Bush's Disconnect on Illegal Immigration

WND.com ^ | 07-10-06 | Farah, Joseph

[Theodore R.]

Bush's disconnect on illegal immigration

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: July 10, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

"We cannot kick people out who have been here for awhile."

That's what President Bush said last week.

And he means it.

That is his policy toward those who have broken into our country, defied our immigration laws, cheapened our way of life and driven a stake through the heart of what it means to be an American.

This is amnesty, no matter what the president says.

If we "can't kick people out who have been here for awhile," then we have no alternative but to forgive and forget they broke the law.

What other possibility is there? How else can one define amnesty?

By making this ludicrous, untrue declaration, Bush has once again waved the white flag of surrender to the hordes who continue to invade our country. He has thrown out the welcome mat for more illegal entry.

Though no statistics are yet available, you can be sure this sign of weakness in leadership was a great encouragement to those still seeking to break into America. Every time this guy opens his mouth on this issue, more illegals make their way across the Rio Grande seeing what could be their last chance to get in, what could be the last wave of an open-door policy by the U.S.

Bush is a lame duck, and he doesn't care. He doesn't care what continued illegal immigration will do to his country. He doesn't care what it will do to his legacy. He doesn't care what it will do to his party in November and in 2008.

He's serving some other master. He's got some other agenda. He's carrying out his father's promise to usher America into a New World Order.

Can I ask some simple questions? What does it mean that we can't kick out people who have been here for awhile? Why is that? What does "for awhile" mean?

Where does Bush get off making such a statement? He was elected and sworn into office to enforce the law of the land. The law of the land is clear on what happens to lawbreakers. They are punished. Those who break immigration laws are deported. There are no special provisions in the law for those who have been here "for awhile," whatever that means.

How does he get away with this kind of trash talk?

I understand he is speaking his mind. I understand he is advocating a viewpoint. But when the president's viewpoint runs contrary to the law of the land, there is no question that he is obligated to enforce the laws, not ignore them, not subvert them, not undermine them.

If Bush wants to change the laws, he is welcome to try. But while he remains president, he is sworn to execute the current laws – whether he likes them or not.

So far, Bush has found little support among the people for his promotion of amnesty. Yet he continues to promote it. Again, whatever his objectives, he is welcome to try. But he defies the Constitution, the Congress, his oath of office, the rule of law and the will of the people when he refuses to enforce the law.

Bush is recklessly irresponsible on immigration. He's like a spoiled child who refuses to do the right thing simply because he has staked out a position against it.

He has no credibility on his primary mission as president – protecting the American people and defending the homeland – as he continues to promote the idea that anyone and everyone is welcome in the U.S.

Bush's behavior can no longer be confused with political tone deafness. He's got an agenda he is promoting. It is not a traditional American agenda. It is an internationalist agenda. It is a multinational corporate agenda. It is an elitist agenda.

It has never been more obvious than it is today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Theodore R.]

Farah says that GWB is not enforcing immigration laws with which he disagrees. Al Smith said in 1928 that he would enforce prohibition while working for its repeal. See the difference.

[conservativecorner]

Let me quote a great American for you:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

[Vision]

That is his policy toward those who have broken into our country, defied our immigration laws, cheapened our way of life and driven a stake through the heart of what it means to be an American

Yes

[conservativecorner]

"Where does Bush get off making such a statement? He was elected and sworn into office to enforce the law of the land. The law of the land is clear on what happens to lawbreakers. They are punished. Those who break immigration laws are deported. There are no special provisions in the law for those who have been here "for awhile," whatever that means."

Ditto Mr. Farah!

[sine_nomine]

Bush is one reason the No Mexican Left Behind bill was not laughed out of the Senate. Instead it passed.

[Wolfie]

He was elected and sworn into office to enforce the law of the land.

He, or any other politician, can do whatever he can get away with. We The People don't seem to care much anymore.

[conservativecorner]

They are even speaking to radical groups. Does anything more need to be said?

Karl Rove Courting Radical, Racist Mexican Group
July 10, 2006
Vox Populi, Jim Kouri
by Jim Kouri, CPP

Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s political advisor, and Senator Sam Brownback (R-TX), are planning to meet with the the left-wing Mexican group La Raza this week.

La Raza is considered by many to be a radical racist group promoting hatred towards the “Gringo.” In fact, La Raza means “The Race.”

Former President Bill Clinton heads the list of speakers for the annual meeting of La Raza’s national council. The Rev. Jesse Jackson will appear on a panel. Observers say they expect to see the likes of Clinton and Jackson meeting with a racist group of Mexicans, but they are surprised that two supposed conservative Republicans would give the group credibility by meeting with them.

Some Washington insiders believe that President Bush is continuing to make overtures towards Latino groups that advocate open borders and that many in the Republican Party see this as an opportunity to appeal to illegal aliens thereby garning a larger share of the Hispanic vote.

“While attempting to court the Hispanic population, the GOP appears to be willing to get into bed with a Marxist, racist bunch,” said Mike Baker, a GOP political analyst.

While the US Senate’s so-called amnesty bill is regarded as being “dead in the water,” the President and several GOP senators continue to work with liberals in the Democrat Party to get some of the provisions in the senate bill passed by the staunch conservatives in the House of Representatives.

However, critics are disturbed that a senior Bush Administration official would meet with the group La Raza — a group recognized by many as radical and racist.

These critics also see the irony of GOP members of the House holding “field” hearings with Americans about illegal aliens, border security, and terrorism, while members of the Bush White House are meeting with a group that advocates the return of several US states to Mexico as well as completely open borders with legal status for all.

Angelica Salas, a La Raza leader, in their literature discussing the 12 million illegal aliens, most of whom are Mexican, said, “We will be working to turn those 12 million into new voters by 2008.”

Perhaps that’s what got Rove out to Los Angeles: twelve million new voters — illegal voters.

[conservativecorner]

From Polipundit this morning:

When Bill Clinton Provides Praise, Stop And THINK!!!


Another warning sign on why the Reid-Kenndy Illegal Alien Bill is bad law:

Former President Bill Clinton praised President Bush on Saturday for supporting reforms that would allow millions of illegal immigrants to seek citizenship but said the debate in Congress is being fomented by Republicans who want to divide America.

“I’m proud of him for doing it and I thanked him for doing it,” he said of Bush during a “Cafe con Clinton” breakfast speech to the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza, the nation’s largest Hispanic civil rights advocacy group.

[Spiff]

IBTOBL!!!

(Stats from the DHS 2004 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Analysis is mine.)

Employer Investigation Efforts of U.S. Immigration Authorities:

Fiscal Year	Worksite Arrests	Notices of Intent to Fine
1993	7,630	1,302
1994	7,554	1,063
1995	10,014	1,056
1996	14,164	1,019
1997	17,554	865
1998	13,914	1,023
1999	2,849	417
2000	953	178
2001	735	100
2002	485	53
2003	445	162
2004	159	3

The average annual worksite arrests under Clinton was 9,329 arrests. The average annual worksite arrests under President Bush is 456. This is a 95 percent reduction in average annual worksite arrests under President Bush.

The average annual notices of intent to fine employers of illegal aliens under Clinton was 865. The average under President Bush is 79.5. This is a 90 percent reduction in average annual notices of intent to fine employers of illegal aliens.

And then there is 2004 where, under President Bush, only 3 notices of intent to fine employers of illegal aliens were done. 3!! But that was President Bush's worst year. Let's compare best years then.

Under Clinton his best year for Worksite Arrests was 1997 with 17,554 reported. President Bush's best year was 2001 with 735 worksite arrests reported. This is a 99.7 percent reduction in worksite arrests under President Bush when comparing best years.

Clinton Presidency, Total Aliens Expelled:
1993 1,285,952
1994 1,074,781
1995 1,364,688
1996 1,643,108
1997 1,555,116
1998 1,743,273
1999 1,755,754
2000 1,861,933
Total over 8 years: 12,284,605
Average Annual Total Aliens Expelled: 1,535,575

Bush Presidency, Total Aliens Expelled:
2001 1,432,061
2002 1,084,661
2003 1,076,483
2004 1,238,319
Total over 4 years: 4,831,524
Average Annual Total Aliens Expelled: 1,207,881

The average annual total of aliens expelled under President Bush is 327,694 LESS than the average under President Clinton. That is a 21.3 percent reduction in aliens expelled compared between Clinton and President Bush.

Deportable Aliens located in non-border sectors (interior enforcement):
Clinton presidency, last four years:
1997 44,246
1998 39,096
1999 42,010
2000 32,759
Total: 158,111

Bush presidency, first four years:
2001 30,496
2002 25,501
2003 26,492
2004 21,113
Total: 103,602

Total deportable aliens located in interior sectors during the first four years of the Bush presidency represents a 34.4 percent drop compared to the previous four years - the last four years of the Clinton presidency.

Deportable Aliens Located:
Clinton Presidency first four years:
1993 1,327,261
1994 1,094,719
1995 1,394,554
1996 1,649,986
Total: 5,466,520

Clinton Presidency last four years:
1997 1,536,520
1998 1,679,439
1999 1,714,035
2000 1,814,729
Total: 6,744,723

Bush Presidency first four years:
2001 1,387,486
2002 1,062,279
2003 1,046,422
2004 1,241,089
Total: 4,737,276

Total deportable aliens located dropped by 29.7 percent in the first four years of the Bush Presidency compared to the previous four years - the last four years of the Clinton Presidency.

[seasoned traditionalist]

He was elected and sworn into office to enforce the law of the land. The law of the land is clear on what happens to lawbreakers. They are punished. Those who break immigration laws are deported. There are no special provisions in the law for those who have been here "for awhile," whatever that means.

Bush is recklessly irresponsible on immigration. He's like a spoiled child who refuses to do the right thing simply because he has staked out a position against it.

He has no credibility on his primary mission as president – protecting the American people and defending the homeland – as he continues to promote the idea that anyone and everyone is welcome in the U.S.

Bush's behavior can no longer be confused with political tone deafness. He's got an agenda he is promoting. It is not a traditional American agenda. It is an internationalist agenda. It is a multinational corporate agenda. It is an elitist agenda.

It has never been more obvious than it is today.

Just finished reading this and you save me the trouble of posting it.

This is so "right on."

Like W and voted reluctantly (lesser of two evils) for him based upon number of his positions in 04, including immigration.

Don't know if his position is based on personal beliefs or he is getting bad advice from those who believe this course of action will result in more Hispanic votes. NOT!

[mnehring]

Just to counteract the Blame Bush First mentality-

The trend you posted is obvious, but the reason many attribute to it (President Bush) is incorrect. A lot of people are falling into the old statistical fallacy that correlation equals coordination (ie, Bush was elected in 2000 = drop in immigration enforcement). This is a fallacy of both logic and statistics.

What did happen during this time period that directly effected immigration enforcement? Let's look...

Clinton signed the following laws into place.

(INA § 203(b)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)) - This law allows foreign nationals- even those who entered illegally, to request/obtain green cards as soon as they are 'caught'. What does this mean? It means that if caught and if they haven't committed a felony (remember, entering the country illegally is only a misdemeanor), they can simply say they would like to apply for a 'green card'-
This law was originally intended to help 'highly qualified' foreign nationals who want to get work permits easier, but the loophole is that the alien (legal or illegal) must be given the opportunity to prove they meet the qualification.

No, most illegals don't qualify for this visa waiver, but, by the time this is 'proven' they have fallen off the radar.

Worst of all is the The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA). Under this law, deportation can be suspended if the illegal alien can prove that they have been in the US 'for a considerable period of time' and has 'good moral character'. Illegal aliens who fall under this are given the opportunity to apply for whatever work visa or asylum they may work for.

Is this an excuse to why something hasn't been done legislatively- No? this is simply trying to clear up the real causation of this statistical drop in enforcement.

But what about employers, why aren't we acting against them.. well, thank Clintoon again...

A Clinton era law (INA 274B) made it illegal for employers to ask an employee if the information they provided is 'valid', instead, as long as the employer has an I9, valid information or not, they cannot be prosecuted because they are not responsible for validating the information on the I9.

Basically, if an employer questions an employee 'if they are legal' or if they are providing false ID, they could be sued for 'unfair employment practices'

Sec. 274B. [8 U.S.C. 1324b] (1996)

(a) Prohibition of Discrimination Based on National Origin or Citizenship Status.-

(1) General rule.-It is an unfair immigration-related employment practice for a person or other entity to discriminate against any individual (other than an unauthorized alien, as defined in section 274A(h)(3)) with respect to the hiring, or recruitment or referral for a fee, of the individual for employment or the discharging of the individual from employment-

(A) because of such individual's national origin, or

(B) in the case of a protected individual (as defined in paragraph (3)), because of such individual's citizenship status.

http://www.uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/slb/slb-1/slb-20/slb-8468?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm




It is good to note and complain about the downward trend, but don't fall for bad causation assumptions.

[massadvj]

"We cannot kick people out who have been here for awhile."

One wonders whether this applies to other federal laws as well. For example, we cannot prosecute people who have not paid their taxes in a while. We cannot go after drug dealers who have been selling for a while. We cannot confiscate assault weapons from collectors who have held them for a while. And so on. GWB rationalizes that time innoculates criminals from justice. I realize there may be a statute of limitations for certain crimes, but I don't think that is what GWB is referring to in this case.

[truthkeeper]

If Bush wants to change the laws, he is welcome to try. But while he remains president, he is sworn to execute the current laws – whether he likes them or not.

Damn straight.

[jetson]

We have non screened possible criminal types or child molesters sneaking into the country. We have illegals carrying TB and other infectious diseases into the US. We have illegals stealing social security numbers in the US. We have illegals filling our prisons and bleeding our medical system. One day or five years makes no difference. GET RID OF THIS NATIONAL THREAT AND TELL THEM TO DO IT LEGALLY OR ROT IN MEXICO. DO YOUR JOB!

[Ouderkirk]

We cannot kick people out who have been here for awhile."

Why not? They are not citizens nor are they here legally. They are trespassers.

by Bush's logic I can't have the bum who breaks into my vacation home and sets up there while I'm away for the winter areested or even removed.

[NRA1995]

by Bush's logic I can't have the bum who breaks into my vacation home and sets up there while I'm away for the winter areested or even removed.

Nor can we arrest people who have been committing murder or rape for a while....

[Reagan Man]

George W.Bush has always favored liberal reform of America's immigration policy. Bush wants a liberal guest worker program and a path to citizenship. Over the last 5-1/2 years Bush has done practically nothing to secure our borders, while taking NO actions to enforce employer sanctions. Even after 9-11, Bush did nothing. Bush`s final objective is amnesty for all illegals. Bottomline. Cheap labor and pandering for possible Hispanic votes is what has driven Bush`s immigration policy.

[ClaireSolt]

Sit back and watch the whole drama. Bush is doing what he needs to do to keep this issue front and center and moving. Meanwhile, the solutions keep moving more and more to the right. If he had taken a hard right position, the senate would have balked and the issue would be dead. He's a much better politician than many realize, and there are many here who have no idea how to get what they want politically.

[standingfirm]

An email I received today:


> > >"Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country

> > >protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of

> > >illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the U.S. might protect its own

> > >borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay

indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

> > >

> > >Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in

> > >your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds

> > >and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I've done all

> > >the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when

> > >broke into your house)."

> > >

> > >According to the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must add

> > >Me to your family's insurance plan and provide other benefits to me and to my

> > >family (my husband will do your yard work because he too is hard- working

> > >and honest, except for that breaking in part). If you try to call the police

> > >or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying

> > >signs that proclaim my right to be there. It's only fair, after all, because you

> > >have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm

> > >hard-working and honest ... um, except for ... well, you know.

> > >

> > >And what a deal it is for me!! I live in your house, contributing only a

> > >fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it

> > >without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being anti-

> > >housebreaker.

> > >

> > >Did I miss anything? Does this sound reasonable to you? If it does, grab a

> > >sign and go picket something. If this sounds insane to you, call your

> > >senators and enlighten them because they are stumbling in the darkness right now

> > >and really need your help."