Jun 29 2006

Denial On The Right

Published by at 2:59 pm under All General Discussions,Illegal Immigration

Readers keep claiming there are no polls showing how small a minority the Tancredo Taunters represent in this country. Normally I would not do any homework for people (I have my own work to do), but in this one case I will oblige only to watch all the obvious denial and rationalizations and dismissals from the usual suspects. The question is how many people oppose a guest worker program and therefore would not want or allow any legislation to pass that includes one? Very few it turns out:

CA 3/06:”Two-thirds of Californians support a guest-worker plan, the poll found. Among registered voters, the majority was slightly smaller, at 60 percent, while among those not registered to vote — half of whom are noncitizens — support for the plan was higher, at 73 percent.”

National 04?06:”A new poll by Time magazine found 79 percent of the 1,004 adults surveyed by phone Wednesday and Thursday favor a guest-worker program that would allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States for a limited amount of time.”

AZ 04/05:”The other issue that found wide support in Arizona was President George W. Bush’s Guest Worker Program. Sixty-two percent of all registered voters support his plan and 29 percent do not support it.”

AZ 04/06:”Forty-three percent of the state’s voters support allowing the nearly 13 million people illegally in the United States to register here and to earn U.S. citizenship if they have been in the country for several years. Another 18 percent said these immigrants should be allowed to register in a guest worker program.” Note: 26% chose to deport them or make them criminals, see results near the bottom.

)3/06 National:With the immigration debate raging in Congress and immigration supporters spilling out into the streets, the latest TIME Poll finds a lopsided majority of the American public, 72%, favor a “guest worker” program in a head-to-head match-up over a House bill that would criminalize illegal immigration. Only 1 in 4 (25%) supports the more drastic House version that would make illegals felons, allowing no illegals into the country, with no guest worker provisions. “

Are there conflicting polls? Of course, depends on how vaque the question is. I chose polls that did not hide the core question behind vaque references that required ‘interpretation’ to determine the meaning. And there are more polls out there that support the contention Tancredo’s forces are 20-30% of the population. Just check these polls out. In fact, time shows the more Tancredo Taunts the more people abandon his hard line positions.

The most interesting poll is this one back in 2003, before the Tancredo mess poisoned the air with their overheated rhetoric. It showed what was possible:”In the first survey of its kind, most Mexican immigrants said they would participate in a temporary guest-worker program similar to the one proposed by President Bush, according to a poll by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, D.C. … According to the survey, nearly three-quarters of the 4,836 Mexican immigrants polled said they would enroll in a guest-worker program such as the one outlined by Bush.”

See what we could have done. 8 Million of the 12 million here would have stepped forward and come out into the open before the far right began mucking it all up with their calls for mass deportation. That would have really reduced the number of places Al Qaeda could have hidden. But not now.

53 responses so far

53 Responses to “Denial On The Right”

  1. crosspatch says:

    “Secure the border 100% and on the day that it is certified 100% secure give unconditional citizenship(as the senate bill does) to everyone that is in the country at that time”

    The above is impossible, so I suppose what you are really after is nothing at all. The first condition (a 100% secure border) has never been done by anyone on this planet. East Germany was probably the closest to it but even that border “leaked” some. Also, offering unconditional citizenship shouldn’t be done either. People should stll have to go through the process of learning english, learning American history, and assimilating in our culture.

    You have set an impossible condition after which you would grant a ridiculous amnesty but no matter since the first condition is impossible, that amnesty wouldn’t happen. And even if it was, it would initially stop 50% of the arrival of illegals.

    A fence by itself won’t solve anything, it only reduces the problem by HALF. Why should we spend all that money when it isn’t really going to fix anything?

    Why don’t you strive for something that is actually possible and would make a difference in a real way?

  2. For Enforcement says:

    It’s hard to give up, so okay Kool Aid drinkers, I’m gonna try one more time.

    Do people want something done about immigration? 80 -20 yes
    Does the senate bill do anything toward solving the prob? 80-20 no
    Do most people seem to think the senate bill does 80-20 yes
    Does Pres Bush seem to think the senate bill does 80-20 yes
    Does the border need to be secure? 80-20 yes
    Does the senate bill do anything to secure border 80-20 no
    Do most people think the senate bill secures the border 80-20 yes
    Does Pres Bush think the senate bill secures border 80-20 yes
    Does anybody want to round up people 80-20 no
    Does everbody like to say the hard liners want to 80-20 yes
    Do they? 80-20 no
    You guys seem to think there are only two ways to look at this, there are not. 1. Enforce laws,, 2. don’t enforce laws

    and the other ways would be?

    you see, when most people are polled they are asked a loaded question like.

    Some hard liners want to hang all illegal immigrants, do you favor being more lenient? 80-20 yes

    but if they asked one like” The present senate bill is comprehensive, it allows all illegal immigrants to be called guest workers and allows them citizenship and all they have to do is sign up, are you in favor of that? 80-20 no

    How about this one. Pres. Bush is a compassionate person and is generally in favor of solving the illegal immigrant problem with as little commotion as possible. Are you in favor of this 80-20 yes

    and the senate bill does this, are you in favor of senate bill? 80-20 yes

    but, actually all the senate bill does is give unconditional amnesty and citizenship and You the taxpayer gets the bill? 80-20 no

    Even with loaded questions being the norm, I have seen no link from anybody that has an 80-20 number favoring the guest worker program.

    The highest number i’ve seen is 74% and that was when only illegal Mexicans were asked and it was only that high among them if they were put on an unconditional path to citizenship.

    So for anybody that wants to disagree, instead of ‘saying’ such and such poll says something, go ahead and link to that poll. I’m still challenging ANYBODY to show me anything over 50% among Americans. That’s just 50%? 50 five oh percent.

  3. For Enforcement says:

    “Voters don’t consider granting legal status to those already here amnesty.

    That’s when they are being mislead and told that the senate bill doesn’t grant amnesty. which it does. When they are told that granting legal status is amnesty they consider it to be amnesty. It’s a duck, it walks like one.

  4. For Enforcement says:

    Crosspatch
    The above is impossible, so I suppose what you are really after is nothing at all. The first condition (a 100% secure border) has never been done by anyone on this planet. East Germany was probably the closest to it but even that border “leaked” some. Also, offering unconditional citizenship shouldn’t be done either. People should stll have to go through the process of learning english, learning American history, and assimilating in our culture.

    I am educated enough to know that when something is certified 100%, that that is only to a mathematical certainty. It only means that when the number is rounded off, it is 100. It does not mean absolute 100. I would challenge you to argue that security into say the residential quarters of the white house is not 100% secure. Is it theoretically possible for someone that is determined get in there.
    Yes, but is it less than 1% likehood that they would make it.

    you also said”offering unconditional citizenship shouldn’t be done either.” Then why are you in favor of the senate bill? Citizenship is almost a 100% certainty with it. The only condition is if the illegal wants it. It’s up to them alone.

    Your position seems to be, well we can’t secure the border, why try?
    I’M SAYING THIS IN CAPS BECAUSE I’VE SAID IT DOZENS OF TIMES AND NOBODY HEARS IT. THE SENATE BILL DOES NOT REQUIRE ANYTHING, NOT LEARNING ENGLISH, NOT PAYNG TAXES, NOTHING, NADA, ZIP. GOT THAT?

  5. For Enforcement says:

    79% had a positive reaction to Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform speech. It was noted by the polster that more Republicans watched the speech than Democrats so the reviews might be a little to the right:

    Anybody that is in favor of doing something about the border should have been favorable to his speech.

    It’s only when you take it and analyze it do you realize, Hey I listened to that speech and he’s not really doing anything. NG troops to border? but not for enforcement. 6000, but end of next year? What’s wrong with 50,000 by end of July? It all depends on whether you want to do something or just make somebody ‘think’ you want to do something.

  6. BurbankErnie says:

    AJ, The Senate dropped the ball on Immigration reform by capitulating to the Amnesty crowd. The Senate is so far out of touch with the American people; how in the world do we elect these folks?
    Blaming the House for the Senate’s bad Bill is plain unhonest.
    Most Americans want a secure border before we discuss Amnesty.
    That point is being avoided by you.
    No more strawmen. Secure Borders. Simple.

  7. retire05 says:

    Terrye said:

    “Dowd’s memo says that an ‘internal’ RNC poll (that would indicate within the RNC) conducted by Jan Van Louhuzen finds that “overwhelming support exists for a temporary worker program. 80% of all voters 83% of Republicans and 79% of self-identified conservatives support a temporary worker program as long as immigrants pay taxes and obey the law.”

    OK? Does anyone have a problem with that statement? Because I sure the hell do. An ‘internal’ RNC poll would mean that it was taken within the ranks of the RNC. But the writer goes on to state that “80% of all voters”. So that tells us that it was not ‘internal’ if it included a poll of “all” voters. Then the writer goes on to be even more specific; “83% of Republicans”.
    I can tell you that the RNC does not do “internal” polls that include Democrat voters.

    My next question would be “what RNC members did they poll”?

    On June 6th the Texas Republican Party adopted it’s platform for the next two years (the conventions being every two years). And I quote EXACTLY from the platform that was voted on and adopted:

    ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION – No Amnesty! No How. No Way.

    With growing impatience, the American people in overwhelming numbers have asked our government to secure our borders. They now demand it and we as a party agree with the American people. Illegal aliens have, by definition, committed a criminal act. We oppose illegal immigration, amnesty in any form, or legal status for illegal immigrants. The American people remember the broken promises of 1986 and will not be misled again.
    We support:
    1. an immediate end to the current “catch and release” policy of Homeland Security
    2. siffer fines, criminal penalties, and an aggressive enforcement policy for those who knowingly employ illegal workers, and;
    3. expeditious hearing on deporting non-violent illegal immigrants held in prisons or jails;
    4. suspending automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal immigrant parents;
    4. elimination of federal funding to cities that have “sanctuary” laws prohibiting local police from identifying and reporting illegal immigrants to federal authorities
    6. empowering state and local law enforcement agencies with the authority, responsibility and resources needed to detain illegal immigrants within the course of their regular duties;
    7. the rejection of non-verifiable foreign-issued cards, such as matricula consular as valid identification for official documentation purposes;
    8. investigation and strict prosecution of agencies, businesses or persons involved in the production, distribution or acceptance of phony identification documents;
    9. elimination of day work centers;
    10. elimination of all laws requiring hospitals to give non-emergency care to illegal immigrants;
    11. elimination of social security benefits or government funding to illegal immigrants for edcuation, housing and business loans;
    12. legislation to prevent any foreign country and/or its citizens from using the judicial system of the United States to gain entrance to the U.S.;
    13. strong document verification prior to the issuance of a Texas driver’s license to anyone;
    14. the withholding of federal highway funds from any state that issues driver’s licenses to illegal aliens’
    15. aggressive prosecution of persons involved in smuggling humans across our borders.

    ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAW – We support the genuine strict and immediat enforcement of all immigration laws.

    Now it seems that no one who is in the RNC who was at the convention in June knew of any ‘internal’ poll. So it is quite obvious that the Republican Party of Texas, which BTW, has a large number of Hispanic delegates, sees the immigration situation differntly than our host here does.

    Enforcement of all immigration laws. That does not mean the laws that we might get down the road, it means the laws that are on the books now. So who are all these pollsters polling? Are they calling Texas Repubicans? It seems not. By the very platform that was voted on and adopted, the TxRP is saying “let the police and local law enforcement have the right to check legality and enforce the laws on the books. Stop the welfare and social security benefits. Stop the financial bleeding of our hospitals causing them to close. Stop funding cities that protect illegals. Stop the anchor baby practice. Stop catch and release. ”
    So again, I have to wonder, who is being polled. Has anyone on this site ever been polled? Anyone you know every been polled?
    And while AJ rants about the “far right” why does he never talk about the hate groups that are called La Raza, LULAC and other organizations that receive federal funding to preach their takeover plans for the southwest? Why does he never talk about the Hispanics who are American citizens that do not want the Shamnesty Bill but want enforcement of our current laws and the border closed to the illegal invasion? Hispanics like Andrew Ramirez, Mario Martinez and Col. Al Rodriquez.
    How many times do I have to ask; are the illegal students in the shadows? Are the illegals sitting in welfare offices in the shadows? Are the illegals at day work sites in the shadows? And will any amnesty bill bring out of the shadows those illegals who wish to do us harm?
    One other thing I would like to point out; Mexico is no friend. When an illegal kills an American police officer and then skips back across the border, Mexico will not allow extradition of that criminal. Can we trust that Mexico will be honest when it comes to background checks on illegals? Why would Mexico be honest? They are trying to get rid of these people so they can import cheaper laborers from Central America. Do you really want to bank on Mexico being honest about one of its citizens being a felon/criminal?
    Angel Resendez, a.k.a. The Railroad Killer, was executed on Tuesday night at Huntsville State Prison in Texas. He was known to have killed at least 19 people and there are those who say that he was the worst serial killer this country has ever known. He killed three people in Weimer, Texas who I knew. Mexico did not ask, it DEMANDED that we give Resendez back to them because we did not have the right to execute one of it’s citizens. This is the nation you will trust to give us the honest records of it’s criminals? The nation that says it’s citizens have a legal right to cross our border because it’s constitution does not prohibit any of it’s citizens from crossing any state border and believes that our southwest was stolen from it so it is really still part of Mexico? A nation that violates international law by allowing it’s military to make excursions across our border? A nation that gives out manuals on how to sneak into the U.S. and how to survive once they are here? A nation that instructs it’s citizens on how to collect American social welfare?
    I think those of you who chose to trust Mexico to do the right thing are delusional.

  8. AJStrata says:

    Retire05,

    You guys are in full panic mode. An internal RNC poll is a poll paid for by the RNC, it is not a poll of republicans. Geez, what lengths are you folks willing to go to deny defeat? Maybe you should quite while your behind.

  9. BurbankErnie says:

    Let’s see, Amnesty plan is dead, yet we are panicked.
    America has voted, and we want a secure border before Amnesty, yet we are panicked.
    Aj writes post after post claiming we are ruining America, yet we are panicked.
    I am not panicking.

  10. wiley says:

    The “80-20” that AJ points to is meaningless. It was a poll question in reference to the Senate bill, yes/no — do you favor a comprehensive immigration bill (implying that the senate bill was, which we know it is definitively is not), meaning secure borders, a path to citizenship, and a guest-worker program. About 80% said they favored comprehensive reform. Well, so what — it’s like asking voters if they favor a comprehensive transportation package. Of course they do. Without understanding the details of the bill or how “comprehensive” is defined, the poll question doesn’t mean much. However, a review of the many polls on immigration clearly shows that securing the borders is the priority element to implement. There has been no poll/report/finding/whatever that shows voters think a comprehensive reform has to be done all at once. If asked whether they favor a terrible bill or a phased approach, I’m sure voters would favor the incrmental option. This mess has been building for 20 years — why rush thru a terrible senate bill that could make things worse? The compromise is clearly to secure the borders first, possibly in tandem with the guest-worker program, and then to enact the plan for a path to citizenship for those already here.

  11. AJStrata says:

    Wiley,

    I pointed to numerous 80-20 and 70-30, and others came in and pointed to other polls (like the RNC poll). You know, you folks on the far right would do better if you stopped pretending reality did not exist and take responsibility for leaving our borders without any additional protection

  12. For Enforcement says:

    AJ this has your signature, but you didn’t write it did you?

    “I pointed to numerous 80-20 and 70-30, and others came in and pointed to other polls (like the RNC poll). You know, you folks on the far right would do better if you stopped pretending reality did not exist and take responsibility for leaving our borders without any additional protection”

    If you did,
    Wow, your imagination is working overtime. I’ve asked and asked for you to point to just one poll. And so far!!! zip, nada, zero. That means none. Point to just ONE. ONE. As I pointed out above, the most favorable poll you quoted to support your view stated “Some 59 percent say they oppose allowing illegal immigrants to apply for” notice that is 59 no not 80 yes.

    Retire05, did you notice how he just blew you off?
    “Retire05,

    You guys are in full panic mode. An internal RNC poll is a poll paid for by the RNC, it is not a poll of republicans. Geez, what lengths are you folks willing to go to deny defeat? Maybe you should quite while your behind. ”

    It sounds like he didn’t even read what you wrote, he may have comprehended it, but if he did he just chose to ignore it. And don’t worry about having to quit while you are way behind, at the rate AJ is going he won’t even get there. He hasn’t figured out how to get it in gear yet.

    What he replied about about your RNC poll may make sense to him, but not to me. If I were to take an internal poll of my baseball team, it wouldn’t mean that my baseball team polled some other team? Would it? So I believe an internal RNC poll would mean a poll of the members of the RNC.
    Maybe the Beltway does it differently. It is a great big Merry go round.

  13. wiley says:

    AJ,
    The senate bill does nothing to secure the borders, so I’m not sure what reality you’re in or your goofy comment on responsibility. I stand by my posting — everything I stated is accurate and is the reality. I’m not a hardliner, nor do I like the house bill. With both the house & senate bills seeming to have no chance, the only way immigration reform will get enacted in near term is with a compromised, phased approach. If you want a truly comprehensive, all-in-one bill (not the current senate bill — it does not secure the borders), then you’ll be waiting for quite a while.

  14. AJStrata says:

    Wiley,

    If you wish to debate an issue, it is best never to be caught not understanding the details of the issue. The Senate Bill had plenty of border protections and could have easily been expanded in conference.

    The committee approved more than doubling the current force of 11,300 Border Patrol agents in an effort to stem the tide of new undocumented workers arriving daily. It voted to add 2,000 agents next year and 2,400 more annually through 2011. The bill also authorizes a “virtual wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border that consists of actual fences as well as unmanned vehicles, cameras and censors.

    Please note we have nothing right now, and that is due to the hardliners in the House who wanted show off how stubborn they could be. I am impressed with their stubborness, takes a lot to leave this country open to terrorist attack in order to enact a political stunt. They have showed their worth. It is not much.

  15. retire05 says:

    Funny, the last time I was in D.C. it was not a “virtual” wall surrounding the White House. Nor is there a “virtual” wall around the Prarie Chapel Ranch. Nope, they have real fences, patrolled by armed men. Now, if the “virtual” wall is such a good idea why is it a bad idea when protecting the President? Ever seen the “virtual” wall around Area 51? I have.
    And what happened to the 2,000 Border Patrol we were supposed to get last year? Will it be like the contract Fire Fighters who fight our forest fires? When they couldn’t get enough of them, they hired Spanish speaking only fire fighters then fired the fire crew chiefs who could not speak spanish. So are we going to get “Spanish speaking only” Border Patrol?
    AJ decided to blow off my questions. I can only assume that he is not willing to address the “shadow” people that are out in full view, collecting paychecks, social welfare, attending our universities, and closing our hospitals because they use them for primary health care instead of a doctor. Why is that? If they are only here to work, and they have jobs, why can’t they pay for doctor’s visits? Nor did he address the reliance we are placing on Mexico to make sure that we do not allow felons in our nation.
    I am not “far right”. I consider myself a Constitutionalist. But I notice that those who do not agree with me, have to insult me for that very reason.

    “We believe legal immigration is in the national interest, but see illegal immigration as a threat to our long tradition of immigration and to our commitment to the rule of law”.
    These words were spoken by one of us “far righters”. Her names?
    Barbara Jordan (D-Tx)-1995

  16. For Enforcement says:

    We don’t have an approved plan because Liberal Dems don’t want one, they want confusion and blame on the Repub side and they’re getting it. It is their plan. We fell into it.

    From above;
    The committee approved more than doubling the current force of 11,300 Border Patrol agents in an effort to stem the tide of new undocumented workers arriving daily. It voted to add 2,000 agents next year and 2,400 more annually through 2011. The bill also
    authorizes a “virtual wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border that consists of actual fences as well as unmanned vehicles, cameras and censors.

    Please note we have nothing right now, and that is due to the hardliners in the House who wanted show off how stubborn they could be. I am impressed with their stubborness, takes a lot to leave this country open to terrorist attack in order to enact a political stunt. They have showed their worth. It is not much.

    But I see it differently:
    We have nothing right now because MOST people recognize the senate bill as a complete sham that is misleading enough people to cause a big rift in the Republicans. The Dems planned on the fact that if they SAID it was a comprehensive bill that almost all the Dems and a large portion of gullible republicans would swallow it and demand it as the SOLUTION. Even Pres. Bush seems to believe there is actually something in it. Unfortunately, a few Republicans actually READ the bill and immediately identified it as the SHAM UNCONDITIONAL AMNESTY FOR ALL that it is. Unfortunately the few Republicans that understand the bill have not been able to convince enough of those gullible republicans that bought it, so the desired effect of the Dems is being accomplished. The Repubs seem to be getting the blame(I see it as credit) for not getting it passed.

    That stuff that is quoted in the first paragraph above. If someone actually read the bill instead of quoting misleading sources, They would find out over how many long long years that the border patrol is ONLY AUTHORIZED, IF, funds are available, to add some more agents. The Senate bill does NOT REQUIRE them to add any. Even a casual reader of the bill would see it is completely written that way. Absolutely nothing in it is required except UNCONDITIONAL AMNESTY AND CITIZENSHIP for anyone that wants it.
    Notice in AJ’s quote where it says it ‘authorizes’ a virtual wall. It does NOT require it.
    If you don’t believe me, read it for yourself and if you can find one single sentence in it that REQUIRES improved border security, kindly point it out. I read the whole thing, and if it’s in there, I overlooked it. Musta been mighty small.
    I know Crosspatch has said it authorizes the funds for these things, but I have pointed out that ANY funds authorized have to be from the House, not the Senate. ALL budget bills have to originate in House.

  17. AJStrata says:

    Retire05,

    Your side left us exposed because you folks couldn’t grasp the concept of a virtual wall? And you want respect for that????

    Yeah, right. Can’t use modern technology and smarts, got build a ‘wall’ only. The more you folks dodge and weave the dumber this entire thing looks. We can now say we were left defenseless because the right feared immigrants becoming US citizens in 10-15 years AND they were confused by the new technology proposed by the Senate (which makes a fence/wall look as safe as screen doors on a submarine). Seems they misunderstood the word “Virtual”.

    Keep it up guys. I enjoy being handed the ammunition to finally kill off Tancredo’s Taunters and get some sanity back into this subject.

  18. For Enforcement says:

    For those that won’t do it, I have gone and lifted this one section that seems to say we will put more border patrol agents on the border and pasted it here for you. The purpose of this is to show you that the word “require” or any derivitive of it, “required” requires” is NOT in it. Also, since they wrote that little bit near the bottom about “appropriated such sums” made it an illegal bill. This fact has already been challenged and would have to be removed in committee.

    The entire bill is written this way. No requirements.

    `SEC. 5202. INCREASE IN FULL-TIME BORDER PATROL AGENTS.

    `(a) Annual Increases- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, subject to the availability of appropriations for such purpose, increase the number of positions for full-time active-duty border patrol agents within the Department of Homeland Security (above the number of such positions for which funds were appropriated for the preceding fiscal year), by–

    `(1) 2,000 in fiscal year 2006;

    `(2) 2,400 in fiscal year 2007;

    `(3) 2,400 in fiscal year 2008;

    `(4) 2,400 in fiscal year 2009;

    `(5) 2,400 in fiscal year 2010; and

    `(6) 2,400 in fiscal year 2011;

    `(b) Northern Border- In each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2011, in addition to the border patrol agents assigned along the northern border of the United States during the previous fiscal year, the Secretary shall assign a number of border patrol agents equal to not less than 20 percent of the net increase in border patrol agents during each such fiscal year.

    `(c) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to carry out this section.’.

    Now if they were serious, that first section would be written thus:

    (a) Annual Increases- The Secretary of Homeland Security will increase the number of positions for full-time active-duty border patrol agents

    Also the 14000 agents would be added this year, not thru 2011 and there would be 50,000 NG troops there in July. this year.

  19. For Enforcement says:

    Your side left us exposed because you folks couldn’t grasp the concept of a virtual wall? And you want respect for that????

    like retire05 said, when they tried to drive that truck into the white house a few years ago, Security there couldn’t grasp a ‘virtual’ wall either and they built an actual wall. And they didn’t build it when and if funds became available, they built it immediately.

    It just depends on IF you want security. If you want it, you want a wall if you don’t a ‘virtual’ and/or no wall is just fine. they both accomplish the same thing.

  20. For Enforcement says:

    AP: Guard to Miss Border Mission Deadline

    AND WE’RE SUPPOSED TO THINK SOMEONE IS SERIOUS ABOUT SECURING THE BORDER?

    Jun 29 4:39 PM US/Eastern
    Email this story

    By AARON C. DAVIS
    Associated Press Writer

    SACRAMENTO, Calif.

    The Bush administration has been unable to muster even half of the 2,500 National Guardsmen it planned to have on the Mexican border by the end of June.