Bush to order National Guard to border

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Is it yours that we can pick and choose which laws we want to obey?

 

So you'll be in favor of a guest worker program and earned citizenship once it becomes law because you're such a strict law-abider, right?

[Balta1701]

Is it yours that we can pick and choose which laws we want to obey?

Only President Bush has that power.

[Texsox]

Well sir, we will disagree on whether or not we can pay someone enough to be a busboy who has been through our education system.

 

We will disagree on spending the money and effort to hire and relocate minimum skill labor from Africa. Businesses don't pay to relocate minimum wage labor from Chicago to Colorado, I don't see them paying to relocate someone from Africa. Unless you are advocating a US taxpayer paid humanitarian air lift. Yes, it's the easiest way, but I don't think American business should be in the business of righting social injustices half way around the globe through their hiring.

 

I don't think it is even the cost of deporting people that bothers me as much as the cost in rehiring people. I think America would be better off just allowing those people who have demonstrated they can support themselves here and not commit any crimes to stay before taking a chance on millions of new immigrants.

 

Paying someone minimum wage is exploiting them?

 

And yes we pick and chose every day. We let speeders zip by if they are only speeding a little bit. We allow drunks in some businesses, but not others. We scare a little kid for shoplifting and send them home, we give a pass to a drug user for ratting out a dealer. We allow time off for good behavior, we make allowances for a defendants criminal record, we give first time offenders a break and enforce a three strikes law. We make decisions on what is in the best interest of America all the time. This is no different.

[samclemens]

Only President Bush has that power.

 

when a single judicial proceeding comes to that conclusion, let me know. until that, its only your opinion.

[southsider2k5]

So you'll be in favor of a guest worker program and earned citizenship once it becomes law because you're such a strict law-abider, right?

 

So if I came over to your house, robbed it, hung out in your kitchen until you got home, then told you to make me a sandwich, you'd be cool with it? How is it fair that you have more than I do. Its not logical for some people to have $50 billion, while I try to figure out how to buy formula for my baby right? It would totally be feasible for me just to take from someone else, because it is right there, and I really need it. It is also much cheaper for you just give it to me, than for me to drive over to your house and rob you, so really I should just send you my paypal account and you can send the money directly to me. Sound good?

[Balta1701]

when a single judicial proceeding comes to that conclusion, let me know. until that, its only your opinion.

Dude, that was sarcasm. I was suggesting that Bush had basically claimed that power. I don't believe he legally does...but a lot of people here sure have defended him when he does step outside the law, or issues a signing statement saying that he's not going to follow a law.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Balta1701

[NorthSideSox72]

Senate just passed a bill. Link:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060517/ap_on_.../immigration_81

 

I'm OK with most of it, but I'm really not happy about the wall (for all the reasons I have stated previously). The rest of it, on first glance, looks OK.

[Texsox]

So if I came over to your house, robbed it, hung out in your kitchen until you got home, then told you to make me a sandwich, you'd be cool with it? How is it fair that you have more than I do. Its not logical for some people to have $50 billion, while I try to figure out how to buy formula for my baby right? It would totally be feasible for me just to take from someone else, because it is right there, and I really need it. It is also much cheaper for you just give it to me, than for me to drive over to your house and rob you, so really I should just send you my paypal account and you can send the money directly to me. Sound good?

 

So if you were starving and desperate and came to my house and asked me to let you work to buy some food for your family, you wouldd be ok if I told you to get your ass back where you came from?

 

The answer lies somewhere between these examples.

[YASNY]

So if you were starving and desperate and came to my house and asked me to let you work to buy some food for your family, you wouldd be ok if I told you to get your ass back where you came from?

 

The answer lies somewhere between these examples.

 

But the discussion rarely does.

[Texsox]

But the discussion rarely does.

 

But it has. Southsider, for example, proposed tying these jobs to humanitarian efforts, which is a pretty awesome goal. That seemed to be a big change. I finally linked jobs to immigraton in a way that actually made sense to y'all, I guess I was confusing people prior to that.

 

There are still some areas that we will never agree on. I am surprised at some of the compromises that our leaders have come up with. I think a fence that covers exactly 25% of the area makes no sense at all. Sounds like a classic government f*** up. We fenced in one side of the prison, that should keep everyone in but compromise is happening, and that is good. I've always had faith in America solcing big problems and this is the process in which we accomplish that. It is done in the sunshine for everyone to see.

 

Not tying jbs to immigration leaves a clear path to the problems we are trying to avoid. Allow 300,000 people to immigrate in 2008 and there are jobs for 500,000, and we exncourage illegal immigration, again. Have jobs for 200,000 and we encourage people to wind up on assistance, bankrupting states. The ability the support yourself should be the cornerstone of any immigration bill. Sadly, they are arguing about how to fence in people by building 1/4 a fence. Boondoggle.

[southsider2k5]

So if you were starving and desperate and came to my house and asked me to let you work to buy some food for your family, you wouldd be ok if I told you to get your ass back where you came from?

 

The answer lies somewhere between these examples.

 

Sure I wouldn't be happy about it, but it sure is within the homeowners rights.

[Texsox]

Sure I wouldn't be happy about it, but it sure is within the homeowners rights.

 

Yes it is within his rights and under some circumstances is the right thing to do.However, if that homeowner just happened to need his crops picked, wouldn't it benefit everyone to let the guy stay and work? We would think the homeowner that told the guy to leave was crazy. Likewise, if the homeowner was starving, we'd wonder why he took in yet another mouth to feed. But the focus should be on the homeowners needs, not some arbitrary decision made decades ago.

 

The obstacle is knowing who and when to allow to stay and who should be sent home.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Sure I wouldn't be happy about it, but it sure is within the homeowners rights.

 

You'd be telling the person you don't wanna employ them but hiring them on the sly...They come because they consistently get hired...

[WilliamTell]

This is kinda off the discussion going on, but I was thinking yesterday and heard the border patrol mentioned and thought that it might be a decent idea to make them a new branch of military or put them in the Cost Guard like the Marines are with the Navy. I know there are National Guard troops going down there, and I don't know if it would end up saving money or not, probably not. I just had that thought though.

[Balta1701]

This is kinda off the discussion going on, but I was thinking yesterday and heard the border patrol mentioned and thought that it might be a decent idea to make them a new branch of military or put them in the Cost Guard like the Marines are with the Navy. I know there are National Guard troops going down there, and I don't know if it would end up saving money or not, probably not. I just had that thought though.

Well, here's your question...where is the "border patrol" less likely to have people screw around with its budget? If its budgeted by Congress, or if it's a part of the Defense Department and subject to the whim of the SecDef? I think it'd probably be much more likely to wind up having a few billion dollars borrowed from it to prepare for random invasions if DOD had control of its pursestrings than if Congress did.

[southsider2k5]

You'd be telling the person you don't wanna employ them but hiring them on the sly...They come because they consistently get hired...

 

And that's the problem. Start fining companies $50,000 or so per illegal and the problem literally goes away.

[WilliamTell]

Well, here's your question...where is the "border patrol" less likely to have people screw around with its budget? If its budgeted by Congress, or if it's a part of the Defense Department and subject to the whim of the SecDef? I think it'd probably be much more likely to wind up having a few billion dollars borrowed from it to prepare for random invasions if DOD had control of its pursestrings than if Congress did.

 

Yeah possibly, I just had a thought. I didn't say if it was a good one or not, it was just an interesting thought to me.

[Balta1701]

Yeah possibly, I just had a thought. I didn't say if it was a good one or not, it was just an interesting thought to me.

I see where the thought comes from, and if I'm wrong and Congress is playing with the pursestrings too much then it would make sense to have the SecDef able to negotiate with Congress for border patrol funds...but aside from that, I don't know where the benefit would be. As far as I know, the border patrol is already able to use military style resources, moving them to DOD wouldn't suddenly change their training, and it wouldn't suddenly make more manpower available. Plus, there's the downside of again having the Mexicans complain about militarizing the border if suddenly the border patrol is loosely considered part of the army, and for some reason we seem to care about that complaint.

[Texsox]

And that's the problem. Start fining companies $50,000 or so per illegal and the problem literally goes away.

 

I agree 100% if you are meaning finding employees being paid off the books no matter if it's an illegal, grandpa trying to cheat social security, or someone hiring a babysitter. Throw the book at them, close the business, garnish their assetts. It will also encourage people to turn in coworkers who they fear may be illegals. If you knew your company could be put out of business for undocumented workers, you'd be in HR making certain everyone is legal and you wouldn't work for a company like that.

 

I disagree if that would also include when an employer discovers that John Doe, who they have a social security card and driver's license on file, turns out to be John Smith, who does not have documentation. The company is a victim of fraud, and I don't see how to hold them responsible.

[WilliamTell]

I see where the thought comes from, and if I'm wrong and Congress is playing with the pursestrings too much then it would make sense to have the SecDef able to negotiate with Congress for border patrol funds...but aside from that, I don't know where the benefit would be. As far as I know, the border patrol is already able to use military style resources, moving them to DOD wouldn't suddenly change their training, and it wouldn't suddenly make more manpower available. Plus, there's the downside of again having the Mexicans complain about militarizing the border if suddenly the border patrol is loosely considered part of the army, and for some reason we seem to care about that complaint.

 

Well I don't think it'd be the best idea really either. I just felt like posted a thought that went through my mind. Yeah the Mexicans would complain about militarizing the border and I don't really think we should care about that complaint as much as we do.

[Texsox]

Well I don't think it'd be the best idea really either. I just felt like posted a thought that went through my mind. Yeah the Mexicans would complain about militarizing the border and I don't really think we should care about that complaint as much as we do.

 

border patrol and customs both work the bridges. And it's the citizens down here that aren't too excited about living in a militarized zone.

[WilliamTell]

border patrol and customs both work the bridges. And it's the citizens down here that aren't too excited about living in a militarized zone.

 

Yeah, that's understandable that the Texans also don't like living in a militarized zone.

[Balta1701]

So, there were a couple of other newsworthy notes on the immigration front today. First off, some more details on the fence they approved...the 3 layered fence is something like 350 miles long, and the bill also called for 500 miles of vehicle barriers. That covers almost half of the border.

 

Secondly, there was another clause approved by the Senate yesterday I'm less sure of, and I'd love to hear more comments.

A third amendment adopted Wednesday would tighten restrictions in the bill's temporary worker program. It would require the Department of Labor to certify that there was not a U.S. worker who was able, willing, qualified and available to fill the job that was offered to a foreign worker. It passed narrowly, 50 to 48, in a vote that split largely down party lines.

So, this seems to me like a needless beurocratic step, and I find it hard to believe that it won't make the program a lot more expensive. I also wonder what criteria they're going to use for that...it could change depending on who's doing the enforcing of the law, and so it could really work to sabotage any guest worker program.

 

Next, a lot of states are pretty darn unhappy with Bush's guard proposal, and rightly so, since it seems that, well, unsurprisingly, Michael Chertoff, head of the DHS, has absolutely no idea what's going on.

For his part, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was demanding answers — to a host of questions — from Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who briefed him Wednesday. The governor had spent 45 minutes on the phone with Bush senior advisor Karl Rove on Monday about the plan. But after both conversations, the governor complained about being left in the dark.

 

In a letter Tuesday night to Chertoff, Schwarzenegger called the border security plan a "logistical nightmare" and asked several questions: Who determines when troops come home? What criteria would determine whether their mission was successful? And how would California handle the "staggering" job, as Schwarzenegger put it, of providing support for the thousands of troops who will be cycled into the border region for two-week rotations?

 

"Think about it," he said Wednesday after a Sacramento speech. "Every two weeks we will rotate out the National Guard? That's like starting a heart surgery and having the whole team of doctors and nurses leap up after every five minutes and switch. How are you going to be successful with that? I have a lot of concerns with it.

 

"But bottom line is we want to be cooperative. We want to be helpful in this crisis. And we want to come in, but just temporarily. Not permanently."

 

After his phone conversation with Chertoff on Wednesday, the governor remained dissatisfied, an aide said. "Following 40 minutes, it was evident the administration did not have all the answers Gov. Schwarzenegger was looking for," said Adam Mendelsohn, the governor's communications director.

It's probably worth noting that Arnold is right here, this looks like another management debacle in the making...sticking troops there with no idea what they're supposed to do, having to learn everything in 2 weeks and then suddenly be replaced, and having a constant state of people moving in and out, which will mean that a lot more than 6000 troops will be needed. The first year would involve an estimated 156,000 national guard troops, out of the 400,000 in the country. They're also supposedly going to try to make participation by states voluntary, which seems like it will cut heavily into the amount of men available.

 

The mess is probably going to be made worse by the fact that the President is not going to take executive control over the guard, to avoid the "Militarizing the border" complaints. So the Guard units who are on duty will actually still be under the control of the governors of their states. And I don't think anyone really has a clue how that's going to work.

 

So anywho, this looks like another management mess in the making for these folks.

 

Finally, The LA Times sent some people down to the border to talk to the folks bringing people across, and discovered that as summer is coming around and talk is heating up in the U.S., business for border crossings have declined by as much as 50%. So first of all, this shows that the "They'll rush up here for the amnesty" argument doesn't work that well, but secondly, it reinforces my opinion that there is no "Crisis" to spur the use of the guard, the situation right now is getting better, not worse, so we have time to fix the problem. Of course, we only have so much time to fix the real crisis that is making the President use the Guard:

 

[WilliamTell]

haha very funny. It's about to continue along the Texas/Gulf of Mexico border now.

[southsider2k5]

border patrol and customs both work the bridges. And it's the citizens down here that aren't too excited about living in a militarized zone.

 

From what I have read, many of them feel like they are under seige already.