Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This one is enough to tick off EVERY Conservative in the US of A:
Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted to Increase Enforcement Spending for the U.S.-Mexican Border by $3 Billion. However, the White House is now threatening to VETO this critically-needed funding boost as too expensive! If America needs to increase spending on ANYTHING, it is Border Enforcement.
Do you thionk Bush is looking out for Americans when he threatens to veto a bill to stop illegal aliens????
Big deal. He's threatened to veto 9 of the 12 budget bills. The DHS bill is however up on veto-proof majorities. The Prez doesn't have the last word on this one. And I assume that you realize all this 'fence money' is just a front to create the ground needed for eventual reintroduction of comprehensive immigration reform, something that you all like to call amnesty. The feeling is that if we appear to be tough on the border, it will defuse the rabble enough to be able to get a sensible treatment of foreign workers onto the books.
Sag - be reasonable. This administration is not likely to do anything sensible.
Three Billion for a Border Fence? Just how much is that per mile? Sounds a bit high, was it packed with pork? I'll bet it is.
What is a sensible answer to the immigration problem? One extreme is to give amnesty to all of them. The other is a massive round up and deportation. Is there someplace in the middle? I really do not know.
Of course it is too expensive. We are alreading throwing $10 B a month away ion Iraq. $750 million now to airship the MRAPs needed to protect our troops that they should have had 3 years ago. You think there is another $3B under the couch?
This one is enough to tick off EVERY Conservative in the US of A:
Thursday, the U.S. Senate voted to Increase Enforcement Spending for the U.S.-Mexican Border by $3 Billion. However, the White House is now threatening to VETO this critically-needed funding boost as too expensive! If America needs to increase spending on ANYTHING, it is Border Enforcement.
Do you thionk Bush is looking out for Americans when he threatens to veto a bill to stop illegal aliens????
You only reported part of the story. Here is a little more context, so we can understand why the sentiment from the White House:
President Bush issued a veto threat on a pork-laden homeland security spending bill and outraged an anti-illegal immigration group that complained a veto would scuttle $3 billion in border funding.
NumbersUSA sponsored a Spotlight e-mail blast to Townhall.com readers last week, titled "Bush Should Not VETO Border Funding" and said "The White House is threatening to VETO this critically-needed funding boost as too expensive!"
Not so, said White House spokesman Scott Stranzel. In a phone interview he said, "That veto threat was specific to the $2.2 billion in unnecessary spending. The vast majority of that is increased spending on state and local grants which we indicated was not necessary considering the fact there was $5.5 billion in unspent funds from prior years. We thought that spending would add to the backlog of unspent funds and encourage spending on lower priority items."
On June 12, the White House issued a Statement of Administrative Policy that said the House version of the appropriations bill, which exceeded the President's request by $2.1 billion, contained an "irresponsible and excessive level of spending."
It said: "The Administration has asked that Congress demonstrate a path to live within the President's bottom line and cover the excess spending in this bill through reductions elsewhere. Because Congress has failed to demonstrate such a path, if H.R. 2638 were presented to the President, he would veto the bill."
The overall price tag on the Senate bill is $40.6 billion, $5.2 billion more than the President requested in his annual budget.
An amendment to the Senate bill sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R.-S.C.) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D.-Ark) added an extra $3 billion in spending for funding for border fencing, more Border Patrol Agents and equipment. It passed 89-1. Sen. George Voinovich (R.-Ohio) was the only one to vote against the amendment. In Senate floor speech Voinovich said, "In the simplest terms, the federal government continues to spend more than it brings on, and both the amendment and the underlying bill continue that practice."
"If we decide we absolutely need to spend the $3 billion on something-and I support adequately funding border security-then we need to either raise more revenue or cut other spending to pay for it," Voinovich said.
The overall bill passed with a veto-proof majority 89-4 on July 26. Only four senators, all known as fiscal hawks, voted against the spending bill. They were: Sen. Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.), Sen. Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.), Sen. James Inhofe (R.-Okla.) and Sen. George Voinovich (R.-Ohio).
Taxpayers for Common Sense found 24 earmarks in the Senate version of the bill that will cost taxpayers $394 million, two of which were undisclosed. One of the undisclosed earmarks was for a U.S. Coast Guard operations system in Kearneysville, West Virginia. The other was to migrate Immigration and Custom Enforcement data centers to the Stennis Space Center in southern Mississippi.
Sag - be reasonable. This administration is not likely to do anything sensible.
In this case, perhaps by some quirk in the laws which appear to govern the universe, it was about to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
What is a sensible answer to the immigration problem? One extreme is to give amnesty to all of them. The other is a massive round up and deportation. Is there someplace in the middle? I really do not know.
We just lost 'someplace in the middle'. It won't be back any time soon. There is no solution that does not amount to what the rabid will call 'amnesty'. We are not going to deport twelve million people. We are not going to deport any significant fraction of twelve million people. We currently deport about 185,000 people per year, and that number is causing us problems. The only solution is to make it easier and cheaper to come here to work legally, than it is to do so illegally. Absent that, you are only asking for more and more of the same old thing...
Big deal. He's threatened to veto 9 of the 12 budget bills. The DHS bill is however up on veto-proof majorities. The Prez doesn't have the last word on this one. And I assume that you realize all this 'fence money' is just a front to create the ground needed for eventual reintroduction of comprehensive immigration reform, something that you all like to call amnesty. The feeling is that if we appear to be tough on the border, it will defuse the rabble enough to be able to get a sensible treatment of foreign workers onto the books.
I am GLAD they will bypass his veto threat. Bush has been THE biggest joke on stopping illegal immigration. He wants open borders, and unlimited cheap labor at the expense of US workers.
I am sure Bush will attempt another illegal alien mass amnesty soon, however, with 2008 being an election year, that will be tough.
Honestly, the "rable" as you describe most Americans, who want existing US Immigration laws enforced, will NOT accept an amnesty unless we have complete control of the border. And then we will NOT accept any more chain migration, and that will be another fight in 2008 anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
Sag - be reasonable. This administration is not likely to do anything sensible.
Three Billion for a Border Fence? Just how much is that per mile? Sounds a bit high, was it packed with pork? I'll bet it is.
What is a sensible answer to the immigration problem? One extreme is to give amnesty to all of them. The other is a massive round up and deportation. Is there someplace in the middle? I really do not know.
I agree, there is pork here OR Congress is shoving this project forward no matter what. I think $3 Billion for the border fence, even if filled with pork, I STILL wnat the fence to go up. I am a fiscal conservative, but I would rather pay $20 Billion for border security, even if filled with pork and all sorts of waste, than to have another million illegal aliens enter this country and continue the madness of crime, illegal alien streetgang violence, and abuse of every public service that was created for US Citizens.
The middle ground is there. Create a 2 year guestworker program so that the ones here right now can either adjust through existing petitions or leave after 2 years under the penalty of mandatory jail time and enforcement of existing immigration laws by local cops. That with the creation of a Canadian-style guestworker program. The botton line here is: NO PATH FOR CITIZENSHIP FOR LAWBREAKERS AND ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellinghamite
Bush should stripped of U.S. citizenship and deported to Mexico.
Hey, that is why we call him "Presidente Jorge Busho".
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
We just lost 'someplace in the middle'. It won't be back any time soon. There is no solution that does not amount to what the rabid will call 'amnesty'. We are not going to deport twelve million people. We are not going to deport any significant fraction of twelve million people. We currently deport about 185,000 people per year, and that number is causing us problems. The only solution is to make it easier and cheaper to come here to work legally, than it is to do so illegally. Absent that, you are only asking for more and more of the same old thing...
You think a blanket amnesty that included criminal felow illegals and that would curb illegal immigration by 15% under the CBO is "someplace in the middle"? You thionk letting 20 million illegals chain-migrate another 130 million aliens is "somehwre in the middle"
Sounds like THAT middle you propose is way to the LEFT!
In any case, I am just HAPPY to hear there is a veto-override possibility here and that God-willing the fence will go up!!
No offense...but this is the same tired shtick that really belongs up in the immigration forum. You'll find a lot of people more than happy to pile on with your magical fence solution there.
If we waste another $3B on a fence, we still have no one to patrol the fence. So if illegal immigrants can get hold of a pair of boltcutters in Mexico, your fence is not going to do a heck of a lot. I know, I know, we should send 100,000 troops from the National Guard to patrol, whatever. Let's just try to stay within the boundaries of reality for the moment.
As sag mentioned, we are not going to deport 15 million people. So if we do not do them the "favor" of paying thousands of dollars to get into the system in some way and be legal, they are just going to remain illegal. It is really pretty straightforward.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You thionk letting 20 million illegals chain-migrate another 130 million aliens is "somehwre in the middle" 
