In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Bush Has More Concern for Mexico than US
HAIRY
Member Posts: 23,606
Plan to Deploy Guard at Border Worries Mexico
By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: May 15, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 14 - President Bush's plan to send National Guard troops to patrol the southern border of the United States has raised the concern of his longtime ally President Vicente Fox of Mexico, who called Mr. Bush on Sunday to express his worries.
White House officials said Mr. Bush assured Mr. Fox that a permanent National Guard presence on the border was not being considered. COMMENT BY HAIRY: Hey, we'll let them in and then keep them for you.
"The president made clear that the United States considers Mexico a friend," said Maria Tamburri, a White House spokeswoman.
Ms. Tamburri said the president told Mr. Fox, "What is being considered is not a militarization of the border, but support of border patrol capabilities, on a temporary basis, by National Guard personnel."
In a televised address scheduled for 8 p.m. Monday, Mr. Bush is expected to call for a significantly increased National Guard presence at the border. Officials have indicated that Mr. Bush could call for a force of thousands but that it would not be as high as 10,000, a number that had been rumored late last week.
Reports of the plan over the weekend also caused concern among lawmakers, including some Republicans, who said they feared the National Guard was already overextended with military missions abroad and with its response to natural disasters at home.
On Monday, Mr. Bush is also expected to outline several other proposals aimed at sealing the border and cracking down on workers who are illegally in the United States, and the employers who hire them. Aides said he would renew his calls for an overhaul of the nation's immigration law that includes provisions to grant illegal immigrants the right to work here legally.
The president's speech, his first on domestic policy from the Oval Office, is to come as the Senate begins trying again to pass a bill that addresses competing demands to stem the flow of workers across the border from Mexico and the desire of American employers to have reliable access to a low-wage work force.
White House officials have made it clear that they hope that a plan to seal the border will help Mr. Bush in that effort to strike a compromise between any bill passed in the Senate and the one passed in December in the House, where many Republicans have opposed any steps to legalize illegal workers.
Lawmakers from both parties expressed concerns on Sunday about the idea of deploying the National Guard.
Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, who helped draft the Senate immigration bill, said he was skeptical about whether the plan would work.
"We have stretched our military as thin as we have ever seen it in modern times," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "And what in the world are we talking about here, sending a National Guard that we may not have any capacity to send, up to or down to protect borders?"
He said he did not believe border protection was "the role of our National Guard."
Speaking on "Late Edition" on CNN, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said expressed similar feelings, saying, , "We're stretching them pretty thin now. We're going to make a border patrol out of them?"
But White House officials said late last week that they believed the president's address on Monday would be welcomed by voters, who have told pollsters they would like to see tighter control of the borders.
"The president is looking to do everything he can to secure the border," said Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, on "Face the Nation" on CBS. "It's what the American people want, it's what he wants to do."
Mr. Hadley said sending National Guard troops to the border - officials say there are about 200 there now - would supplement the Border Patrol as it adds agents whose training and deployment will take time.
White House officials said that was the message that the president conveyed to Mr. Fox, whose defense minister met on Friday with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Ms. Tamburri, the White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Fox and Mr. Bush also discussed "cooperative efforts under way" on the border.
A statement from Mr. Fox's office said that during the president's 30-minute conversation he reiterated to Mr. Bush his conviction that the best way to manage the problem of illegal migration was with comprehensive legislation.
Migration has been the centerpiece of Mr. Fox's foreign policy in the six years of his presidency. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, his hopes faltered for swift passage of measures to legalize an estimated six million Mexicans working illegally in the United States.
The relationship between Mexico and the United States grew tense as the Bush administration began focusing more on ways to seal the border than to expand opportunities for the legal flow of migrant workers. Still, Mr. Fox publicly supported most of Mr. Bush's law enforcement efforts on the border. His cooperation with the United States has cost him significant political clout, however, among an increasing number of left-leaning leaders across Latin America.
And with presidential elections less than two months away, feelings that Mr. Fox has subordinated Mexico's sovereignty to American interests threaten to affect the chances of the candidate he hopes to succeed him, Felipe Calder?n.
Mr. Fox's expression of concern to Mr. Bush, along with that of members of Congress and some governors, underscored the constituencies the president is juggling as heseeks a legislative victory on an issue of special interest to him at a time when much of his agenda is stalled.
His push for granting illegal immigrants legal status, and his veiled discussion of a path to citizenship - he often says those who want to become citizens would have to go to "the back of the line" - has been dismissed as "amnesty" by some conservatives. And, as his party faces a rough midterm election fight, Republicans have worried that his push on immigration has helped demoralize core conservative voters.
Ginger Thompson contributed reporting from Mexico City for this article.
By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: May 15, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 14 - President Bush's plan to send National Guard troops to patrol the southern border of the United States has raised the concern of his longtime ally President Vicente Fox of Mexico, who called Mr. Bush on Sunday to express his worries.
White House officials said Mr. Bush assured Mr. Fox that a permanent National Guard presence on the border was not being considered. COMMENT BY HAIRY: Hey, we'll let them in and then keep them for you.
"The president made clear that the United States considers Mexico a friend," said Maria Tamburri, a White House spokeswoman.
Ms. Tamburri said the president told Mr. Fox, "What is being considered is not a militarization of the border, but support of border patrol capabilities, on a temporary basis, by National Guard personnel."
In a televised address scheduled for 8 p.m. Monday, Mr. Bush is expected to call for a significantly increased National Guard presence at the border. Officials have indicated that Mr. Bush could call for a force of thousands but that it would not be as high as 10,000, a number that had been rumored late last week.
Reports of the plan over the weekend also caused concern among lawmakers, including some Republicans, who said they feared the National Guard was already overextended with military missions abroad and with its response to natural disasters at home.
On Monday, Mr. Bush is also expected to outline several other proposals aimed at sealing the border and cracking down on workers who are illegally in the United States, and the employers who hire them. Aides said he would renew his calls for an overhaul of the nation's immigration law that includes provisions to grant illegal immigrants the right to work here legally.
The president's speech, his first on domestic policy from the Oval Office, is to come as the Senate begins trying again to pass a bill that addresses competing demands to stem the flow of workers across the border from Mexico and the desire of American employers to have reliable access to a low-wage work force.
White House officials have made it clear that they hope that a plan to seal the border will help Mr. Bush in that effort to strike a compromise between any bill passed in the Senate and the one passed in December in the House, where many Republicans have opposed any steps to legalize illegal workers.
Lawmakers from both parties expressed concerns on Sunday about the idea of deploying the National Guard.
Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, who helped draft the Senate immigration bill, said he was skeptical about whether the plan would work.
"We have stretched our military as thin as we have ever seen it in modern times," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "And what in the world are we talking about here, sending a National Guard that we may not have any capacity to send, up to or down to protect borders?"
He said he did not believe border protection was "the role of our National Guard."
Speaking on "Late Edition" on CNN, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said expressed similar feelings, saying, , "We're stretching them pretty thin now. We're going to make a border patrol out of them?"
But White House officials said late last week that they believed the president's address on Monday would be welcomed by voters, who have told pollsters they would like to see tighter control of the borders.
"The president is looking to do everything he can to secure the border," said Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, on "Face the Nation" on CBS. "It's what the American people want, it's what he wants to do."
Mr. Hadley said sending National Guard troops to the border - officials say there are about 200 there now - would supplement the Border Patrol as it adds agents whose training and deployment will take time.
White House officials said that was the message that the president conveyed to Mr. Fox, whose defense minister met on Friday with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Ms. Tamburri, the White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Fox and Mr. Bush also discussed "cooperative efforts under way" on the border.
A statement from Mr. Fox's office said that during the president's 30-minute conversation he reiterated to Mr. Bush his conviction that the best way to manage the problem of illegal migration was with comprehensive legislation.
Migration has been the centerpiece of Mr. Fox's foreign policy in the six years of his presidency. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, his hopes faltered for swift passage of measures to legalize an estimated six million Mexicans working illegally in the United States.
The relationship between Mexico and the United States grew tense as the Bush administration began focusing more on ways to seal the border than to expand opportunities for the legal flow of migrant workers. Still, Mr. Fox publicly supported most of Mr. Bush's law enforcement efforts on the border. His cooperation with the United States has cost him significant political clout, however, among an increasing number of left-leaning leaders across Latin America.
And with presidential elections less than two months away, feelings that Mr. Fox has subordinated Mexico's sovereignty to American interests threaten to affect the chances of the candidate he hopes to succeed him, Felipe Calder?n.
Mr. Fox's expression of concern to Mr. Bush, along with that of members of Congress and some governors, underscored the constituencies the president is juggling as heseeks a legislative victory on an issue of special interest to him at a time when much of his agenda is stalled.
His push for granting illegal immigrants legal status, and his veiled discussion of a path to citizenship - he often says those who want to become citizens would have to go to "the back of the line" - has been dismissed as "amnesty" by some conservatives. And, as his party faces a rough midterm election fight, Republicans have worried that his push on immigration has helped demoralize core conservative voters.
Ginger Thompson contributed reporting from Mexico City for this article.
Comments
Obviously an attempt to play both sides.
2% of illegals are picking vegtables
33% are on welfare
Who could complain about it? Half of Mexico is alaready here or heading this way. We have paid to protect Canada forever. We might as well enjoy the land of both too. Great fishing and hunting in both, lots of nice land and sunny beaches for vacations. And, well, they have OIL.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26852
http://uncooperativeblogger.com/2006/01/15/mexican-army-crossing-us-border/
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/01/mexican_soldiers_ignore_us_bor.php
http://www.rense.com/general5/mex.htm
You gripe, whine, moan and complain that nothing is being done to secure our borders and when a plan comes out you slam it. LMAO. You Bushbots probably think this is a plan. LOL
Thanks for the laughs, but don't quit your day job. [:D][:D]
So I'm supposing that you would cheer a plan to deploy cheerleaders and soccer moms to the border with cell phones and fresh baked cookies? I mean, it's a plan, right?[xx(]
You seem to be operating under the misguided notion that motion is progress.
What Bush is proposing is not a plan, not in any meaningful sense of the word. It's a PR sop thrown to those possessed of a short attention span.
quote:Originally posted by CJ7nvrstk
You gripe, whine, moan and complain that nothing is being done to secure our borders and when a plan comes out you slam it. LMAO. You Bushbots probably think this is a plan. LOL
Thanks for the laughs, but don't quit your day job. [:D][:D]
whats YOUR plan hairy ? Bush's plan sucks * but i havent heard one from the democrats that is any better.
so i take the liberty of posting a better plan.
1. Build a friggin wall (yes it does help according to my border partol friend)
2. begin patrols and military exercises to enforce border, not just for show. any further incursion of Mex forces will be documented by the charred remains the Apache gunships leave
3. allow illegals to leave
4. do not allow illegals any gov't benefits. life saving ER treatment, ok, but you get deported.
5. pass a federal sales tax, so the gov't gets revenue from everyone fairly.
6. enforce min wage laws, so that illegals are on the same level as americans.
7. enforce other laws (forged Social Security numbers) (many are already felons not including immigration crimes), deport offenders
With a reduction of benefits and free bus rides home.
8. no international money transfers without ID
We can make it unpleasnt and not worthwhile enought to stay!
If you are not a citizen, you have no constitional rights...
I was trying to be practical and "progressive" on the previous
Pull out of Iraq, or just reduce our presensce there to highly defensible locations, send 20,000 troops to the border, give them live ammo.
Build a wall, anyone caught crossing it that does not immidiatly submit when sighted by border patrol/ National Gaurd, is shot.
Any time an illegal is arrested, they have a tracking chip implanted, then they become a slave for 10 years and are released on the mexico side of the border with zero money(keep in mind slavery is a constitutional punishment for a crime one is duely convicted of). I say we insert the chip rectally or some place where doctor "juan" cant easily dig it out with a knife.
ER treatment? sure, put the tracking chip in while your at it too, then deport them afterwards.
Give the illegals 5 years to leave volentarily, after that, any illegal found here has a chip implanted, and is enslaved for 10 years as well.
This should satisfy the need for low wage labor, as well as stem the tide of immigrants.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
These are criminals, tag em, and send them to work in the fields, heck, put shock collars on them, they leave the farm, the collar tasers them. Or heck, you can kill prisoners trying to escape, the collar will fry them.
Im pretty sure all of them would leave if thats what we were gonna start doing.
At the very least start putting tracking chips in the ones you catch, so you can detect when they try and cross again.
Catch and release is BS. Im all for involentary unpaid servitude.
I was just thinking of things that would be politically feasible
Kerry and Al Gore would have made great presidents, right. First order of business, turn in your guns! We know who you work for! Wake up people! You are getting played like a fine violin!
They didnt vote for him, hes supposed to do the bidding of those that elected him.
You can't loose votes you dont have, he shouldnt be worried about POing the democrats.
He should be worried about showing me he has what it takes to do what needs to be done.
This just seems like half A$$3D lip service, now if i wanted lip service, id go to nevada and pay for a BJ.
With politicians you get lip service, and pay for it by getting F'd in the A.
Politicians are even lower in my mind than prostitutes.
Politicians are even lower in my mind than prostitutes.
yeah, they're not too awful far behind slavery champions.
Ben
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
quote:Originally posted by CJ7nvrstk
You gripe, whine, moan and complain that nothing is being done to secure our borders and when a plan comes out you slam it. LMAO. You Bushbots probably think this is a plan. LOL
Thanks for the laughs, but don't quit your day job. [:D][:D]
whats YOUR plan hairy ? Bush's plan sucks * but i havent heard one from the democrats that is any better.
Albert--make up your mind. Are you asking me what is my plan or are you asking what is the Democrats' plan. Please specify. BTW, I can't answer for the Democrats. [:D]
So what if the democrats jump all over him?
They didnt vote for him, hes supposed to do the bidding of those that elected him.
You can't loose votes you dont have, he shouldnt be worried about POing the democrats.
He should be worried about showing me he has what it takes to do what needs to be done.
This just seems like half A$$3D lip service, now if i wanted lip service, id go to nevada and pay for a BJ.
With politicians you get lip service, and pay for it by getting F'd in the A.
Politicians are even lower in my mind than prostitutes.
Sig232: READ THIS.