That’s All I Gots to Say ‘Bout That

Oddly, regarding the President’s visit to Newport tomorrow, I find myself scowling not unlike a Democrat (Bushitler-types excluded). I’m relieved that I’ll likely be working on the other side of town, but except for that consideration, I’ll be just as happy to have him come and go, and I find that I mean from the White House as much as from Newport.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom W
Tom W
13 years ago

I have the opportunity to go to his talk, and so will go. But only because it is an opportunity to see a President (somewhat) up close and personal.
Beyond that, I’m with you Justin.
George W has been a disaster for the Republican Party, and he’s getting worse with each passing year.
He’s also been a disaster for conservatives, for the unwashed masses think he is one, all the while he’s been governing like an “evangelical socialist” (I wish I’d thought of that description, it is soooo apt).
I’m crossing my fingers that this amnesty bill will fail; if not in the Senate, in the House.
But it’s really scary to think about what Bush the apparent legacy seeker will come up with in the remaining 12-18 months of his term.
I’ve come to be disgusted over Iraq and Afghanistan – not because of the mission or current situation, but because our armed forces are fighting and dying, ostensibly in a War on Terror, yet Bush is deliberately leaving our southern border wide open for Al Qaeda operatives to walk – and ferry supplies such as WMD components – across at their leisure. Which negates the whole purpose of putting our armed forces in harm’s way over there, meaning that they’re fighting and dying for nothing.
Though I’m not advocating it, I wouldn’t be particularly upset if the Democrats impeached Bush. The completion of this Presidential term by “President Cheney” sounds more appealing all the time.

smmtheory
smmtheory
13 years ago

On that note Tom… I’ll be happy to have the Conservative movement come and go.
It’s beyond me why (if the border is as porous as some people keep complaining) there hasn’t been an attack by al Qaeda as much as everybody has been advertising on blogs how weak and porous the border is like terrorists would never think of checking out the internet to find weaknesses.
It’s also beyond me why (after this situation was set up by Congress so many years ago when they established quotas on immigration) all of a sudden all the blame gets laid at the President’s door step because he can’t produce a miracle cure.

Andrew
Editor
13 years ago

SmmTheory,
I don’t think people are looking for a miracle cure from the President on immigration. I think they’re just looking for him not to actively pursue making the situation worse.

Will
Will
13 years ago

Tom,
Megadittos. By the way, I’ll be there, too (I guess that makes us official “insiders” now). I’d like to think that I still agree with him more than I don’t. Right or wrong, he’s still our President, and he deserves our respect.

Greg
Greg
13 years ago

“Right or wrong, he’s still our President, and he deserves our respect.”
Right now he’s getting slightly less respect from me than Clinton EVER got.

mrh
mrh
13 years ago

President Cheney
Oh my god, Tom, you almost gave me a heart attack. Don’t do that!

Tom W
Tom W
13 years ago

>>It’s beyond me why (if the border is as porous as some people keep complaining) there hasn’t been an attack by al Qaeda as much as everybody has been advertising on blogs how weak and porous the border is like terrorists would never think of checking out the internet to find weaknesses.
That an attack hasn’t yet occurred by al Qaeda operatives slipping over the border doesn’t mean one won’t, or isn’t in planning. They’ve apprehended some suspected al Qaeda coming over the southern border, and given that only a small percentage of crossers are apprehended means that most are getting through.
Recall as well that after the failed 1993 attempt to collapse the World Trade Center via the parking garage explosion, al Qaeda waited until 8 years later to execute the second and successful attempt. And this when we weren’t really paying attention to them. So they’ve shown that they are patient and calculating. It would be naive to think that they’re trying to infiltrate the country via air travel from Europe or the Mideast when they can fly into Venezuela, make their way to our southern border, and simply walk across.
>>It’s also beyond me why (after this situation was set up by Congress so many years ago when they established quotas on immigration) all of a sudden all the blame gets laid at the President’s door step because he can’t produce a miracle cure.
The problem is the intentional refusal to enforce the laws already on the books. This straddles both parties, but after 9/11 the dynamic changed, and Bush’s continued refusal to secure the borders is inexcusable.

smmtheory
smmtheory
13 years ago

Oh, you think it took them all of 8 years to conceive, plan, and execute 9/11? It’s been a long, long time now since it was even economically feasible to enforce the immigration laws already on the books (not to mention that the laws are an unjust farce to begin with). Take a look around you when you’re out driving around. How many people do you see that actually follow the speed limit if they aren’t stuck behind a huge pile of traffic jam? Would you say the laws governing traffic are just or unjust? Now consider the unjust immigration laws already on the books. How many more people do you think are going to abide by unjust laws than abide by just laws? Secure the border? That’s for law-abiding citizens and visitors. Al Qaeda ain’t no such thing and locking down the borders ain’t gonna keep them out any better, so you might as well think of it like you do about gun control. When all the guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. The only thing securing the border is going to do is expand the bureaucracy by all those bodies it’s going to take to attempt it.

SusanD
SusanD
13 years ago

“It’s been a long, long time now since it was even economically feasible to enforce the immigration laws already on the books”
This is incorrect.
Yes, this is a multi-faceted problem. Not only is it too big a job to “deport 12m illegals”, it’s not a permanent solution. They’ll just come back, as long as there are jobs and social benefits that draw them back.
This is why enforcement must be on employers. Not only is it far more feasible, insasmuch as there are only thousands of companies as opposed to millions of illegals, but it takes away the motivation for illegals to come here — or stay here.

smmtheory
smmtheory
13 years ago

I’ve said it once, but you’ve made it bear repeating Susan, the unjust laws are the root cause of people coming here illegally. The laws make it just shy of impossible for them to do anything BUT come here illegally. Back before the current unjust laws, immigrants would pack up their whole family, move in, settle down, and start being productive. Whatever money they earned would be put toward making their house a home and bringing up the family. Now, they have to send most of it back out of the country to support family back home.
And your solution? Tighten the economic screws down on employers… after all, you don’t mind paying the higher prices for everything do you? You don’t mind ramping up the bureaucracy to track down all of those employers do you?

Justin Katz
13 years ago

Now wait a minute smmtheory:

How many more people do you think are going to abide by unjust laws than abide by just laws? Secure the border? That’s for law-abiding citizens and visitors. Al Qaeda ain’t no such thing and locking down the borders ain’t gonna keep them out any better, so you might as well think of it like you do about gun control. When all the guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

The point, vis guns, is that rule-breakers will not follow new rules. Everybody who enters this country illegally is breaking the rules. Owning a gun legally is not parallel to crossing the border illegally. At any rate, the argument that tighter security will only dissuade “good” illegal immigrants is in direct conflict with the notion that economic opportunities are the main draw.
As for tightening economic screws, I’m not persuaded that the inhumane wages paid to illegal immigrants translate as directly into prices as you suggest. Whatever the case, anything that changes their status will increase the cost of their labor. Moreover, the disappearance of an exploitable workforce would seem likely to send a ripple of increased wages for citizens.
I would suggest, however, that you should be a bit more explicit about which laws you mean to indicate with “unjust.”

smmtheory
smmtheory
13 years ago

I mean the whole set of laws dictating what it takes to qualify for immigration… how to apply, who can apply, how many applications can be accepted, what qualifications have to be met to be accepted once you manage to get all the paperwork put together… in other words, the quota laws, the laws that prevent or make nearly prevent immigrants from bringing their families, the laws that make it nearly impossible for people with little education to immigrate.
Those laws haven’t been on the books for the greater share of this country’s history you know. Only for the last 50 or so years.

smmtheory
smmtheory
13 years ago

Oh, and one thing I think you should consider before using a loaded term like inhumane wages… would you pick up and leave your spouse and children behind to move hundreds of miles away just for inhumane wages to send back home to support your family?

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.