Posted May 14, 200618 yr cali's gov. (arnold) and nm's (richardson) gov. are against the idea Bush militarises Mexican border to appease Right From Tom Baldwin in Washington GEORGE BUSH will today announce the deployment of thousands of US troops to the border with Mexico to stem illegal immigration. In a televised address, his first since December, President Bush will hope to repair deep Republican rifts over immigration and restore some momentum to his Administration. He will put fresh emphasis on the need to fix holes in America?s porous border with Mexico, which has helped more than 11 million illegal immigrants to slip into the US in recent years. A package of security measures is expected to include the promise that border areas will be militarised in effect by the deployment of thousands of National Guardsmen. This is a concession aimed at conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives who have been threatening to wreck a compromise deal on immigration reform. The White House has tacitly backed proposals, due to be debated again this week in the Senate, that would grant legal ?guest worker? status to millions of undocumented workers already in the US and put them on the path to citizenship. Mr Bush believes that such a scheme is the only way to satisfy the needs of the economy for cheap and plentiful labour. After marches by millions of Latino workers in recent weeks, the Republican leadership in the Senate has also been persuaded to support the plan. But it remains sharply at odds with a hardline Bill passed last December by Republican congressmen in the House of Representatives who are possibly more in touch with the party?s conservative base. This would spend billions of dollars building new fences along the Mexican border, as well as making felons of undocumented workers without offering them any route to legality. The split comes before crucial mid-term elections this November when Democrats hope to regain control of Congress ? and confirm Mr Bush as a lame-duck president. Tonight?s broadcast will be the first TV address made by Mr Bush on a domestic issue since he entered the White House more than five years ago. The power to speak directly to the American people is called the presidency?s ?bully-pulpit?, but it is also one of the last pieces of political weaponry remaining in the arsenal of an increasingly desperate Administration. Mr Bush, whose approval ratings fell to 29 per cent in a Wall Street Journal poll on Friday, has been damaged by his handling of Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and rising petrol prices. He will be speaking tonight at the start of another testing week. Political opponents are seizing on new disclosures on the extent of the Administration?s domestic surveillance programme, which they claim may have breached the law. Karl Rove, Mr Bush?s senior strategist, has made plain that this is a fight he is happy to have with Democrats because he believes voters care more about national security than civil liberties. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11...2180771,00.html
May 14, 200618 yr Author it seems many people on both sides of the aisle are against this idea mainly for the reason of stretch the national guard troops too thin. some say it is because the troops do not have the proper training for this because they will be in the background only. either way it is clear that republicans are beginning to distance themselves from bush.
May 15, 200618 yr The international community will have a field day with this one. This is a lose-lose for Bush. What can the National Guard do? Shoot at these people? Scare them off? Seems like a really poor idea. I don't like it at all.
May 15, 200618 yr THis move is solely to get the immigration bill passed. I think the Republicans would appreciate his effort, at least. I sure hope this helps expedite the bill. If it doesn't, then it's really just a bad move.
May 15, 200618 yr Author I think the Republicans would appreciate his effort, at least. hagel is against it ahhhhnold is against it a number of texans are against it (citizens not neccesarily politicos) i will be surprised what mccain has to say about this.
May 15, 200618 yr against the move? ya. But the members of the House that can help dictate the bill's outcome would like it, I think. And if you add those votes to those already for it, then you get enough to pass the bill.
May 15, 200618 yr Good, it's about damn time. been a while since I agreed with you upon an issue. I think they need it though
May 15, 200618 yr The international community will have a field day with this one. This is a lose-lose for Bush. What can the National Guard do? Shoot at these people? Scare them off? Seems like a really poor idea. I don't like it at all. All it takes is one video of them shooting at a family and, once again, we look stupid as hell.
May 15, 200618 yr I wonder if you saw the video of the Mexican military escorting a drug cartel and then shooting at US Border Patrol agents? I bet you missed that one. I dont think adding the National Guard will do anything but cause a media stir.
May 15, 200618 yr I wonder if you saw the video of the Mexican military escorting a drug cartel and then shooting at US Border Patrol agents? I bet you missed that one. I dont think adding the National Guard will do anything but cause a media stir. I tend to agree.
May 15, 200618 yr I wonder if you saw the video of the Mexican military escorting a drug cartel and then shooting at US Border Patrol agents? I bet you missed that one. I dont think adding the National Guard will do anything but cause a media stir. You're so wise.
May 15, 200618 yr Alright, I'm glad that Bush is finally trying to do something to deal with illegal immigration, but this is not a good idea. What orders do you give these soldiers? They're trained to fight, not police a border. Plus, they are National Guard soldiers, which will certainly deplete this country's ability to respond to a national disaster (which is likely to happen) during hurricane season. Rather than send soldiers to the border, we need to drastically increase the number of border patrol officers and equipment that they need to do their jobs. These people will at least be trained to deal with people crossing the border.
May 15, 200618 yr What orders would I give? Shoot to kill. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but that's the way it is. What should someone who is trespassing on foreign soil expect?
May 15, 200618 yr What orders would I give? Shoot to kill. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but that's the way it is. What should someone who is trespassing on foreign soil expect? Except that we are America, not North Korea.
May 15, 200618 yr Author What orders would I give? Shoot to kill. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but that's the way it is. What should someone who is trespassing on foreign soil expect? yeah give the orders to shoot and kill i mean it's worked before :plain it's not that simple mexican-americans do live on the border and it might be hard when the policy is shoot first ask questions later Border Security Plan Worries Texas Town Email this Story May 14, 7:43 AM (ET) By ALICIA A. CALDWELL (AP) Valerio Pando is shown Saturday, May 13, 2006, during an interview in Redford, Texas. Pando still... REDFORD, Texas (AP) - The last time the U.S. military posted troops on the border near this tiny cluster of farms and ranches, an 18-year-old goat herder was shot to death. Hardly a day passes that Esequiel Hernandez Jr.'s family and neighbors don't think of May 20, 1997, the day a Marine corporal shot and killed him. With President Bush considering plans to deploy National Guard troops along the Mexican border, Hernandez's family is worried that other border residents or even his nephews, who tend goats along the same rugged West Texas desert where he was killed, could be the next victims. "There was no motive for them to (shoot) Esequiel and I worry that the same thing could happen, or worse," his grandfather, 79-year-old Valerio Pando, said in Spanish. (AP) Valerio Pando, left, and Rebecca Hernandez are shown Saturday, May 13, 2006, during an interview in... Full Image It is widely speculated that President Bush will unveil a plan to send troops to the border during a Monday night speech about immigration reform. Details of the plan are unclear but at least one defense official estimated that thousands of troops could be deployed as part of a security initiative. The last time area residents saw the military working on the border in their Big Bend region town, the Marines assigned to an anti-drug mission were explaining what led to Esequiel Hernandez's death. At the time of the shooting, the military said the teen, who was carrying a .22-caliber rifle, fired twice at the camouflaged troops and raised his gun to fire a third time when Cpl. Clemente Banuelos shot back. Hernandez's family disputes that account. Several months after the shooting, a grand jury declined to indict Banuelos. But a congressional review of the incident later criticized the U.S. Justice Department for its handling of the case. Similar anti-drug patrols involving the military were suspended after the shooting. Dianna Valenzuela, a 54-year-old farmer who lives in the area and knows the Hernandez family, said bringing troops back to the border in any capacity is a recipe for disaster. "Wherever the military is, they are trained to shoot first and ask questions later," Valenzuela said.
May 15, 200618 yr From what I can see, they would be on the border, not just in the general area. It'd be pretty easy to distinguish who was trespassing and who was not, if you're watching the border.
May 15, 200618 yr From what I can see, they would be on the border, not just in the general area. It'd be pretty easy to distinguish who was trespassing and who was not, if you're watching the border. But, should these soldiers have the authority to open fire on people who do not comply? That would not be smart. The border needs policemen, not soldiers.
May 15, 200618 yr What orders would I give? Shoot to kill. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but that's the way it is. What should someone who is trespassing on foreign soil expect? :lol Crossing a border is not an offense punishable by death
May 15, 200618 yr What orders would I give? Shoot to kill. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but that's the way it is. What should someone who is trespassing on foreign soil expect? Murderers don't even get the death penalty... But you are so quick to condemn people searching for a better life in the land of opportunity?
May 15, 200618 yr Alright, I'm glad that Bush is finally trying to do something to deal with illegal immigration, but this is not a good idea. What orders do you give these soldiers? They're trained to fight, not police a border. Plus, they are National Guard soldiers, which will certainly deplete this country's ability to respond to a national disaster (which is likely to happen) during hurricane season. Rather than send soldiers to the border, we need to drastically increase the number of border patrol officers and equipment that they need to do their jobs. These people will at least be trained to deal with people crossing the border. What orders do you give them? The same orders that are given to BP agents, search them, detain them, turn them over to the authorities who will then process and send them the hell back. And I can't believe you're so naive to think that the country's ability to respond to a national disaster will be diminished, there are 4, count them FOUR states which border Mexico, the other 46 states will not be effected and the point is redundant to begin with because there aren't going to be entire divisions out there patrolling the borders, there will probably be not even a thousand soldiers at best along the entire border through all 4 states. The national guards ability to respond to disasters will not be effected at all by a couple hundred soldiers patrolling the borders in each of the 4 states. From what I can see, they would be on the border, not just in the general area. It'd be pretty easy to distinguish who was trespassing and who was not, if you're watching the border. But, should these soldiers have the authority to open fire on people who do not comply? That would not be smart. The border needs policemen, not soldiers. Yes, they should. The Coast Guard has the authority to open fire on boats who do not comply. They will issue several verbal warnings over a megaphone, then if they do not comply fire a warning shot, and then finally if they still haven't complied they will fire at the vessel to disable it. If you've got a pickup truck going fast through the desert about to cross the border and they don't stop after several warnings, then yes they should have the authority to open fire and disable it. I'm sure their rules of engagement will be very strict, you guys are acting like they'll be killing a family with 4 kids who keep walking towards the border after being told to stop
May 15, 200618 yr What orders would I give? Shoot to kill. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but that's the way it is. What should someone who is trespassing on foreign soil expect? Murderers don't even get the death penalty... But you are so quick to condemn people searching for a better life in the land of opportunity? Yeah, there's this thing called the law. Not to mention this would end up being more of a deterent than anything else.
May 15, 200618 yr Anyone for Bucannan's electric fence? I always liked the idea personally on the sourthern border. As for the troops, give the order to apprehend anyone whom cant show a US drivers lisence/photo ID. Increasing the funding to INS so they can do their jobs and deport folks that arent not here Legally. Allowing them the chance to apply for a visa and citizenship. There is rules in this country for a reason. Laws for a reason to be followed. One of the things that I hate about the democrats they cater to illegals more then they do their own citizens often.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.