Skip to main content

Immigration--The News of the Day

Of course, everyone is talking about Bush's pending speach tonight. From the Washington Post:

President Bush joins the immigration debate when he lays out his vision for the nation's immigration laws tonight at 8 on national television. The Senate, after weeks of haggling, finally gets back to work on a bill that could grant citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants.

The Senate got back on track last week after Republican and Democratic leaders worked out a few parliamentary disputes, but big hurdles remain. Senators will be able to add a "considerable" number of amendments to the bill when the debate starts today. And there is a desert-size gulf between the approach of the Senate and that of the House, which has passed an enforcement-only bill that could lead to illegal immigrants being charged with felonies and deported.

"Parliamentary disputes?" Right! Democrat's obstructionism is what they mean. Of course, the WAPO continues to ignore the fact that the Democrats are the ones that voted to retain the "felony" portion of the House bill. But, facts are to much of a trouble to bother in a news article.

I just saw a spokesperson talking about the send-a-brick project on Fox right now. I'll update if someone puts up the video. Not spectacular or entertaining, but certainly nice to see this gaining traction and getting mainstream attention. Born in the blogosphere, and maturing quite well!!

And while the Washington Post is eager to call the GOP divided, there is no such headline when talking about the divided illegal immigration organizers.
From immigration policy to energy to emergency spending, House Republican leaders are publicly breaking rank with their counterparts in the Senate, fearing that Senate efforts at compromise are jeopardizing the party's standing with conservative voters.
A reminder--these people don't speak for me, or for millions of others. What I don't understand is what are we still talking about legalization? I don't want to talk about anything else until I see a fence being built. The question Fox keeps asking; "What do you hope the President will say tonight?" Two basic messages I hopes comes through loud and clear:
  1. We must secure our border, and in order to do that, I will support efforts to build a fence or wall--a physical barrier that will provide a deterrent to drug and human smugglers, and other potential threats.

  2. I will provide national guard troops to support the work of our border patrols for as long as it takes.
One thing is clear. The media is getting desperate and more and more careless in its relentless pursuit to knock down the Bush administration. The truth of the matter is that within the GOP there is diversity of opinions, and that is clearly reflected in the blogosphere. But voters need to be reminded again and again--the alternative is just not an option.

No matter how much you disagree with the White House, and no matter how much we wish Bush would communicate better or more clearly, and no matter how much we wish Bush would stand up to the PC forces, the alternative--a Democrat controled House, Senate or worst, White House--is just no acceptable. So, tell you friends and tell your family members--you can't believe everything you hear and see on the TV. Get out to vote, and vote according to the conservative values that most Americans believe in. Look at the candidates carefully, and make an informed decision.

Because trust me when I say, the Democrats are not going to secure our border. Whatever you may think about how Bush is doing in this area, the left is certainly not going to improve on the situation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Communism: Good Money for the "El Viejo"

I guess Fidel Castro is doing ok. Forbes lists Castro as one of the richest in the world, right up there with the Queen of England. I bet he didn't like the attention. It was hard to figure it out, but it seems they managed to throw some numbers together.
In the past, we have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. This year we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. A reasonable discount was then applied to compensate for the obvious disclosure issues.

Hispanic Trending: Leave your name at the border

Most people miss the fact that Hispanics do not consist of a single ethnic group. Besides that, the heritage that each one of the many nationalities represented in our immigrant population is diverse in itself. As I read Manuel Muñoz's post on his assimilation experience, I can tell you mine was nothing like his. But I can relate to this paragraph. My niece's name is Katie Belle (Sierra). It's intriguing to watch "American" names begin to dominate among my nieces and nephews and second cousins, as well as with the children of my hometown friends. I am not surprised to meet 5-year-old Brandon or Kaitlyn. Hardly anyone questions the incongruity of matching these names with last names like Trujillo or Zepeda. The English-only way of life partly explains the quiet erasure of cultural difference that assimilation has attempted to accomplish. A name like Kaitlyn Zepeda doesn't completely obscure her ethnicity, but the half-step of her nam…

RealClearPolitics: The Democrats Dither on Trade

The backtracking on free trade in South America has been among the frustrating news for me coming out of the beltway. Considering how the economic downturns in Latin America affect us through the increase in illegal immigration, I would think more Americans would be fighting for this one as loudly as they fought for the failed Immigration legislation. Democratic presidential candidates like to talk about "turning a page" in America's relations with the rest of the world. But what does that mean, in practical terms, on bread-and-butter issues such as trade? Are today's Democrats a party of open markets and economic development, or of market restrictions and job protection?The answer is that leading Democrats seem to want both -- they favor economic development overseas but not at the cost of U.S. jobs. That sounds like a coherent position until you begin to look carefully at the political choices in Latin America, a part of the world where …