Of course, "doing a heckuva job" in this administration is a pretty low standard, objectively speaking.

Either we are doing a heckuva job or we are not.

If we are not, unless there is a real opportunity to improve things before the election, or to give the impression that we are improving things, than why point out the fact?

If we are doing a heckuva job, why all the hoopla.

Unfortunately for Bush on this issue, there is not an easy way out: he had five years to address the issue, and has not; sending the National Guard will make for good photo ops, but bad politics wherever the Guardsmen come from (do the Guardsmen even have the equipment to go down to the border, or is it all in Iraq as some people say); if we send more Guardsmen to the border, does it mean fewer of them get to go to Iraq?

In all, as is usual, this is badly planned politics disguised as policy.

And what's all that bs from this scofflaw administration about enforcing the law?

I'm no fan of GWB, but his position on immigration seems sensible and humane. Deploying the national guard is a bone to apppease the anti-immigrant right.

I am against open immigration threads. I don't see why we should reward people for must showing up, when loyal readers have been waiting their turn.

I do agree that sending the National Guard to the border is simply throwing a bone to the anti-ILLEGAL immigrant right-wing.

It really galls me when Bush says that it is unreasonable/unfeasible to send back all of the illegal immigrants. He is hoping that we confuse unwilling with unfeasible. It is quite feasible. If the illegal immigrants were Al-Qaeda nutjobs trying to kill us then we would find a way. But the current illegal immigrants are potential voters and cheap labor so there is no will to deport them. Without the will, there is no way. Bush to America: No Way, Jose!

It really galls me when Bush says that it is unreasonable/unfeasible to send back all of the illegal immigrants. He is hoping that we confuse unwilling with unfeasible. It is quite feasible. If the illegal immigrants were Al-Qaeda nutjobs trying to kill us then we would find a way. But the current illegal immigrants are potential voters and cheap labor so there is no will to deport them.

Um, true, except the part about it being "quite feasible" to deport more than 10 million people with any sort of relative ease. I'm sure if it was, Bush would do it. He's not running for office in 2008, you know.

And if they were all "Al-Qaeda nutjobs," maybe it would be worth deporting them... but they're not.

Even apart from the moral aspects, only a nut would think we can deport 10-13 million people. Los Angles, New York, New Jersey and many border provinces in the SouthWest would explode, with rioting that makes the Rodney King riots look like picnics. When facing a major war abroad, this is no time to spark massive riots at home.

It seems to me that it would be much easier to enforce the law against hiring illegal aliens than to patrol the border. On the other hand, if we gave work visas to all Mexicans who request them, US employers would have to pay them a fair wage and treat them with respect. And then guess what? Suddenly the demand for Mexican workers would decline. Sounds like a win-win. Am I overlooking something here?

Many Mexicans deport themselves every year, around Christmastime. They also deported themselves in tens of thousands after 9/11. Dry up the jobs by hefty fines and prison time for those who hire illegals, sweep a serious number of businesses for illegals (and deport) , and the message will go out. Many will start to leave of their own accord.

It is interesting to note erg's fear of riots, however. We are all told these are decent, law abiding, hard working people. Do such people riot when they are forced to obey the law?

t is interesting to note erg's fear of riots, however. We are all told these are decent, law abiding, hard working people. Do such people riot when they are forced to obey the law?

"These colonists in the New World are all decent, law abiding, working people. Certainly they wouldn't riot or protest if forced to obey a law increasing taxes, your Majesty"

In the US, people have always protested or fought when faced with laws that are grossly unfair or outright draconian. The country was founded on that.

And though I consider myself law abiding and hard working (at least when I'm not wasting time on blogs), if someone were to seek to evict me, my family and those like me in droves, I strongly suspect I would dig out my gun and fight back.

We have laws that are unenforced so the solution is obviously to pass more laws that will be unenforced. Brilliant George.

Lord, the Prez hasn't passed or even proposed any laws; he is attempting to enforce an existing law (which technically IS the president's job.) But it's the wrong law. Anyone can see that effective law enforcement would concentrate on the employers. But we can't do that because it would piss off some powerful people. We are not discussing the correct problem.

Erg, you are making up quotes. What is more you are justifying violence resistance to legal authorities enforcing democratically passed laws. I don't think anyone wants to take that road.

Erg, you are making up quotes

My point was simply to emphasize that blind adherence to laws has never been this country's way.

What is more you are justifying violence resistance to legal authorities enforcing democratically passed laws. I don't think anyone wants to take that road.

If authorities seek to evict 12-13 million people, including people who've been here for many years, possibly separating families, and certainly catching some legals in the net, then I think that violence in response could well be justified. The fact that something is democratically passed does not always make it moral and humane.

All that is irrelevant though. We know that no mass deportation is going to happen.

what does 'heckuva' mean in Texas anyway?

bfy,
Our PO(loni)TUS was obviously thinking of Hamlet's line, though Bush in typical fashion mangled the delivery:
What's Hecuba?to him, or he to Hecuba?

Since you can't apparently deport 12 million people, how about we decide to stop it from becoming 13 million or 20 million or 50 million? Building a wall is the only way to do it to convince me we will only have to give amnesty to the 12 million we currently have. Build a wall and stop illegal immigration and then we can talk about what to do about the people already here.

I still do not understand this talk about walls. There are 40 million desperately poor people in Mexico. Their government ignores them and there are employers in the US willing to break the law to hire them. No wall, river, or desert will stop them. Anyone please care to comment on my earlier suggestions?

it makes me mad, to hear all the sob stories about how poor the illegals that come here from their countries. that is not our govements problem, altho our goverment is at fault for all this illegal stuff going on. there are so many poor people in the united states, and not counting all the service men and woman, who are homeless, mentally sick and cannot get help. there are many of our citizens who are poor and needy. Who the Dam cares?? WE SHOULD HELP OUR PEOPLE FIRST NOT SUPPORT THE PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES. I HATE WHAT IS HAPPENING.