at 6:49 AM
Thanks to Duncan Hunter, it has already been passed into LAW that our government MUST build 800+ miles of double-sided fence separated by a high-speed border vehicle patrol road along our most vulnerable border areas. This same style of fence has already reduced illegal crossings by 93% in San Diego and border crime by almost 60% – it works incredibly well.
It is mandated by LAW that the fence be built – and there are billions of dollars sitting in DHS’ account right now for that express purpose. Why it has not been allocated yet you can surely guess.
That’s where you need to focus your time and attention – on getting those funds released and the fence executed exactly the way the LAW proscribes. Anything less is a cheat, and not doing it at all is breaking our own law!
Redhead Infidel on October 18, 2007 at 7:56 AM
You’re right, they have no shame because our citizens area already doing just that – and they still aren’t moving their lard asses. Check out the built-by-donation Minuteman Fence and We Need A Fence (which will give you a diagram of Duncan Hunter’s effective border fence). And then pitch in.
Redhead Infidel on October 18, 2007 at 8:01 AM
My bet is Fraud! Thompson will take the money devoted to building the fence and funnel it to his son.
After all, he’s never had any problem taking the money of the citizenry to enhance his own well-being at their expense.
BKennedy on October 18, 2007 at 8:30 AM
Seems to me that the “jobs no Americans will do” might be offered to some homeless CITIZENS and some prison residents who just might WANT to breathe some fresh air once in a while and earn a little money too.
stenwin77 on October 18, 2007 at 8:34 AM
You’re preaching to the choir. That was the exact point I was making. Read this for context.
You and doriangrey’s csdeven derangement syndrome has elevated you to new levels of irresponsible comments.
Wake up and realize that where there is a will there is a way. When/IF we get serious about workplace enforcement we will find a way to solve that problem.
csdeven on October 18, 2007 at 8:38 AM
Who said that? The point was that if the president cannot get the fence built because of the congress, he does have the authority to order enforcement of workplace enforcement policies. He could do something and that would be better than nothing because MOST illegals are in the system that would be cleaned up by those policies.
csdeven on October 18, 2007 at 8:44 AM
And Fred will close Guantanamo Bay and give all the terrorists legal advice on how to manipulate our system. After that he would make sure that every scumbag dictator would be helped. Then he would hire his entire family and pay them huge salaries.
Tell you what. You keep Fred to yourself. Turn over the management of your home over to him and leave us alone.
csdeven on October 18, 2007 at 8:48 AM
Congress ALREADY approved the fence Allah. The current POTUS just won’t build it- Fred would.
Ex-tex on October 18, 2007 at 8:50 AM
amerpundit on October 17, 2007 at 11:46 PM
I believe you were right. At the very least, there’s certainly something which prohibited President Bush from sending in help when he wanted to. He had to get Gov. Blanco’s permission, which came a few days late.
There may be more than this, but it’s implicitly suggested in the Constitution: According to Article One Section 8, the Congress has the right “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
Permission of the Governor would circumvent that. There may also be more which I’ve neglected.
eforhan on October 18, 2007 at 8:54 AM
So, just to get this straight. San Diego is the only area of the country that is actively hunting down illegals and deporting them.
I call BS. When this government get serious about stopping them, they will and the illegals will go home. They can only hang for so long working 2 days a week before they have to head back home. Funny thing is they will get themselves caught and get a free ride to the border.
csdeven on October 18, 2007 at 8:59 AM
By labeling the Dems as the open borders party, and really driving this point home, a 2008 debacle might be avoided.
Of course they are the open borders party but the point needs to be emphasized to the extent that it starts to move public opinion. Sure it won’t be easy with a bought and paid for MSM but if we defeated amnesty, we can defeat those who embrace it.
It wouldn’t hurt if the Repubs made it clear they are for the rule of law and U.S. sovereignty. They need to disconnect from Bush and his pub cronies on this issue to provide the necessary clarity. In my opinion, the GOP should make this a central issue. One that they are on the right side of.
voiceofreason on October 18, 2007 at 10:19 AM
I’m a life long Republican and I haven’t seen a GOP candidate I like so far.
Romney = Bullworth (I expect some rap real soon)
McCain = Sincere but soon to be senile.
Giuliani = One trick pony (9-11)
Paul = Some good, much clueless
Tancredo = One trick pony (borders)
Thompson = Actor C+, Politician C- GPA C
Huckabee = No machine to match Clinton’s steamroller
Ernest on October 18, 2007 at 11:20 AM
ROTFLMAO……..No, the city of San Diego itself is a sanctuary city. Try keeping this in perspective, in Mexico these day labors make 2 dollars a day. Here in one day they make 10 times as much as they make all week in Mexico. Day laborers average $10.00 to $15.00 bucks an hour in San Diego county. Since the city of San Diego and by extension the county of San Diego is a sanctuary “city ” getting caught does not mean getting deported.
However there are about 16 incorporated cities in San Diego county. Only about three of them follow San Diego’s sanctuary policy. Most of San Diego county’s incorporated cities have illegal alien harassment policies. They actively work to disrupt their congregation sites and turn over illegals caught to the INS, who does deport them.
The problem is that because so much of San Diego county is unincorporated San Diego’s sanctuary policy results in a catch and release situation that pretty much nullifies the incorporated cities efforts. San Ysidro for instances is a unincorporated city within the county of San Diego, subject to San Diego’s sanctuary policies, it’s also the city actually on the Mexican border in San Diego county.
The Border Patrol works pretty hard to catch illegals crossing the border between Tijuana and San Ysidro, but once the illegals get more than 2 miles from the border the Border Patrol is pretty effectively blocked from taking any action against them.
doriangrey on October 18, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Sorry, but that’s absolutely false. I’ve spent many hours protesting at day labor sites and the workers are routinely picked up by major contractors, farmers, and even some major construction companies. Those day labor sites are where roofing companies go to grab the 15 illegals that rip the old shingles off your roof at 6 in the morning. You know, the same jobs that used to be done by me and my high school buddies for $10 an hour in the 1980’s.
Jobs Americans won’t do … for $2 an hour.
Gregor on October 18, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Dear Fred,
1. Why are you employing a jihadist as your campaign director?
2. Why did you try to hide this fact?
Sincerely,
Hater of Jihad and everyone and everything that is associated with it
Loundry on October 18, 2007 at 1:58 PM
I like it!
Or maybe he’ll funnel it to Hizballah via Hizballah-supporting Spencer Abraham, who already receives money from him.
Loundry on October 18, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Love the optimism! Great Stuff!
I like how it’s always about making sure liberal ideas don’t make BIG gains, just little ones. Always on defense, never on offense.
Could you imagine if an NFL, NHL, MLB, MLS, or NBA team was only about defense? If they were only about protecting their goal rather than pumping themselves up to make a few goals, points, or homeruns of their own? How long do you think the fans would want to pay to watch and support a team like that?
I’m not paying or voting for depressing losers that give up because things seem difficult. A team needs its fan base to boost its morale, and in order to ‘earn’ my cheers and appreciation you need to make an attempt to win not just consolidate your damn losses!
Sultry Beauty on October 18, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Comment pages: