Rebecca of Revka’s Take had a great question in the comment section of my post, “Not What I Wanted, Not What We Need.” She asked:

Blo, I have a question no one has asked. Why now? Why hasn’t this been discussed and dealt with 20 years ago? Why is it now BUSH’S deal? Because of the upcoming election, and the ‘no-plan’ libs are using it to try and regain power. Be careful, because the libs have set the trap and we are getting caught up in it.

I responded in the comment section of that post, and would now care to expand on that response in the further light of day:

Rebecca:

Excellent question! The issue, at least in Fornicalia, has been brewing for many years. And yes, other presidents have had the chance to address the issue. But like most other humans, if people (particularly politicians) don’t HAVE to deal with an issue, they WON’T deal with an issue.

In Fornicalia it began under a man named S.I. Hayakawa, who was a large advocate for “English only” in the schools. He felt that English was the language of success not only nationally but internationally as well — as do I.

He became a Republican US Senator from Fornicalia, 1977 until 1983. He was an English professor at San Francisco State and then president of that college from 1968 to 1973. He also founded “US English,” which is a lobbying organization (to which I contribute) advocating, simply, English as the only language of the US.

Taking that stand, at that tumultuous time in a, shall we say, “left wing” college in a “left wing” area was, ahem, turbulent — and a stand taken by a Japanese man. But the issue was now on the table in Fornicalia, publically.

Fornicalia also passed Proposition 187 in 1995, by a 59% margin. 187 was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to deny illegal immigrants social services, health care, and public education. It was introduced by assemblyman Dick Mountjoy (Monrovia Republican) as the “Save Our State” initiative.

A number of other organizations were involved in bringing it to the voters. It passed with 59% of the vote, but was overturned by a federal court.

Proposition 187 included several additions to the law, falling into two categories:

— All law enforcement agents who suspect that a person who has been arrested is in violation of immigration laws must investigate the detainee’s immigration status, and if they find evidence of illegality they must report it to the attorney general of California, and to the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Local governments are prohibited from doing anything to impair the fulfillment of this requirement. The attorney general must keep records on all such cases and make them available to any other government entity that wishes to inspect them.

— No one may receive public benefits until they have proven their legal right to reside in the country. If anyone applies for benefits and is suspected by government agents of being illegal, those agents must report in writing to the enforcement authorities. Emergency medical care is exempted as required by federal law but all other medical benefits have the same test as above. Primary and secondary education is explicitly included.

This started a secondary push and there was, of course, massive resistance from the Left — despite the clear stance of the People.

Then-Governor Pete Wilson supported 187; State Senator Art Torres referred to Prop. 187 as “the last gasp of white America in California.” Battle lines were being drawn already.

In southern border states the issue has been on the table for a number of years. It simply took the national fire time to make the pot begin to boil over.

Fast forward to now: let us not forget those who are constantly pushing for more and free entitlements. The “demonstrations” and a “Day Without Immigrants” won over only those already so driven in the Mexican community; the rest of the nation motored on its way. In my opinion the demonstrations and The Day resulted in the issue being further pushed to the forefront where President Bush was finally thrust into a political corner and knew he must appear to act in some fashion.

It’s only Bush’s Baby because of timing. He had a massive opportunity to make one of his famous stands early on and, instead, has chosen to not recognize the true nature of national feelings and wishes on the issue. We need a fence and we need it now.

I will give President Bush this — and I can think of this stance as being the only reason to be such a obfuscator on the immigration issue: he may be fearful that a hard-line stance on immigrants from Mexico will cause that nation to turn Hard Left — not unlike Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Or: the devil he knows vs. the devil he doesn’t. That or an “under the table” oil deal.

BZ

P.S. to Rebecca:

I see, now that Mexico has threatened to sue the US for its intent to place NG troops on the border, your gloves appear to be coming off. Good!

Some pundits are predicting $4 for a gallon of gas by mid-summer. Others are indicating $5 per gallon by summers’ end. Britain, at this point, pays roughly $6.50 per gallon. Some are indicating we will exceed that price by 2007.

However, just yesterday the price for a barrel of oil fell below $70 — over a slightly weaker demand and rising inflation. Some business analysts thought the selloff was triggered by profit-taking.

The Associated Press said:

Saudi Arabia said Monday that the market is well supplied, in part because high prices have trimmed consumption levels.

“There is no lack of capacity right now,” Saudi oil minister Ali Naimi told reporters on the sidelines of an energy conference in Amman, Jordan. Asked about the impact of high prices, Naimi said: “In general, when prices are high, people check their pockets and when they are lower, they open them.”

Light, sweet crude for June delivery fell $2.63 to settle at $69.41 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. That followed a drop of $1.42 on Friday.

That’s but one small blip on the petroleum screen. What are, for example, the Saudis and oil producing countries saying about the long-term future of oil? From NewsMax.com:

AMMAN, Jordan – Saudi Arabia’s oil minister warned Arab producers Sunday not to expect continued growth in prices and demand for oil.

Ali al-Naimi said prices could plummet if an economic crisis drives industrialized nations to find other sources of energy, citing the 1980s – when oil prices dropped by 80 percent after such nations reduced their dependency on oil and turned to alternative energy sources.

”Global economic growth may not continue at the same good momentum for years to come,” al-Naimi said at the opening of a four-day conference of Arab energy ministers in Amman. ”We should be careful and not take expectations as indisputable, especially the continuation of big demand for oil and its prices remaining at the same level or increasing,” he said.

Al-Naimi also cited the Asian economic crisis of 1997-1998, when oil prices fell by 50 percent, slowing Arab oil production.

”Some are even concerned about a looming economic problem because of the increased policies of economic protectionism, or what is known as economic nationalism,” al-Naimi said, referring to Western countries’ determination to become less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

Still, oil prices are about 48 percent higher than a year ago, a reflection of the market’s fear about real and possible output disruptions at a time when the world’s supply cushion is perilously thin. Only Saudi Arabia has any spare production capacity, but it is less than 2 percent of the daily global demand of almost 85 million barrels and not the high quality crude that refiners prefer, analysts said.

This does not have to be an all-or-nothing equation. We can attack the petroleum issue on a number of levels at once should we choose to do so. We can drill in ANWR. We can drill off our own shores. We can begin personal conservation. We can move to ethanol.

We can do all this and more should we choose to do so. And doing so would be the way to go — particularly considering the countries from which we import oil are generally regimes of great instability — the Middle East, Venezuela, Ethiopia, even Mexico. The sooner we can divest ourselves of our economic need to deal, on bended knee, with these countries, the better off we will be politically, militarily and economically.

The writing is on the wall. Already some factions are worried about their future and their hold on us.

BZ

President Bush delivered his prime time speech tonight. It was not what I wanted and not what I believe we need at this time. It was a step — but altogether too tentative and made, in my opinion, only because Bush knows the crosshairs of the National Scope are focused on the bridge of his nose by everyone trying to dethrone not only Bush but all the GOP as well.

With this speech, he further allows the ELECTION crosshairs to be focused BY the Democrats, the DEM (Defeatist, Elitist Media), dissatisfied Republicans and Conservatives on not only himself but the GOP in future elections this year. And that, friends, is not good.

WHY is this such a difficult issue for people to get their minds around?

If we’re not serious about OUR security, about securing our OWN borders, then why, I ask, are we even in Iraq? Why is there more security WITHOUT this nation than WITHIN?

Or is President Bush “misunderestimated” once again? He does admit in the speech:

Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I’m calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we’ll increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we’ll have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency.

President Bush also wants the National Guard on the border. I’ve thought about this for some time since his recent announcement.

And I’ve decided that, unless we’re going to shoot coyotes and drug runners (and I am convinced we do NOT have the national resolve to do this) then NG deployment is a smokescreen designed to jerk the electorate off under the table. We would be better served to keep NG troops available for foreign deployments, and instead FURTHER increase the number of USBP officers. THEY are the ones who 1) do the work, 2) know the terrain and 3) that’s their job!

Will we use the National Guard when elders want to cross streets?

This speech may only please those illiterates who have not been paying attention to the entire issue at all — to be blunt.

Both parties don’t seem to want to do anything about the issue — and that appears to be the bottom line at this point. A bottom line like this will only hurt the GOP and certainly not the Democrats. And the DEM will, of course, pile on.

Harriet Miers, the Dubai Ports issue, the massive budget and now immigration. These are the issues causing consternation with GOP internals. And splitting us horribly whilst the Dems and the DEM rub their hands with glee.

But on the other hand I can understand why Conservatives draw a line and say: “No more. Here, once again, is where the GOP and me part ways.”

It is because Conservatives have an actual position and are loathe to eject that position. Above and beyond Republicans. And Bush Apologists. It is why I read A Jacksonian.

Here is a paragraph in Bush’s speech that speaks, as I am wont to say, volumes about his thoughts regarding Mexico:

The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, to confront common problems like drug trafficking and crime, and to reduce illegal immigration.

Is Mexico truly our friend? Is Fox our friend? Are people providing maps to cross the border our friend? Are drug runners our friend? Is La Mordida our friend? Are armed border incursions conducted by our friends?

I was indifferent regarding a fence. Until today. Now I am a supporter of a fence. And TAX ME for it — I will GLADLY pay some additional buckage for same. It appears to be working for the Israelis.

I would also ask: if it is such a wondrous thing, why is there NOT a “virtual fence” surrounding the White House? Any answer for that, Mr. President?

This speech reminds me of someone’s impacted prostate: dribbling at best.

BZ

One Iowa Congressman took a recent trip to the border — and not via Taco Bell either.

Congressman Steve King has just returned from a five-day trip to Arizona’s border with Mexico. “It was a real eye-opener,” King says. “One cannot get a feel for this without going down there and being in it.”

King has been advocating construction of a fence along the U.S./Mexico border, and King says the drug trade he witnessed just reaffirmed his belief that a fence is what it will take to stop the flood of immigrants crossing the border.

“This is my second trip down to the border but this is the one that I learned the most at and the one that really causes me to take a look at this and see it from a different perspective on how many people are coming across the border illegally and how many drugs are a part of that,” King says.

King was the only member of congress on this trip. He went with a “security detail” to meet with border patrol agents, some retired agents, and a group of fewer than two dozen Native Americans called the Shadow Wolves who are intercepting more drugs than the two-thousand border patrol agents in the area.

When King was at the reservation one night, the Shadow Wolves caught a gang member with 180 pounds of marijuana hidden in his pick-up.

It would appear that Congressman King actually took the time to see what needs to be seen.

King says a concrete fence must be built along the whole length of the U.S./Mexico border because his trip made him realize the number of border crossings are “far greater in number” than he thought, and the level of violence and the drug trade is much higher, too.

To those in his own Republican party who say the U.S. is not a country that builds walls but is a country that tears them down, King offers this response. “There is a 180 degree difference between a wall that’s built to keep people in, which the Berlin Wall was, and a wall that’s built to keep people out, which this would be,” King says.

“It’s entirely moral to defend yourself from people who are pouring over your borders, that don’t have respect for our sovereignty and who are brining billions of dollars of drugs into the United States.”

There’s a national wildlife refuge in the area of Arizona King visited, and he says a fence worked there to protect the endangered “lesser long-nosed bat.” That species of bat lives in only four caves in the world, one of which illegal immigrants crossing the border in Arizona used as a hiding place.

The bats left, according to King, so the National Park Service built a wrought-iron fence around the cave’s entrance. King says the winged creatures moved back in the cave once the illegal immigrants were kept out.

“A fence does work,” King says. “It worked to keep the illegals out of the bat cave.” King says he spent about two days traveling to and from Arizona and about three days along what he estimates was about 450 miles of border.

King says he went in sort of “undercover” fashion so he’d get the real story, not the sanitized version delivered to members of congress who climb into helicopters and fly over the area.

So what would work? One point? Two points? Three points?

How about THESE points?

THE BZ BORDER SOLUTION:

• Secure the southern and northern borders of the United States in any physical, logistical and human fashion necessary;
• Use ALL available INS and Border Patrol sources available and then National Guard and then strictly military forces only if necessary in terms of personnel;
• Rely on human USBP interdiction first and then construct techno-fences, with physical fences only if absolutely necessary as a last resort — physical fences are too easily breached;
• At the same time develop and implement a new national SSN card which resists theft;
• Require all states to verify each and every voter during every election to be a lawful resident;
• Require all states to comply with English-Only teaching programs;
• Require all states to audit, identify and then penalize all employers who utilize illegal immigrants in any form;
• Completely halt ALL legal immigration for the next two years, in order to digest, record and then implement the above mandates;
• Create and then share immigration databases with all affected federal, state and local agencies;
• Create a “Temporary Guest Worker Program” which allows a maximum stay of two years;
• No amnesty for anyone. PERIOD.

Without any one of the above sections in place, our country is doomed to failure.

What do YOU think?

BZ