I’ve made a decision to leave Townhall. I’ve been struggling with this decision for a couple of weeks now.

I am a Republican who believes strongly in our President. I trust him completely. Why? Because his administration has kept us safe from another terror attack. No one would have believed on 9/11 that we would go six years without another attack.

That has not happened by accident. It has happened because a lot of people have worked day and night to protect us. They have put tough policies in place to make sure that we are preemptive and don’t get caught like we did on 9/11, having to watch our own planes fly into buildings, and our fellow citizens jump out of a towering inferno to their deaths.

Another reason that I trust President Bush’s administration is that they have kept our economy strong.  Who would have ever believed on that terrible day, when we had to ground every aircraft for several days, that we could survive that kind of a tragedy, nevertheless come back and have one of the strongest economies in years.  That did not happen by accident, either. 

The terrorists came very close to bringing America down on that horrible day. Now it seems that Americans are determined to bring America down. What an irony!

Conservative Republicans can’t trust their President, the one that saved America, to put into effect a plan that will begin to solve the enormous problem of illegal immigration.

Well, I’ve argued enough. I"ve presented every argument I know how to make. So, it’s time to do something else.

My site meter passed 10,000 this week, so I hope that I’ve reached someone out there.

Hasta luego, my dear friends.

Sandra Lea Wise

Why don’t we set aside the argument over amnesty and see where we can agree. Here are 3 areas of weakness in the current law, that need improvement.

1. Strengthening border security.

The 1986 Act Provided Only About 4,000 Agents For The Border Patrol and failed to provide the resources necessary to secure the borders adequately.

The 2007 proposal by contrast, will have more than four times that number of Border Patrol agents in place. In addition, improvements in infrastructure and technology at the border make border enforcement more achievable now than it was 20 years ago. 

***The proposed bill includes constructing 370 miles of fencing and 200 miles of vehicle barriers at the border and finishing doubling the size of the Border Patrol.

    Today, we have in place:

*5,290 sensors on the southern border

*687 night time cameras on the southern border

*449 day time cameras on the southern border

*1 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) in Southern AZ

**The Department Of Homeland Security Is On Track To Build 150 Miles Of Fence By The End Of September 2007 And To Build 370 Miles By The End Of Calendar Year 2008. Currently, about 86 miles of fence have been built along the border, with 64 additional miles planned by the end of September 2007.

**We Have Expanded The Border Patrol From About 9,000 Agents In 2001 To More Than 13,000 Agents Today, And By The End Of 2008, We Will Have More Than 18,000 Agents On The Job.

**With Enhanced Enforcement, We Have Already Seen A Tremendous Change At The Border. The number of people apprehended for illegally crossing our Southern border is down by nearly 27 percent in 2007 from this point in 2006.

Question:  Approve or disapprove?  If you do not approve, what would you propose? Be specific and realistic.

2. Putting A Workable Employer Verification System In Place

The 1986 Act Relied On A Verification System That Did Not Have The Capacity To Detect ID Fraud. More than two dozen documents are acceptable under the 1986 system, and employers are not legally required to verify the documents' authenticity. 

****By the way, it is very difficult to prosecute employers who are not required to verify if the documents are legal.  That is a big loophole in the current system!!!

2007 Proposal: An Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS.) Employers will be required to verify the work eligibility of all employees using the EEVS, and all workers will be required to present stronger and more readily verifiable identification documents.

***The EEVS Will Require Presentation Of A Limited Range Of Highly Secure Government IDs, Which Will Be Checked Electronically Against Federal And State Databases. When a worker presents an identification document to obtain employment, the EEVS will perform an electronic check against Federal and State databases. The Social Security Administration will be asked to confirm whether the name and Social Security number presented by the worker are a "match" in its files. Furthermore, the EEVS will use links to the U.S. State Department and individual State Departments of Motor Vehicles to provide employers with the digital photograph associated in government databases with the ID presented. Once employers have direct access to the original photograph associated with an ID, it will be much harder for illegal immigrants to fool them with fake documents.

Question: Approve or disapprove?  If you do not approve, what would you propose? Be specific and realistic.

3. Increasing Penalties For Employers Who Knowingly Hire Illegal Immigrants

***Employers Who Hire Illegal Workers Will Face Stiff New Criminal And Civil Penalties.

**The maximum civil fine for hiring illegal workers will rise from the 1986 level of $2,000 to $5,000 for first offenders and from the 1986 level of $10,000 to $25,000 for three-time offenders.

**The maximum criminal penalty for a pattern or practice of hiring illegal workers will increase 25-fold, from $3,000 per alien to $75,000 per alien.

Note:  Remember that currently employers only have to look at a document and sign a statement saying that they have seen it and it looked authentic.  They do not have to verify the authenticity of the document.  Once the loophole is closed, the government can prosecute employers who employ illegals much more easily. 
Question: Approve or disapprove.  If you do not approve, what would you propose?  Be specific and realistic.

Let me hear your comments on these issues, please!

Information from: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070522-3.html

Sandra Lea Wise

In my previous blog, "A gift to the Democrats" I discuss the over reaction by the conservative media to the Immigration Reform Bill, and how this reaction is a gift to the Democrats.  Conservatives have been blocking this reform since August of '06 and now want to kill this bill. 

The public, who realizes that we have reached a point where something needs to be done now, will blame Republicans for obstructing a bill that would begin to address the problem.  The GOP will pay dearly in '08 and will most likely lose it all. 

Many of the comments by bloggers on the post centered around the fact that illegal immigrants in their states are getting jobs and benefits, such as food stamps.

Most people don't realize that the Federal Government is charged with protecting our borders, but the states are run by locally elected leaders.  Your local officials are the ones you should blame if the illegal immigration situation has gotten out of hand.  Also, if your state is giving food stamps, etc. to illegal immigrants, it is breaking the law.

It is interesting that conservatives want the Federal Government to stay out of the State's business, unless it's one of the issues they care about.  If the Feds went in and shut down all of the businesses in each state that are employing illegal immigrants, I think that the folks in those states would be pretty mad when their economies were destroyed.

There is the law of supply and demand.  Americans are employing the illegals, so they come.  The Feds can't police every state in America, nor would we want them to.  Americans have to behave more responsibly.  They can't say, I employ illegals because the Feds don't come in and stop me from doing it.  The same goes for drugs, etc.  Americans take drugs so the drug dealers supply them.  What about personal responsibility?  That is what most Republicans believe in.   

As in the movie, Field of Dreams: "If you build it they will come."

President Bush is trying to address a problem that was created by Americans that have behaved irresponsibly and now we have 14 million illegal immigrants living here.  If you don’t want illegals working in your states, then don’t give them jobs.  Boycott the companies that do.  If you don’t want illegals getting state benefits then don’t elect local officials that give them those benefits.

Don’t blame Bush for a problem that Americans have created.  No law (or Wall) is going to stop illegal immigration as long as our citizens are enabling the illegals with jobs and benefits.  

The question now is, what do we do about the 14 million illegal immigrants that are living here and working for American companies?  How do we keep more from coming to America for the jobs?  How do we find out who is here illegally?  How do we secure our borders to keep terrorists out?

Most of the debate centers around the word "amnesty."  The far left says the bill does not provide amnesty, so they are opposed to it, and the far right says that it does, so they are opposed to it.  Maybe it's a bill that is just right.

If you are not familiar with the contents of the proposed bill, you might want to check it out at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070522-3.html

Sandra Lea Wise

I’ve been listening to the conservative media's frenzy over the Immigration Bill.  I haven’t heard this kind of madness since the Miers nomination.

Since the 2006 elections the Democrats have been the obstructionist party.  Now the public will forget all about that, and it will be Republicans who appear to be obstructing immigration reform.

Here is the problem.  Fourteen million illegal immigrants did not come here under the Bush Administration.  Yet President Bush is the one trying to do something about the situation.

Anyone who thinks that mass deportation can take place is dreaming.  There are two reasons that deportation won’t work. One, we are nearly at 100% employment.  Losing all those workers would shock our economy.  Secondly, the ACLU will step in and file lawsuits to prevent deportation.  This would tie up our court system for years.

In Farmers Branch, Texas, for example, voters approved a measure to keep landlords from renting to illegal immigrants.  As soon as the measure passed, the ACLU filed a lawsuit to stop the enforcement of the law.  It will take years to resolve the issue.

The bottom line is that along with enforcement of the borders, a guest worker program would allow us to document who is coming in, and match workers with jobs that don’t get filled with American workers. This is not amnesty, no matter how many times it is repeated that it is!

I must say that I am completely dismayed at the knee jerk reaction in my party to this issue. Most people in our country want something done about the illegal immigrantion situation.  The Party that stands in the way will be the Party that will lose.

The Democrats could not receive a better gift than this one.

Sandra Lea Wise

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Republicans have been fighting with each other over abortion since Jan. 22, 1973 when the Roe v. Wade decision was made by the Supreme Court. The decision made "a woman’s right to chose," the law of the land.

The fight has gone on for 34 years, yet Roe v. Wade is still the current law. Every four years the media shows up at the Republican convention to document this fight.  There is always a big argument about the Party Platform. One wing of the party wants our platform to state that we are pro life and against all abortion with no exceptions. The other wing of the party wants to state that we are pro life, but we respect those who hold equally strong personal beliefs. They want the party to welcome people that are pro choice. When the second group wins, the conservative wing of the party threatens to sit out the vote or leave the party entirely.

The year that Bob Dole ran, he decided that he didn’t want this fight. He would leave the wording as it was from the prior convention, which was the second wording. After a couple of days, when the media could not document any discord amongst Republicans, Dan Rather took his cameras and left the convention, saying, "there is nothing to report here." However, many conservatives were infuriated at Dole and didn’t vote that year or voted for Perot.

The media wants this fight because it puts the Republican Party at odds with the mainstream of America. The fact is that when you have a law that stands uncontested for 34 years, the public accepts it as established law. Most Americans today do not want abortion to become illegal.

Nevertheless, the fight goes on, right on schedule, and many voters get turned off, dismissing the Republican Party as too radical.

This year we are screaming loudly that no pro choice candidate need apply. The knee jerk reaction to Giuliani is astounding. We have a front runner that we are determined to crush. Yet, if you listen carefully to what Giuliani says, he is in the mainstream of America. He dislikes abortion but respects the woman’s right to chose since it is the law of the land.

For 34 years we have had this battle and for 34 years we have lost this battle. I think that the word "insanity" comes to mind. Doesn’t something tell us that our approach isn’t working?

Sandra Lea Wise

Why don’t we hear this at the Democrat Presidential Debates...

Chris Mathews: Candidate 1, would it be OK with you if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned?

C. 1: Chris, are you kidding? It would be the worst day in America’s history.

C. M.: Why do you say that?

C. 1: After all these years of freedom for women, you would want to reverse that?  Women have the right to kill their babies in the womb.  They are in control of their own bodies and that’s the way it should be.

C. M.:  Candidate 2, same question.

C. 2:  I agree completely with C. 1.  This is decided law.  Millions of mothers have taken advantage of this law and killed their unborn babies.  To reverse this and make it a crime would take us back years.  We’ve come so far...

C.M.:  Candidate 3, have you contributed to Planned Parenthood?

C. 3:  Absolutely, Chris. I believe that young girls should be able to abort their babies without notifying their parents.  You know how abusive fathers can be when they find out that their daughters are pregnant out of wedlock.  We need to protect these girls from their dads.

C. M.:  Candidate 1, what about the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the ban on "partial birth abortion?"

C. 1:  Now that needs to be overturned and that’s why you need to elect me.  I will appoint Judges that will legislate from the Bench.  We can’t have the people deciding on issues as important as this.

C. M.:  Candidate 2, do you agree with that?

C. 2:  Absolutely.  I will appoint Judges that will overturn elections.  The people don’t know what they want and that is why Judges are so important.

C. M.:  Candidate 3, do you believe it is OK to kill a baby right before he or she is born?  Some have called that infanticide.

C. 3:  Remember, Chris, it’s up to the mother.  She’s the one who decides.  After all, having a baby is a big commitment and some women may not be ready for that.

C. M.:  Thank you, candidates.  Next time we’ll talk about global warming and why it’s up to us to save our planet!

Good night and good luck!

I've often marveled at the patience that our President seems to have.  Under daily attack by the entire media, his poll numbers at an all time low (so what's new,) I imagine that he would think about giving a speech such as this.  If I were in his shoes, I would have given it already!  Lucky for you, I'm not the President of the United States.    http://www.drudgeforum.com/index.php?s=40e3001e451e588c05bafa7eef36676f&showtopic=9818

This morning on Fox News Sunday, Chris Dodd referred to "the American people" over and over.  For example, he said the American people want us to get out of Iraq.  The American people know that this is a civil war.  The American people understand that this war cannot be won militarily.

I found myself getting angry.  Chris Dodd claims to be speaking for me.  I was not asked how I felt.  I am an American and I don’t feel this way.

It dawned on me that America is no longer a Representative Republic.  America is being run by polls, in other words, by the media.

In the 2000 and 2004 elections, the exit polls were proven to be wrong. These polls, which are considered to be the most accurate of all the polls, were completely wrong.  At that time, why weren't some major questions asked about the validity and accuracy of the polls?  Why wasn't some kind of accountability put into place?

Now it seems that the polls dictate everything we think and do, and there is no accountability. When it comes down to it, a small minority of people are running, and in my opinion, ruining America.  Who are they?  Where do they live?  What are their names?

They do not speak for me! I have never been polled.  Unfortunately most people don't question the polls.  They have in fact become fact. 

The polls have become "the American People."

Sandra Lea Wise