« Happy Mother's Day 2006 | Main | A Hollywood Summer Bummer »

May 15, 2006

President on Immigration

There was little to disagree with in such concise, point by point speech.

I only wish there was more details on the fence and I would, personally, like to see the border permanently monitored by the military, not a temporary stint by the National Guard.

We cannot "round-up" 12 million illegals and deport them en masse. What we can do is dry up jobs by punishing employers who employ illegals. I will watch and see if the punishment has the teeth needed to make illegals move back over the border on their own.

And I'm not all that thrilled with a modern bracero program.

Be sure to check out Truth Laid Bear's tracking of other blogs discussing this.

Posted by Darleen at May 15, 2006 05:26 PM


Don't expect any action. When the president tells Mexico "not to worry, this is only temporary" before he even announces his plans to the people, you can bet he doesn't have our best interests at heart on this issue.

Posted by: Digger at May 16, 2006 01:30 AM

Waiting for a Republican administration to punish employers for hiring illegals? Why not just sit up all night and wait for the tooth fairy to bring you a pony? Are you that oblivious? Enforcement has declined rapidly in the years since Bush took office. Bush serves no master other than the Corporate "persons" whose rights supersede those of "we the people". There is no longer any "we the people" in our government. Wake the hell up, all you republican enablers. They've thrown sops to you, understanding your racism and homophobia better than you know it yourselves, but they have NO agenda other than enriching themselves, the multinational corporations and that miniscule percentage of the "investor class" that reaps any benefit from this new "global economy". Your asslicking support of these global corporatists has given us this economy that is decimating the middle class. The least you can do is own up to your own part in this disaster.

[blah blah RACIST blah blah RETHUGLICAN blah blah .... Keeerist on a Crutch, asswipe, can you possibly be more clear in PROJECTING your own serious racialist bigotry? ... ed.]

Posted by: Hrubec of the many names and no brain at May 16, 2006 03:52 AM


After 80 years of almost no militarization of the southern border, I can see where putting troops along it might be viewed as "provocative" by the Mexican government.

And if the shrill screams coming from "activists" in Mexico, even a temp NG presence while doubling the border patrol is more than they can stand.

The President is against staking out a rational middle, even though I would like more details.

GW told the unvarnished truth. We cannot roundup and bus/truck/train car out 12 million people. We just have to make it so they move out on their own because they cannot work here.

What the cowardy troll above keeps missing is that the majority of illegals do not work for Halliburton (symbol of Big Bad Corps) but work #1 for individuals and #2 contractors.

Hell, I'd lay you odds that Hrubec pays under the table for her own little brown gardner or housekeeper...just like a lot of hypocrite Leftists.

Posted by: Darleen at May 16, 2006 06:31 AM

Let's see, what happened the last time the US massed troops along the Mexican border...

Maybe W is planning to finish what James Polk didn't.

However, the US Civil War that followed the Mexican War 1846-1848 could have a sad contemporary equivalent.

Posted by: epador at May 16, 2006 08:34 AM

I'd like to know:

1. Who's going to pay for the deployment?
2. Who's going to command the Guard, the state governors, or the president?
3. And how long, exactly, can you deploy the Guard? Border duty is not temporary; to be effective, it has to be permanent.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at May 16, 2006 09:34 AM

Uh, no, Darleen, never hired anyone off the street (and thanks for that little glimpse of your true racist soul) . Got plenty of big healthy boys for stuff like that. That's the beauty of a working class family - our kids know how to work and we all take care of each other. But I know the elitists you're talking about who have immigrants doing their yard work and nanny work. Got no problem sending their asses to jail either. Though who'd pay THEIR worthless kids' bar tabs while they were in the joint?

If corporations don't hire illegals then why did so many Perdue, Tyson and Cargill plants close down on May 1? Not to mention my local McDonalds...And why has enforcement against employers gone DOWN under your "president"? The ultimate goal for his elitist agenda is to drive wages down and debilitate the middle class, which is the corporate agenda for this country. Remember - the reason we have no sense of shared common good in this country now is because that's not what a Republican majority WANTS for America. They want us at each other's throats, and not giving a shit about the common good. And you're a very cooperative soldier for them. The onus is on you for the world you've helped destroy for your little grandtwins.

I see your "president's" speech went over like a lead balloon in Wingnuttia. So sorry. Maybe he could go down to the border himself and have his candy ass photographed putting some cuffs on a couple of Mexicans. Though looks like nothing can save him now, does it?

Posted by: Hrubec of the many names and racialist persuasion at May 16, 2006 04:15 PM

"If corporations don't hire illegals then why did so many Perdue, Tyson and Cargill plants close down on May 1?"

Not sure, but it may be because of the deliberate muddling of "illegal alien"/"immigrant" as perpetrated by just about every politician in Washington (including, sadly, Bush). That is to say, a whole lot of legal immigrants went to those rallies.

Bush was pretty blatant about muddying that distinction when he showcased the immigrant who fought in our armed forces and finally became a citizen. It appears that he was referring to a _legal_ immigrant, which makes the entire display compeltely moot -- unless, as Bush hopes, you failed to note the distinction between "immigrant" and "illegal alien/immigrant".

Posted by: Strider at May 16, 2006 08:44 PM

Look at me spew!

[Hrubec, if all you are going to do is keep calling me "racist" with no source quote, with ABSOLUTELY nothing to show I am a "racist" and in direct contradiction with my numerous posts and quotes about racism being the lowest form of collectivism and thus anathema to my values and moral code, then I'm just going to edit it out. Source it or stuff a sock in it. You obviously have some race issues you're dealing with and projecting on me. Go find help. .... ed]

Posted by: Hrubec of the many names and racialist persuasion at May 17, 2006 02:42 AM

Once again, predictably, Darleen makes a conscious decision to ignore the hard questions over these issue -- e.g., Carl Goss's excellent questions posted above -- questions which even our ineffectual Homeland Security Director raisedin an interview with Bill O'Reilly when he said, "Unless you would be prepared to leave those people in the National Guard day and night for month after month after month, you would eventually have to come to grips with the challenge in a more comprehensive way." (this is the same Chertoff who screwed up the Katrina response, essentially blaming the newspapers for not knowing the extent of that disaster ("I remember on Tuesday morning picking up newspapers and I saw headlines, "'New Orleans Dodged The Bullet'").

No, never mind all of these facts. Darleen chooses not to mind them. Darleen would much rather go into full attack mode with one of her most dedicated contrarians (presumably Hrubec, but who knows what Hrubec's points are any more since Darleen simply distorts the comments for her own amusement).
What happened to honest and open debate Darleen? That end with the 2004 elections? With your jumping the shark over Cindy Sheehan? You think there's a lot of projected self hatred going on with your war with the Left?

Posted by: Brad at May 17, 2006 11:20 AM


Do you actually have a point or do you just love to see your word in print?

What fucking FACT are you babbling about where it concerns ILLEGAL ALIENS???

I do NOT listen to O'Reilly, so there's a no starter. I did listen to the Lt. General in charge of the National Guard on Michael Medved's show yesterday explaining that the National Guard on the border will NOT be personnel that have already been Iraq, but the ones who take 2-3 weeks off a year to hone their skills ... instead of going to some makeshift camp, they'll spend their training time on the border while new Border Patrol agents are hired and trained.

That answers all three of Carl's points.

I've ALWAYS maintained a priority where it concerns illegals... #1 secure the border #2 punish employers

My grandfather did border patrol between WWI and WWII as part of the 11th Texas Calvary. IMO our border should always be patrolled by the military. As we can see, even the relatively benign action of NG on the border has pro-illegal advocates on both sides of the border muttering darkly and threatening action - lawsuits being the least.

And, puhleeze Brad...are you honestly trying to apologize for the Judenhass Mommy Sheehan who can't even find the time with her flitting about on her expired 15 minutes to get a HEADSTONE for the son she supposedly cared about???

She jumped the shark long ago. She's an indecent person.

Posted by: Darleen at May 17, 2006 12:51 PM

She's an indecent person

the pot calls the kettle black.

Posted by: Brad at May 17, 2006 02:15 PM

The Border/Immigration issue has three parts:

1. Border Security, in the sense of protecting us from terrorism. This should have been a 9/12/01 issue and has been IGNORED until the Pubs were in desperate political straits. In this sense, the Canadian border is just as much of a danger, if not more of one. However the Canadian border, like our unprotected ports, is not part of this discussion because this discussion is not about national security, which clearly is a low priority for this admin. That's why the Pub Congress DENIED the bill proposed two years ago that would have hired 10,000 new border patrolmen. Now instead we need to put more burden on our National Guard. [is it really a burden to do 2-3 weeks on the border rather than any other NG camp? ... ed]

2. Jobs. This is a jobs issue because the prescence of so many low paid workers depresses wages for all working Americans. The employers don't have to pay health insurance or FICA taxes or insurance or a host of other costs, so why hire American CITIZENS who will cost them all those things? The end result is what we working people have all felt the past five years - wage stagnation and deflation. The Bush administration has DECREASED employer enforcement, precipitously. Clearly doesn't care about this part of the problem. [The economy is BOOMING, 2 million jobs created per year for the last few, unemployment is 4.7% ... nothing like Hrubec having a proctologists view of America, but not surprising ... ed.]

3. Culture. This is the biggie. This is the real enchilada. The ONLY thing the Pubs in power care about is throwing red meat to the base, and you will hear if you tune in Fox NEws any night of the week how the Hispanics are having too many babies and outnumbering "us" (whoever "we" are) and changing :"our" culture and dont' speak the right language. They know the real fear of the base is RACISM. Not racialism, whatever that is (other than a wingnut dogwhistle cue). Pure and simple hatred of the Hispanic immigrants and the cultural change they bring. [Source it, fuckwit...ed]

Since we know the Pubs don't care about Border Security (or would have hired the 10,000 Border Patrolmen in 2003 and secured Canada & ports as well) and we know they don't care about Jobs (lord do we ever know that - enforcement goes down under Pubs), then what conclusion can we draw from all this? That the Pubs are hoping to revive their gasping-for-air dying "permanent majority" by throwing red meat to their racist base.

There ya go, Darleen. I know you can't handle it. So censor away, you coward.

(For the record, all I said above was that Darleen's girlfriend Michelle Malkin was being accused by the trembling plutocrat wing of the Pub Party of having contracted BDS.)

[whine away, you don't have a fact to back you up ... ed. GET YOUR OWN BLOG, and quit projecting your racial issues or cowardice on me. What, is one of your "boys" dating "beneath him" or something? ... ed]

Posted by: Hrubec who loves whining on someone else's dime at May 17, 2006 03:31 PM


Source where you think I'm "indecent."

Posted by: Darleen at May 17, 2006 06:01 PM

Source where you think I'm "indecent."

Challenge accepted (although, I must say-- unless you can provide an objective judge for this-- because you will deny any sentence fragment I bring up which I think most rational people would call offensive-- I can't really "win" this argument but here goes):

Darleen, here is your indecent remark:

Hell, I'd lay you odds that Hrubec pays under the table for her own little brown gardner or housekeeper

Anyone else on this Winger blog wanna agree or disagree?

And by the way, Hrubec's most recent observations are dead right on. Especially #3: and here's a SOURCE for the point that the immigration debate among conservatives has at its root a racist bent:

From the May 11 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:

GIBSON: Now, it's time for "My Word." Do your duty. Make more babies. That's a lesson drawn out of two interesting stories over the last couple of days.

First, a story yesterday that half of the kids in this country under five years old are minorities. By far, the greatest number are Hispanic. You know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic. Why is that? Well, Hispanics are having more kids than others. Notably, the ones Hispanics call "gabachos" -- white people -- are having fewer.

Now, in this country, European ancestry people, white people, are having kids at the rate that does sustain the population. It grows a bit. That compares to Europe where the birth rate is in the negative zone. They are not having enough babies to sustain their population. Consequently, they are inviting in more and more immigrants every year to take care of things and those immigrants are having way more babies than the native population, hence Eurabia.
Why aren't they having babies? Because babies get in the way of a prosperous and comfortable modern life. Peanut butter fingerprints on the leather seats in the BMW. The Euros are particular -- in particular can't be bothered with kids. Underscore that second point.

A second story, today, reports that [Russian President] Vladimir Putin is so concerned about the declining and imploding population of Russia, he is paying couples to have babies. Imagine, procreating for cash in Mother Russia. Putin has taken this step because at the rate things are going, Russia will lose close to 45 million in population in the next 45 years. Russia will be two thirds of today's population.

This is not a good trend for Russia and it won't be here either if that should happen. To put it bluntly, we need more babies. Forget about that zero population growth stuff that my poor generation was misled on. Why is this important? Because civilizations need population to survive. So far, we are doing our part here in America but Hispanics can't carry the whole load. The rest of you, get busy. Make babies, or put another way -- a slogan for our times: "procreation not recreation."

Posted by: Brad at May 17, 2006 07:04 PM

those last five paragraphs are all from the mouth of conservative bloviator (and Darleen idol) on Fox news, John Gibson.

Posted by: Brad at May 17, 2006 07:06 PM

The radical right guys who talk about rounding up illegals and sending them back make me laugh. This government couldn't evacuate 250,000 from New Orleans - and they knew where they were (to quote Cardinal Mahoney).

Not to mention the INS - I can't tell you how many former au pairs I know who have stayed beyond their visa time - some for almost a decade. No one knows where they are are or who they are.

If we really care about limiting immigration we must go after the employers.

Posted by: Mieke at May 17, 2006 08:03 PM

One of my boys dating beneath him? Who the hell is projecting now? Wow, Darleen, if you TRIED to make my points for me, you couldn't do a better job. You are really proving yourself a monument to the rage that fuels the wingnut philosophy in this country.

As for your graduate level refuation of my points: Lets let the Guard speak for itself.
U.S. state-level National Guard leaders will fight any effort to place their forces under direct presidential control.

The National Guard commanders are poised to carry out the Bush administration's border-security plan to deploy thousands of troops to patrol the Mexican border, but they likely will fight any attempts to place the state-run units under the president's control, CongressDaily reported Tuesday.

Or let your own Governor have a word:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday that he has "serious concerns" about President Bush's plan to use 6,000 National Guard troops to help secure the Mexican border.

"Securing our borders is a law enforcement function and what we need are more Border Patrol agents, not National Guard troops who are neither trained nor suited for this purpose," Schwarzenegger said in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Schwarzenegger also said that assigning Guard units to build fences and deploy surveillance equipment on the border, as Bush plans, would disrupt their training for other missions and take troops who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan away from their families again.

He suggested the federal government explore using U.S. marshals, Forest Service officers and other federal law enforcement officers to supplement the Border Patrol instead of calling up National Guard troops.

But it doesn't surprise me yet again to read another winger who has not served think it's a great idea to use our military as a political prop for their "president"...And of course, if he had decided to FUND the BORDER PATROL, they wouldn't need to use the Guard at all. I think they needed that money for oil company welfare, or taxcuts for millionaires.

As for the "booming economy" , try Wage Deflation, try a 125% Debt to Asset ratio for the average American family...Why do you carry water for corporate masters who would throw YOU under a bus as quickly as they would any "brown" person? If the economy was truly booming, for REAL PEOPLE, why would they care about Mexicans taking their jobs?

This leaves us back with Point No. 3 - the REAL problem Darleen and the wingnuts have, their racist hatred of the Mexicans. And Brad has made that point excellently for me. Thank you, sir.

Mieke is right. The only way to stop this problem, the quickest way is to go after the AMERICAN lawbreakers - the employers, be they companies, contrators or homeowners. Go after them with big fines and jail time and this problem will be stopped in its tracks. Without arresting mothers and babies, without deportation, without fences, without militarizing our border. Hmmm, now why do we all know that will NEVER happen?

Posted by: Hrubec of the many names and the racialist persuasion at May 18, 2006 02:41 AM


First off, I was snarking at Hrubec because s/he has been so weirdly projection about "racism" when I have never, ever said anything about that remotely can be construed as racist. Racism is collectivism, and ANATHEMA to my values. Racism is about GROUP identity and GROUP rights. Racism walks ideological lockstep with Leftist cant. Obviously Hrubec has some real RACE issues and I'm tweaking him/her about it. I really don't buy the "my big strong boys" or any of the other laugh inducing stuff s/he huffs and puffs about. Hrubec parrots/plagarizes MY #2 point on MY blog of how to handle illegal immigration and pretends that I've never said it.

The man/woman/it has some heavy-duty psychological issues. It finds itself in a strong, booming economy and sees only shit. Again, delusional. It needs help.

Brad, do no lie about me I don't watch much COMMERCIAL tv at all...so unless you can cite on this blog anywhere where I've quoted or cited JOHN GIBSON, O'Reilly, Hannity, or any Fox news commentator, then your calling them "my heros" is yet another Conservative Strawman argument.

And understand that "Hispanic" is NOT A RACE. Did it exist prior to Europeans coming to the new world? No. An person of black African ethnic heritage born in Mexico/Central/South America is designated as "Hispanic".


I'm "racist" in this regard? Oh. Yeah. Well, then I guess I "hate" part of my family that is of Mexican heritage or Jewish heritage or American Indian .... (which is also so laughable about Hrubec's racist snitfit about the President lusting to stand on the border and personally arrest some "Mexicans"... )

Again...what I'm seing is PROJECTION from Hrubec and so many so eager to leap to the "racist" strawman because your arguments are so fucking poor.

Posted by: Darleen at May 18, 2006 07:18 AM

I googled around a bit and found these numbers:

State National Guard Strength

California 17,000
Arizona 4,000
New Mexico 3,000
Texas 17,000

Total: 41,000

Deploying 6000 Guards means using about 14% of the existing strength of the various state's forces.

That percentage (available for border duty)goes up when you consider that some Guard units are deployed overseas.

Seems to me that the border ought to be manned by full-time soldiers acting as back-up to the Border Patrol.

National Guard troops normally have only limited duty, timewise.

If defending borders isn't a federal function;what is?

Why should state Guard units have to take on this burden?

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at May 18, 2006 08:58 AM

You write that Racism is collectivism, and ANATHEMA to my values : yet you seem to have no problem playing the “group identity” card with the Left, lumping the entire anti-war movement into one broad category – that is, we are all amoral anti-American terrorist sympathizers (my sources? Oh, t’s everywhere on this blog, like
here: and here: and here: and

And whether or not you watch Fox News shouldn’t distract us from the fact that a) Gibson echoes Right Wing talking points to spread fear of Latinos & whip up support of the base for Republican positions which you also espouse [i.e., white Americans should fear the brown menace from below the border because they are breeding faster than we are (John Gibson) = readers of my blog should be alarmed by
here: all the Mexican flags on display in those marches

And here’s something I find rather interesting from today’s news: in light of Darleen’s statement

…the majority of illegals do not work for Halliburton (symbol of Big Bad Corps) but work #1 for individuals and #2 contractors.

Speaking of contracts! This whole behemoth border fence deal – it’s

not exactly Halliburton but close:

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, three of the largest, are among the companies that said they would submit bids within two weeks for a multibillion-dollar federal contract to build what the administration calls a "virtual fence" along the nation's land borders.

So, say what you will Darleen about Republicans not having a racist bent – all evidence to the contrary—I hope you’ll at least agree that they are certainly motivated by their corporate benefactors, on this issue as on Iraq.

Posted by: Brad at May 18, 2006 03:09 PM


yet you seem to have no problem playing the “group identity” card with the Left

You are not THAT stupid, so I guess you think every one else is.

The contemporary American Left deals with IDEOLOGY, not an innate characteristic such as melanin levels.

Skin color doesn't grant values, morality or ideology. To attempt to ascribe such according to color or gender...THAT is racism.


Posted by: Darleen at May 19, 2006 07:15 AM