Article

2006-05-16 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-16 09:38|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 SWOOSH!

Posted by Perfesser 2006-05-16 09:50|| 2006-05-16 09:50|| Front Page Top

#2 We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say.

Certainly. And those we didn't invite here can go have dignity and value where they were born. It's not about them being less than human, it's about them obeying the same damned laws everyone else is subject to.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2006-05-16 09:59|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-05-16 09:59|| Front Page Top

#3 Miss. Too little too late to make the base happy.

Posted by DarthVader 2006-05-16 10:06|| 2006-05-16 10:06|| Front Page Top

#4 Sorry. Not impressed. Looks like the main points are amnesty, no matter what he calls it, and not pissing off Mexico.
Where's he been for six years?

Posted by tu3031 2006-05-16 10:10|| 2006-05-16 10:10|| Front Page Top

#5 I was pretty PO'd immediately after the speech - and the President's press people making the rounds apparently were as tone deaf as the President is, in terms of a REAL FENCE. It seems the whole speech is there to setup his amnesty program -- and its amensty no matter how he chooses to rephrase it - lipstick on the pig still leaves it being a pig, and an illegal being in the country is still an illegal being in the country.

And the followup interviews last night were even worse:

(Juline Myers DHS) "Well, in terms of actual fencing, I think they're still looking at kind of what makes most sense in terms of surveillance and manpower and actual infrastructure."

In other words, the SAME things they've been saying for the past 5 years about the fence. Meaning NOTHING changed.

So here's the one thing that saves this whole thing for me this morning:

(From Hugh Hewitt) "I have confirmed with a senior White House source this morning that the president is for robust fencing in urban areas --as exists in El Paso and San Diego-- and for vehicle barriers in rural areas."

Why the hell didn't Bush say so in the first place? I swear, this administration is the most incompetent bunch of morons when it comes to getting the good message out. Winning the war in Iraq, the daily heroism of our great troops aroundthe world in this fight, the necessity and legality of the NSA programs, the great economy wiht low unemployment and low inflation and (now) high quality jobs being created, etc. NONE of that they get across effectively at all.

And now this screw up by not emphasizing that there will be extensive fencing put up - they consistently fail to get the message across or else get the wrong message across.

Dubya, hire a fricken PR firm that knows what it's doing! For God's sake they market phony medicine (Smiling Bob for Enzite) better than you do your real successes!

But at least this latest word on a real fence has me stopping my stockpiling of ammo and MREs in preparation for President Hillary and a Dem Congress.

Dubya, get the damn word out!

And smack Pork spending down hard for your next action - veto ANYTHING that comes with earmarks.

The follow up with a pile of solid conservative (non-activist) judges, and push the senate HARD to get the approved this shummer - Squash Specter like a bug if he gets in your way.

Come on Dubya - dont be a wuss like your dad.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-16 10:24|| 2006-05-16 10:24|| Front Page Top

#6 OldSpook -- when I see your name in the sidebar -- I just click cause I so value your words. However, I did hear Bush say fences last night.

From his speech just above:
At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas.

That was pretty plain to me

Posted by Sherry 2006-05-16 10:44|| 2006-05-16 10:44|| Front Page Top

#7 He lost my vote when he called them 'Illegal Immigrants'. Even more then he called them 'law abiding'.

FYI - When President Bush talks about illegals having to 'wait at the end of the line' he means the 'citizenship' line not the immigration line. Yes! They get to 'cut in line' in front of the real law abiding people who have been patiently waiting for even their immigrant visa.

If America is a great 'melting pot' it seems Bush and Fox are hell bent on shitting in it with their Amnesty. And that is what it is - anything less then making them go back to their country of origin and waiting in line like everyone else is A-M-N-E-S-T-Y. If it would be a hardship for them then TOUGH SHIT! I am not the one who decided to break the law. The people waiting in line LEGALLY are not the ones who decided to break the law.

The immigrant who are 'law abiding' and who 'make this country what it is today' are waiting in line LEGALLY while President Bush pissed on them in order to score a few points.

Posted by CrazyFool 2006-05-16 10:45|| 2006-05-16 10:45|| Front Page Top

#8 MISS. My wife came from Eastern Europe the right way. Followed all the rules. Took years dealing with feckless bureaucrats to get her permanent residency.

No fence? No deal. SSDD.

The illegals would self-deport within 3 months if there were no benefits, jobs, or ability to send money to Mexico.

Posted by SR-71 2006-05-16 10:49|| 2006-05-16 10:49|| Front Page Top

#9 Sherry, the problem was the emphasis in the speech seemed to be more on Amnesty than it was on security. Title 32 Activation of the Guard would have been a start (this allows them to operate as law enforcement officers including pwoers of arrest - under the direction fo the individual state governors).

As put by others I heard and thoughts I have myself, the big problem for Bush is he's forfeited the trust of the base with a series of boneheaded moves, going from Harriet Miers to the Dubai Ports deal to this, and it wasn't necessarily that the moves were all wrong. (Dubai Ports deal was fine if you examine the real facts concerning port security). But the White House has just blown off our concerns aboutthos things until it was way late int he game - indeed the Myers mess is a prime example of jus thow deaf/arrogant (you decide) this Administration has become. And the result is that people aren't willing to cut them any slack, they aren't willing to take a sort of trust me attitude on this or anything else coming out of the Bush administration. And so they're going to have to *act*,, and *do* things -0 accomlisht things, and they're going to have to follow through, and they can't just wait until the attention has passed, and then let is slide. Thats what they ahve been doing (waiting and letting it slide) liek a schoolboy slacker, which I think is what everybody fears they're going to do. And that's what has Bush in such low ratings and low regard across the board.

This i his last chance to dig out - secure the border - talk up the fence and law enforcement, not the guest workers. Kill the pork,, veto the pork laden bills and demand that the Senate and house kill off Earmarks for the corruption they cause, and finally, get the judges into the system and get them confirme - take no excuses from the old country club Republicans in the senate.

Do those 3 things, and he will be over 50% approval by August.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-16 10:57|| 2006-05-16 10:57|| Front Page Top

#10 The high tech virtual fence in Georgespeak is cameras and aerial patrols. National Guard troops are actually to be comprised of Engineering Battalions, support groups, not boots on the ground...no arrest powers, probably not armed either. See something, call the Border Patrol for the catch and release bus. George may have cleared this scam with Vicente, but he's going to lose another 10 points in the polls by June, and the deaf Congress will compound the problem being 'fair' to illegal voters. Platitudes don't cut it.

Posted by Inspector Clueso 2006-05-16 11:40|| 2006-05-16 11:40|| Front Page Top

#11 I'm a big fan of George Bush. I don't expect my leaders to be gods and he's done an amazing job of staying the course with excellent results.

The speech was a miss. That swooshing sound you hear is the wind created by every single supporter he ever had in his entire presidency turning their back on him, myself include. And the left still bitterly hates him too.

He's now a man standing alone.

Posted by 2b 2006-05-16 11:46|| 2006-05-16 11:46|| Front Page Top

#12 My call?
A BIG MISS!

Posted by 3dc 2006-05-16 12:16|| 2006-05-16 12:16|| Front Page Top

#13 Big f*cking miss.

The people of the U.S. do not want "virtual" fences. We want a real concrete and steel huge-ass berlin frickin' wall backed by no-shit Border Control and U.S. mil fully armed to arrest or repel invaders. We don't want amnesty for ILLEGALS either. We want them sent home and put back in the immigration line *not* the citizenship line. JHC, our politicians are A-Number-One pussies. Do we follow the rule of law or the rule of man? BTW - companies that cannot survive w/out illegal labor do not deserve to survive. If their love of the dollar out weighs their love of U.S. sovereignty then they need to be shut down.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-05-16 12:27|| 2006-05-16 12:27|| Front Page Top

#14 Miss.

Guest workers is a big mistake. We don't need second class non-citizens.

Failure to defend the border is a big mistake. Canada is also an issue as far afaiac.

Illegal aliens should get NO breaks. Let them be treated like any one else, no better, now worse, if they can get back to their homeland to apply for legitimate entry. Let them be treated like lawbreakers if they are caught here.

I'll believe tougher enforcement of employers when I see convictions.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-16 12:34|| 2006-05-16 12:34|| Front Page Top

#15 Miss - seal the border BEFORE any guest worker program is even talked about, and NO amnesty for linejumpers and law breakers

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-05-16 12:49|| 2006-05-16 12:49|| Front Page Top

#16 Miss. Same bullshit different party. Why bother voting if it always the same turds in the punch bowl.

Posted by BrerRabbit 2006-05-16 13:03|| 2006-05-16 13:03|| Front Page Top

#17 I don't think he did as badly as most here seem to, but I think he failed in two significant areas: the guest worker notion, which is a sham that will hurt everyday Americans' wage base, and the 6000 (non-enforcement) troops on the border plan, which will have little effect on illegal immigration.

He tried hard to find reasonable common ground between two extreme sides, an admirable effort, but usually a losing battle. I think his Achilles heel in this was in yielding to Fox's yiping about militarizing the border. He should have pointed out that Mexico enforces its southern border militarily, and the US will, too.

Posted by Jules 2006-05-16 13:05|| 2006-05-16 13:05|| Front Page Top

#18 The Constitution defines the military's duties as securing the borders. Case closed.
First, secure the borders.......check
Second, we must create a temporary worker program.....(let them work, but not vote)...check
Third we must inforce a way of identification......check. (uses employers to flush them out)not a bad idea.
Fourth, there are too many to send back, so we'll send only the problem wetbacks......check
Fifth, they must learn to speak and understand english.......check.
And, implied, they can't vote unless and until they become citizens......check

I say Bush's speech was good, not perfect.

Posted by wxjames 2006-05-16 13:27|| 2006-05-16 13:27|| Front Page Top

#19 Another missed opportunity for an administration that lately runs out of tissue every time it sits on the loo. Not only did they fail to persuade the advocates for an enforcement first policy, in some ways they helped make their case. They offered no new compelling argument as to why there cant be a solution to the porous border without a comprehensive plan. In fact, his Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border statement is an admission that there is absolutely no proof that a guest worker component is necessary. And by asking Congress for additional funding and legal authority under the current system further drives home that point.
To make matters worse, Bush tipped his cards showing he is beholden to corporate interests and global trade on this issue. Giving employers that exploit an illegal workforce a free pass due to difficulty of document verification is a flat out insult. And Mexico is our neighbor and our friend without publicly holding them to account is an affront to even the most casual observer.

Posted by DepotGuy 2006-05-16 13:28|| 2006-05-16 13:28|| Front Page Top

#20 I don't know about elsewhere, but when that home builder and his subcontractors were raided in Northern Kentucky last week, there were several follow-up articles in the local newspaper about illegals staying home from work, keeping the children home from school, and in general preparing to flea back to the homeland. Also that the raids were the result of a two-year investigation. Recently there have been a lot of reports of arrests of illegals and their employers; I think there is going to be a quiet exodus if this keeps up, as there was when Muslim men were required to register post-9/11.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-05-16 13:32|| 2006-05-16 13:32|| Front Page Top

#21 flee. (I think I may need to invest in a new brain)

Posted by trailing wife 2006-05-16 13:34|| 2006-05-16 13:34|| Front Page Top

#22 From a comment in ParaPundit
Have you not noticed that enforcing imigration laws is not politically correct?

Posted by 3dc 2006-05-16 13:59|| 2006-05-16 13:59|| Front Page Top

#23 FROM THIS GAO REPORT

In summary, for our study population of 55,322 illegal aliens criminals, we found
that:

* They were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about
8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-
eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent
(about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about
15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after
1990.

* They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses,
averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may
include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly
one and half times more offenses than arrests.[Footnote 6] Almost all
of these illegal aliens were arrested for more than 1 offense. Slightly
more than half of the 55,322 illegal aliens had between 2 and 10
offenses. About 45 percent of all offenses were drug or immigration
offenses. About 15 percent were property-related offenses such as
burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and property damage.
About 12 percent were for violent offenses such as murder, robbery,
assault, and sex-related crimes. The balance was for such other
offenses as traffic violations, including driving under the influence;
fraud--including forgery and counterfeiting; weapons violations; and
obstruction of justice.

* Eighty percent of all arrests occurred in three states--California,
Texas, and Arizona. Specifically, about 58 percent of all arrests
occurred in California, 14 percent in Texas, and 8 percent in Arizona.

...

Posted by 3dc 2006-05-16 14:22|| 2006-05-16 14:22|| Front Page Top

#24 Mr. President, can you tell me why ANY plan that does not DEPORT the illegals should not be characterized as AMNESTY?

Sounds exactly like "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is".

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-05-16 14:26|| 2006-05-16 14:26|| Front Page Top

#25 Looks like GW has choosen to spend the last two years of his administration fighting off investigations from the Dems who'll control Congress next year. I guess he needs something to fill his time. Non-aligned voters like me are not interested in voting if they're just the different side of the same coin.

BTW George, the problem and solution is in Mexico City not Washington and until someone is willing the use a big 2x4 to get their attention, nothing is going to change.

"We've got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs." - Gov. William J. Le Petomane, Blazing Saddles

Posted by Phaise Thating1732 2006-05-16 14:27|| 2006-05-16 14:27|| Front Page Top

#26 Heck, I think we can start deporting people, lots of people, as well as fining and shutting down companies that harbor illegals. However, we won't because our politicians are a bunch of sissys and it's not popular to talk about rounding up folks for mass deportation (which tells me it's prolly the right thing to do) but I believe it can be done if we had any backbone. (and if our govt had any nads, which it truly doesn't.) Sometimes I can't believe I went to Iraq to defend these f*cking cowards. Maybe it's time for another revolution.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-05-16 15:01|| 2006-05-16 15:01|| Front Page Top

#27 Deportation isnt neccesary.

1. Stop making it easy to get over and back - meaning once you get here, you don't leave unless you plan on never coming back.

2. Keep the money in the US. Put a tax on all money transfers from retail sources to target nation banks and agencies (ex: Western Union) - money that leaves the country. Put a confiscatory tax (escalating from 25% to 80%) on aggregates of more than $5000 a year (enough to allow legitimate money moves but cleans out any incentive for sending large sums of money home).

3. Enforce employement identification. Arrest and deport those causght working illegally. Jail those working with forged documnets. Fine and jail the employers. Make the cost of the program fall on the employers, who canthen charge higher prices for the product to make up for it - its a cost of doing legitimate business.

4. During arrests, check citizenship. If an aresstee is not a citizen, non-felony non-violent charges are held (i.e. traffic tickets etc), they do jail time for the ticket/etc, then are deported.

5. Any time anyone is deported, their family is deported as well unless they are here legally and are of legal age. No more "anchor" babies.

These 5 things, along with a solid border fence and internal enforcement will drive out the illegals, since they will have fewer jobs available, fewer employers willing to take the risks of jail time, less money they can send back to Mexico, and less of a chance of being able to do the "over and back" they repeatedly do now.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-16 15:45|| 2006-05-16 15:45|| Front Page Top

#28 Let's look at this logically for a second.

Bush will not be reelected in 2008 no matter what he does. States constantly countermand the Feds on border issues, primarily this means Senators calling off Border patrol enforcement from businesses but there are numberous precidents. Bush has no political capital left to use on this topic or really any other. Really all he can do is give a speach and hope the House and Senate take his suggestions and/or his poll numbers go up which is basically what he did.

Nothing to see here, move along. He should have built a wall on Sept 12, while he was formulating the energy policies, and waiting for the military to provide plans for the overthrow of Syria/Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan using US airpower and local insurgent groups.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2006-05-16 15:57|| 2006-05-16 15:57|| Front Page Top

#29 context: voted for GWB twice.

The President's Speech - Hit or Miss?

it wasn't a Miss..it was a Mess, the buritto went all over the floor!

Chupa mi pendejo

Posted by RD 2006-05-16 16:06|| 2006-05-16 16:06|| Front Page Top

#30

Ive read the speech. I was unavoidably out for the broadcast.

Picking a round number, if there are ten million illegals already in the country, how many of them are just trying to make a living. Id guess 9,900,000. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) would like you to believe that illegal immigration predisposes you to other crimes such as murder, rape and barratry. Piffle!

As difficult as it is for the bloggers at the Corner to believe, there are a great many people who believe you can deport all the illegals, or make their lives so miserable that they self deport. Let me ask you to think about the issue by itself for a moment. If we find a way to deny employment and services to ten million illegals, what happens? They cannot work, they cannot get services, they cannot afford a bus ticket home. We just went from 100,000 illegals as criminals to 10 million as criminals. Yeah, thats an idea we want to push!

We cannot lock them all up. We cannot make their lives so miserable that they go home without creating a massive criminal class. So, as unpleasant as it might be to the nativists, we have to find a way for the vast majority of honest, decent, hard-working illegal immigrants to remain here legally.

The nativists are no different than the Know Nothings. Assimilation takes time. If it were so damn easy, there would never have been a Chinatown or a Little Italy or a Brighton Beach. If you really, really demand assimilation, why dont you start with the Cubans in Miami? Oh, wait, theyre good aliens. As are the Hmong. And so on. Nativists dont see that all the exceptions to the immigration rules make the rules merely political, not any sort of practical immigration policy.

Find a way to keep the people who want to work in this country.

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2006-05-16 16:16|| http://blog.simmins.org]">[http://blog.simmins.org] 2006-05-16 16:16|| Front Page Top

#31 Miss. Too much compassion and not enough conservative.

I keep remembering the Cuban exiles we intercept and ship back to Castro. Cubans are some of our most patriotic Americans. They flee from tyranny, not just for economic benefits.

First term was good, the second term is very rocky. Still better than donks.

Posted by Captain America 2006-05-16 16:22|| 2006-05-16 16:22|| Front Page Top

#32 a better speech - by Denny Wilson

The Speech I Would Write
This is the speech that would raise the president's poll numbers.

My fellow Americans. My poll numbers are in the shitter. I don't have to worry about getting elected again so I have decided to do what's right.

To the congress: If you send me another bloated piece of shit legislation I will veto it.

Trent Lott does not need to have us move a railroad track. If Mississippi needs to have it moved, let them pay for it themselves.

Senator Stevens does not have to have a $200 million bridge to an island that has only 50 people.

We've given enough money to New Orleans. Half of it will wind up into the pockets of corrupt politicians anyway.

The people elected us to shrink the size of government, not expand it. I can understand Senator Byrd wanting another building in West Virginia named after him. He's a Democrat. I expect that from him. But I do not expect that from small government Republicans.

When did our party turn into the Democratic Party? What happened to the revolution of 1994? We need to quit spending like drunken sailors and I need to start wielding the veto pen.

Now I want to talk about illegal immigration. What part of illegal is so hard to understand? If they are here illegally, they are breaking the law. Before we can talk about an amnesty or guest worker program we need to get immigration under control. We tried an amnesty program in 1986. It didn't work.

Putting troops on the border will not solve the problem. We need to build a fence. A big fence. A fence that runs from San Diego to Texas. My fellow Americans we will build that fence.

After we build that fence, any illegal Spanish speaking alien will be sent back to Mexico. I don't care if you're Mexican or not. If you are here illegally and you speak Spanish we'll put you on the Mexican side of the fence. You think our laws are bad? Wait until you see how Mexico treats illegals.

Only after we get the illegal immigration problem under control will we start talking about an amnesty program.

To President Fox: I don't give a shit if you don't like this. Maybe if you would fix the problems in your Third World shithole country your people wouldn't want to live here. What the fuck do you do with all of your oil money and tourism dollars? I think you ought to give us free oil since we are taking care of so many of your citizens.

That is my plan. Good night and God bless America.

Sigh! I know I'm just dreaming. That speech will never get delivered. Tancredo for president!

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-05-16 16:25|| 2006-05-16 16:25|| Front Page Top

#33 Miss. Anything that allows the illegals to stay in this country in violation of our laws gnaws at the entrails of the Republic.

Posted by RWV 2006-05-16 16:28|| 2006-05-16 16:28|| Front Page Top

#34 the guest worker notion, which is a sham that will hurt everyday Americans' wage base,

This type of argument should be viewed with a grain caution: Higher wages will not necessarily ensure that people will be better off, especially as things stand right now in the US economy. If you are willing to take a huge chunk of people out of the US labor market right now, you will drive up inflation and interest rates, ceteris paribus. And then who will you blame when it becomes 'it's the economy stupid'?

Give the pols in Washington a little credit for realizing this. You trusted them with Iraq and pretty much everything else, why not trust them with the economy?

Posted by Snavise Uleatch2308 2006-05-16 17:37|| 2006-05-16 17:37|| Front Page Top

#35 You trusted them with Iraq and pretty much everything else, why not trust them with the economy?

Wow. Aren't you the little trust bunny. The fact that we believed that we were better off to depose Saddam and establish a foothold in the middle east to fight the WOT has nothing to do with what we think is the best way to handle illegal immigration or the price of lettuce in CA.

Some of us can think for ourselves and believe that our representatives are supposed to work for us, doing what we think best, not the other way around.

Posted by 2b 2006-05-16 18:12|| 2006-05-16 18:12|| Front Page Top

#36 Make a GREAT WALL Amusement Park the length of the border. Put Dial Soap in charge. They could have over-priced rides and food just like in the National Parks they run.

Make the center of the wall a waterslide.

...

Posted by 3dc 2006-05-16 18:28|| 2006-05-16 18:28|| Front Page Top

#37 If you are willing to take a huge chunk of people out of the US labor market right now, you will drive up inflation and interest rates, ceteris paribus.

What does getting rid of a bunch of labor inputs have to do with expanding the money supply relative to output? Or are you suggesting a change in the velocity of money?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-16 19:27|| 2006-05-16 19:27|| Front Page Top

#38 Hope Rantburg is as friendly as it once was . . . here goes . . .

Haven't had time to get into the immigration thing. Can anyone just summarize the pros/cons arguments and why it's such a concern.

Okay--now don't all dog pile me at once.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-05-16 19:40|| 2006-05-16 19:40|| Front Page Top

#39 ...has nothing to do with what we think is the best way to handle illegal immigration or the price of lettuce in CA.

Then I still hope you're voting Republican.

What does getting rid of a bunch of labor inputs have to do with expanding the money supply relative to output? Or are you suggesting a change in the velocity of money?

No, and that's why I added ceteris paribus.

Posted by Snavise Uleatch2308 2006-05-16 19:49|| 2006-05-16 19:49|| Front Page Top

#40 ex-lib, your summary.

Pro-illegal Immigrants mostly mean well and someday they may vote and damnit we want them to vote for our party and not the other guys. They also provide cheap labor so that your lettuce is a few cents cheaper, along with car washes, gardening, and some other manual labor. They probably have a huge effect on the construction industry. The money they send back to Mexico is a huge boon to the Mexican economy and the drugs and sex/slaves that occasionally cross with the illegals are considered recreational by many Americans.

Con -Illegal immigrants flaunt our laws by sneaking across, they send a chunk of our economy into Mexico. They force cities to use resources such as teachers, hospitals, and prisons to support them without actually adding much to the tax base. They take jobs that Americans once did (such as construction, gardening and carwashes) causing the wages for such jobs to drop to the point many Americans can no longer survive on those jobs. The money they send back has prevented Mexico from reforming and becoming a serious country that might actually become first world in time, and there is the drugs and sex workers thing again along with possible terrorists crossing with the illegals.

I'm sure there are some additional issues but that about covers the main ones I've heard.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2006-05-16 20:14|| rjschwarz.com]">[rjschwarz.com] 2006-05-16 20:14|| Front Page Top

#41 And avoided the question.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-16 20:14|| 2006-05-16 20:14|| Front Page Top

#42 Thanks rj. That was great. T o me the economy thing is of real concern as it is siphoning resources out of the country cuz' they don't pay taxes, is that right? Also, is the radical "we will take back the US for Mexico" part of it, and also, is Bush doing this to secure a distancing from Chavez? Is that even likely to work?

Posted by ex-lib 2006-05-16 21:49|| 2006-05-16 21:49|| Front Page Top

#43 FrankG,
That's the speech alright !

Posted by jim#6 2006-05-16 21:52|| 2006-05-16 21:52|| Front Page Top

#44 And avoided the question.

Because I wasn't sure what you were getting at, and with macroeconomics all bets are off.

In the short run an increase in the rate of money growth affects mostly output, not inflation. In the long run, there is also no tight relation between the growth rate of money and inflation. The reasons for this involve shifts in the demand for money.

Otoh, a labor market is a market like any other. Reducing the supply of labor has a direct effect on producers' costs. And costs drive up inflation.

Posted by Snavise Uleatch2308 2006-05-16 22:57|| 2006-05-16 22:57|| Front Page Top

#45 ...and of course, higher inflation means higher interest rates as the central bank (the fed) struggles to maintain their inflation target.

Posted by Snavise Uleatch2308 2006-05-16 23:00|| 2006-05-16 23:00|| Front Page Top

#46 SnU - You are spewing uninformed blather are caught up in the weeds and losing sight of the big picture. You are fussing around down in the weeds when if you keep the horizon in sight, this isn't really that hard of a problem to solve. The problem is that the politicians are putting the votes before doing what is right for the citizens of this country.

I will vote Republican - only because the dems are such wacked out losers. But I'll be including pesos in any RNC requests for money and a party that has people voting for them only because the other guy is worse isn't a good thing.

Posted by 2b 2006-05-16 23:37|| 2006-05-16 23:37|| Front Page Top

#47 You are spewing uninformed blather

Really? LOL. You are welcome to refute what I said. Please expand. Maybe I'll learn something new.

It is you who is losing sight of the broader picture, unfortunately, choosing instead to go for short term emotional gratification. I dare say the pols have it right on this one. Bush always did. I have a feeling that he will be judged unfairly by history and people on both sides.

Posted by Snavise Uleatch2308 2006-05-16 23:54|| 2006-05-16 23:54|| Front Page Top

23:56 Matt K.
23:55 Seafarious
23:54 Snavise Uleatch2308
23:50 Captain America
23:49 Captain America
23:47 MacNails
23:47 Old Patriot
23:47 Captain America
23:43 Captain America
23:42 twobyfour
23:37 2b
23:36 3dc
23:31 Old Patriot
23:29 3dc
23:27 3dc
23:20 Snavise Uleatch2308
23:18 Old Patriot
23:17 Captain America
23:16 SteveS
23:16 DMFD
23:00 Snavise Uleatch2308
22:57 Ulogum Gluth2284
22:57 Snavise Uleatch2308
22:48 DMFD