Posted on 02/02/2006 1:50:05 PM PST by FerdieMurphy
Two years ago, Border Patrol agents began to voice what many believed were legitimate concerns about "armed incursions" into the United States from Mexico-based assailants. Now these invasions occur routinely putting federal agents' and law enforcement officers' lives in jeopardy.
They reported that heavily armed Mexican army units and federal police, called federales, had infiltrated US territory and fired upon them, in some cases because –- federal agents would later discover –- Mexican drug lords had put prices on the heads of American law-enforcement agents strung out along the border. Where was the outrage by our political leaders and the mainstream media over this blatant violation of our national sovereignty?
Many of our political leaders and most in the news media ignore these violent attacks on our national sovereignty while more and more Americans are saying, "This has got to stop!"
While tens of millions of Americans watched and listened to President George Bush's much anticipated State of the Union speech, many were disappointed at the lack of emphasis on the biggest threat to national security today: unmitigated illegal immigration and porous US borders.
President Bush continues to maintain a contradictory and perilous position regarding illegal immigration, claiming his plan does not amount to amnesty. Standard American language usage contravenes the President’s specious explanation in that his plan clearly overlooks the offense of illegal aliens who entered this country in violation of law and would not seek prosecution; a full amnesty within contextual and explicit meaning.
The current position of the Administration on illegal immigration is demonstrative of a flawed public and enforcement policy which undermines national security by encouraging future mass illegal immigration. Additionally, the intention of the President sends contradictory signals to agencies tasked with securing our borders as well as police commanders across the nation.
In a recent Washington Times article in which the President attempted to justify his position on illegal immigration, the President stated the current immigration situation is a “bureaucratic nightmare” and the Border Patrol is “overstressed” due to “people [illegal immigrants] streaming across [the border].”
Further evidence of the Administration’s contradictory position on illegal immigration are statements made by political appointees charged with protecting the public. In September of 2004, in an effort to build support for the Administration’s Amnesty proposal, Asa Hutchinson, former Homeland Security Undersecretary, publicly stated it is “not realistic” to arrest or deport illegal aliens already in the country.
More recently, budget problems within the Department of Homeland Security further called into question the priorities of the Administration as agents are forced to release illegal aliens and curtail operations due to ongoing financial constraints. These circumstances all contribute to a “bureaucratic nightmare” and “overstressed” Border Patrol.
The position of the Administration on illegal immigration has had a profound and negative effect not only on law enforcement operations, but also border patrol agent morale. The impact on agent morale was measured in a survey conducted by independent Hart Research Associates during the summer of 2004.
The survey found a majority of agents were demoralized and were not getting the full support needed to protect the country, clearly indicating a conflict between the view of professional field agents and the Administration in regard to national domestic security. The Administration’s current immigration plans will exacerbate, not alleviate, that problem.
For those tuning in to hear President Bush address the problems faced as a result of rampant illegal immigration and Mexican military incursions, the speech was a major disappointment.
Negroponte: Al-Qaida Planning Attacks
Terror Expert: Groups Imitating Al-Qaida Multiply
Rumsfeld: Terror Threat Greater Today
This is going to kill the GOP in terms of conservative turnout in November.
One question, and not in defense of anyone : what did Clinton's border policies do; thrill people? Did you approve of it? They were just as or even more porous during the Clinton administration. Where were the complaints then?
Well, everything changed on 911.
Nope...it's get on the stick Congress. Bush submitted his proposal in Jan 2004 and again in Nov 2004 and Congress declared it DOA both times. From what I have heard, Cheney has also been lobbying them to pass something. If they don't like Bush's proposal, then it is up to them to come up with one they can all live with. That is where you need to direct your rants people...
I'm just POed at GWB!
As another pointed out 9-11 happened.
If you don't like the Bush policy on letting illegals become citizens then do something about it.
Its free.
Join www.NumbersUSA.com
We are the nations premier grass roots anti illegal immigration group. We phone fax and email our representatives.
We got the law out of the House that was hailed as a surprise victory for America.
The next battle is the Senate. They have it in their minds that they will pass an amnesty program.
I am willing to bet that when they get 175 thousand phone calls, faxes and emails every day (while they consider this legislation in March) that their minds will be changed too.
Join us and have a ring side seat in the fight that you participate in with your voice as a citizen!
See my post #9, your frustration is misdirected. Whether we believe he is right or wrong in his proposal, we have to give him credit for at least trying to do something, that is better than Congress has done.
No it didn't, because I distinctly remember the "close the borders and build a wall" crowd complaining that porous borders were the REASON for 9/11: "If the borders had been sealed, those Arab terrorists wouldn't have been in this country to perpetrate it" {paraphrasing]
Baloney. President Bush has at his disposal a whole body of existing current law. If he really wanted to try to do something, he could try enforcing it.
Bush deserves scorn and derision, not credit, for his dishonest machinations to abolish our only homeland in favor of a merged state with Mexico.
We just dont want any more. Get it? How tough is that to grasp.? Who gives a damn about cheap labor if it costs our society billions in government benefits over the life of our new "citizens". How about a deal- they learn english, they wait in line and then they sign a waiver to ANY government welfare program over their lives?
Waitaminute....isn't Denver Colorado the city which has an Hispanic majority?
As with Democrats, their definition of the powers of the Legislative and Executive branches differs according to their personal gripes.
Duplicative thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1570214/posts
I see. So YOUR solution is to "do nothing", so you've rendered your own posts to meaningless venom.
What is your point?
George Bush took an oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the land. He is the chief EXECUTIVE. It is his constitutional duty to enforce the laws and he has no right to pick and choose those laws he wants to enforce and to ignore those he doesn't personally like. This is what our self-governing system is all about. It is the people's will as expressed through our representatives in legislation that is supposed to decide these matters.
By his ongoing failure to enforce the democratically enacted laws against illegal immigration President Bush has shown his contempt both for democratic self-governance and the American people. His arrogant refusal to perform his constitutional duty should be met with the one remedy provided by the Constitution to protect the people against the usurpation of their legislative authority -- impeachment. It is now well past time for Congress to assert the rights of the American people to self-governemnt
Good luck with that impeachment - you do realize that "illegal immigration" is not even in the top ten most important issues for most Americans, right?
Yes, I agree. This could be the GOP's Waterloo, if they follow the President down this path. And at the moment, it appears they are doing exactly that.
No, it isn't. Many Conservatives recognize that this is a complicated issue. Porous borders, guest workers, and illegals are different issues. None of which can be corrected with slogans as so many "conservatives" want.
Build it NOW! Build it BIG!!
Beer Makes You Drunk - details at 11
Where is the Congress in all this??? Congress is the government body that writes the legislation and allocates the dollars, and they are the ones that have sat on their hands throughout this illegal invasion.
I see. So YOUR solution is to "do nothing"
That's obviously not what he said. Minimal reading comprehension is all that's required here.
Yes or no: Is making no change to the current policy better than making a bad change?
Please, provide a single example of anyone on this thread, or anyone on this forum for that matter, who's opined that slogans will correct the problem.
Well said.
Good, so maybe you can answer the challenge I posed at #33. I'd wager that we won't be hearing much "speakinout" on it from the one I posed it to. These types are usually all bark and no bite.
What do you think the solution is? Don't tell me that building a fence is it, or that rounding up all illegals is. Both of those are nothing more than slogans.
And I see those posted so many times that I can't believe that you really want me to quote all of them. I'll quote a bunch if that will satisfy you, but I suspect it won't.
So you've redefined the word "slogan" to cover up for your lie. Smooth.
Bush Jr. amnesty betrayal schemes = much larger number of such migrants in the USA, de facto merger with Mexico = very much worse.
When the choice is between nothing and greater harm, nothing is a valid option, and unfortunately until weasel immigration leftists like Ted Kennedy and George Bush are no longer calling the shots, that's as good a choice as we're going to get.
This isn't complicated.
Failed President Bump.
And it's fun.
Where does the money for fences, additional border guards and equipment come from?Next,your assignment is to define the following word:
Appropriations
And of course there always has to be an essay question : )
Define the Constitutional basis for the word above and name the person or persons responsible.I await your answers.
Yet even Clinton was able to do a far better job of interior enforcement then Bush with less money. And Congress authorized 2000 new Border Patrol Agents last year and Bush only requested 210 in his budget. So don't tell me he is trying to do something. The expansion of the Border Patrol we got this year was shoved down his unwilling throat.
1,700 Border Patrol Agents Assigned. Dec. 7, 2005, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff announced the fiscal year 2006 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Border Patrol agent deployment schedule. An additional 1,700 CBP Border Patrol agents will be assigned to the southwest border as follows: Arizona, 643 agents, Texas, 452 agents, California, 352 agents, and New Mexico, 253 agents.
Let me review it for you. In December of 2004, the Congress passed the 911 Security Bill which, against the objections of the President who also opposed the RealID Act provisions, included authorization for 10,000 new Border Patrol Agents to be added in increments of 2000 per year starting in 2006. After initially fighting these provisions Bush eventually saw that they could not be defeated and eventually praised them after he got the RealID Act stripped out. That also had to be shoved down his unwilling throat a couple of months later.
But, less than 2 months later he submitted a proposed budget requesting only 210.
This really pissed off the Congress and they passed a budget which restored the number back to 2000.
In about May of 2005, as part of the Iraq War Supplemental Funding Bill, again against the objections of the President, Robert Byrd got funding for about 700 of the 1700 Border Patrol Agents you are citing as a Bush accomplishment. Byrd's Amendment passed with unanimous support from every single Democrat Senator and a few Republican conservatives.
In October of 2005, funding for the remaining 1000 of the 1700 Border Patrol Agents was passed. This was 300 short of the 2000 authorized and budgeted by Congress a few months earlier but 1500 greater than the number requested by the Whitehouse which spent much of the summer whining about how it did not have the capacity to train that many agents.
I believe I have a reasonable understanding of the appropriations process in theory and an excellent understanding of how it worked with respect to expanding the Border Patrol last year. You on the other hand are trying to give the President credit for an accomplishment that he obstructed every step of the way. It is as ridiculous as giving President Clinton credit for welfare reform after he vetoed it three times.
Thank you for posting that accurate outline. Yes, any legislation to correct the problem has been fought by the WH. That's probably why no one is hearing about this bill.
There is ONE repub in the Senate who has introduced a very good bill and NO ONE is paying attention. It's worth the read and worth getting some news out about it. Go here and type in the bill # S. 2117.http://thomas.loc.gov
And ask your senators why they haven't co sponsored this bill.
By Mr. INHOFE:
S . 2117 . A bill to clarify the circumstances under which a person born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, to provide for criminal penalties for forging Federal documents, to establish a National Border Neighborhood Watch Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
[snip]--- Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced S . 2117 , which is a bill engaging our Nation to fight concerning our right to control entry. It is legislation that covers many aspects of the problem we are having on our very porous borders. One part of this is utilizing retired law enforcement officers. As many people know, national law enforcement officers have to retire at age 57. We learned of their availability after 9/11 when the Transportation Safety Administration and our office was inundated with calls from these brave law enforcement officers who are retired, saying that they wanted to participate in this activity, and they are willing to do it for costs. The legislation I have introduced does include the very sophisticated type of a fence that goes along the border between Mexico and the United States and also with an army of people who can join those who have already demonstrated very clearly that if we have enough people down there, we will be able to secure our borders.
There were plenty of complaints, go back and take a look. But then, like now, too many repubs didn't want to hear it.
It's hard to believe, but Clinton did more to fix it than Bush. He hired border patrol and started the fence in San Diego and actually punished illegal employers.
Worksite arrests of illegal alien workers: 1997: 17,554
1998: 13,914
1999: 2,849
2000: 953
2001: 735
2002: 485
2003: 445
2004: 159
2005: 81 (First 7 months) Sources: GAO, "Immigration Enforcement: Weaknesses Hinder Employment Verification and Worksite Enforcement Efforts," August 2005. http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/051101_nd_table.htm#t1
HR 418 -- A National ID Bill Masquerading As Immigration Reform by Rep. Ron Paul
Maybe this is why he wants the line item veto?
And it looks like the Senate was waffling as well:
July 15, 2005 - The Senate backed away from its 2004 pledge to hire 2,000 more Border Patrol agents and fund 8,000 new detention beds for illegal aliens in fiscal 2006. The intelligence overhaul bill passed by Congress and signed into law in last December called for 2,000 new agents and 8,000 new detention beds each year for the next five years in order to meet the threat posed by illegal aliens. But in mid-July, the Senate voted on amendments to the Department of Homeland Security spending bill, providing funds for only 1,000 more agents and 2,240 more detention beds in fiscal 2006.
And you must also remember that the President's budget is a proposal, not a mandate, and Congress has the ultimate authority for funding. IOW, you may not have liked what he proposed to fund or not fund, but that does not absolve Congress of their ultimate responsibility on the issue of funding new border agents.
Very true. And Congress has done their job over the President's objections.
But your Post 42 was in response to my Post 16 to your Post 11 and if you trace this conversation backwards you will see that we have now come full circle and you are now making my original point for me.
It is not the President's job to propose legislation to fix the immigration problem. The only role in the legislative process that the Constitution gives the President is either signing it or vetoing it. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the President from making legislative proposals but it is not one of his primary or even defined Constitutional duties.
But the Constitution does give the President a mandated duty to secure the borders and to enforce laws enacted by Congress. And to paraphrase (and twist) your words above: the President may not have liked the laws passed by Congress, but that does not absolve him of the ultimate responsibility to enforce them.
The President has recently argued that the Constitution gives him the inherent authority to do the NSA wiretaps and that he did not need legislative authorization from Congress to take those steps to protect the American people. I agree with him on that point. The Constitution also gives the President responsibility for securing the borders and he has the inherent authority (and indeed a duty) under the Constitution to accomplish that task with or without authorizations from Congress. He could deploy the National Guard to the Border for that purpose tomorrow on his own Constitutional authority.
Actually, as can be seen here (PDF file), he did very much support the REAL ID Act.
This incidentally blows out of the water the whole theory that Bush is soft on illegal entry because he wants to attract Hispanic votes. He's soft on illegal entry because he's committed to turning the Americas into an EU-style superstate. And as that Ron Paul column you linked to indicates, the REAL ID Act is a step in that direction because it provides for, among other things, the sharing of U.S. driver's license data with Canada and Mexico.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.