Posted on 06/11/2007 8:24:08 AM PDT by nonsporting
President Bush insists if we just shut up, blindly listen to him and support his so-called "comprehensive immigration reform plan," we can solve the problem "once and for all."
I have a better idea.
Since Bush has, for nearly seven years, deliberately, consciously and overtly refused to uphold his sworn constitutional duty to execute and administer the duly enacted border and immigration laws already on the books, he should be disqualified from participating in any further negotiations regarding new border and immigration laws.
Doesn't that make sense?
Why would we turn to a scofflaw president, one who, out of some misguided ideological conviction, habitually and repeatedly reneged on his oath of office, with regard to immigration issues, to solve a problem he himself exacerbated beyond anyone's ability to imagine or comprehend?
I think this is a very important principle upon which all Americans should stand.
On this issue, Bush betrayed America. He undermined the Constitution. He violated his oath of office. He forsook his sworn duty. His reckless policies of non-enforcement of the law of the land contributed massively to the crisis the nation faces.
He must simply not be allowed to participate in creating new laws designed to clean up his own mess.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Looking for Big Picture. Not here.
Maybe Joseph Farah should run for President. (/sarcasm) ;)
The most schizophrenic administration in history.
Taking Jihad to the Jihadists in Iraq was brilliant.
Opening up the border to the Jihadists (does anybody really believe they won’t be part of the stampede?) and throwing good BP agents in prison for long sentences for doing their jobs is incredibly evil or stupid (I don’t know which).
A real Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, this president of ours.
Best description to date.
I assume Farah also wants to disqualify others such as Ted Kennedy.
The U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted the agents said the man they were chasing didn’t actually have a gun, shooting him in the back violated his civil rights, the agents didn’t know for a fact that he was a drug smuggler, and they broke Border Patrol rules about discharging their weapons and preserving a crime scene.
And the defense..........
How cozy was Border Patrol with smuggler?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54199
Defending our borders is the minimum we ask of a President. If Bush can't do that, he has deserted his base - and the country.
If Bush can’t do that, he has deserted his base - and the country
Yawnssssssssss
No one disqualified Reagan from the debate when he allowed 5 million illegals amnesty.
Sounds like he should be impeached?
On this issue, Bush betrayed America. He undermined the Constitution. He violated his oath of office.
The truth is we could make the same statement about previous Admin’s including Ronald Reagan’s,however GW has made tearing the southern border down a priority and US citizens don’t like it !!!
The bill that was introduced, and now lies moribund in the Senate, was far too ambitious an undertaking when it was first brought up. By trying to provide an appeal to people who were totally against some of its provisions, by adding other provisions that were totally unacceptable to those who were in favor of the first set of provisions, then offering no way to bridge these differences, doomed the bill from the first.
The bill should be separated into its constituent parts, and each part considered individually and on its own merits, not lumped as a rider on the part that could gain favor with one faction or another.
The rationalization that the bill could, or should, be passed by a rushed vote taken late at night, makes the policy that recommended its quick adoption somewhat suspect, if only because it establishes and perpetuates the belief tht some law is better than no law.
But it is not as if there were no existing law concerning every provision of this bill. No law means anything, if there is no will to enforce it. Why pass another law that will simply be ignored in the future?
Apparently President Bush differs from the authors opinion. So who, I wonder, does the author propose to “debate” with?
Single issue immigration hacks have been chanting so loudly on this for 6 years, and when an actual debate comes to face them, they simply disqualify any who disagree with them.
WHO does that sound like?
Wishful thinking. Bush is president for another year and a half unless the Democrats impeach him, and if they did, it wouldn’t be for this.
The best we can do for the next year and a half is to block this bill, but putting the pressure on congress and persuading them that if they vote for it, they will be thrown out of office in disgrace in the next election.
Then the next step is to elect someone who will enforce the law, for the first time in about 20 years. It’s not just Bush, it’s not just clinton, this goes back to Jimmy Carter and before.
The only hope of doing anything about it is to convince congress, both Democrat and Republican, that Americans want the law enforced, and to elect a president with the resolve to do it.
It’s not complicated. First and foremost, we need to punish anyone who employs illegals. Second, we need to cut off all government aid. Third, we need to cut off federal aid to states and localities that provide “sanctuary” to aliens and other benefits such as free schooling, instate college tuition rates not available to legal citizens from other states, and free healthcare beyond real emergencies.
The blacks and the unions have as much to lose by amnesty as anyone else, and if the Democrats don’t want to stand up for these people, then the Republicans should offer to do so. Legal hispanics, too, have much to lose by this flood of lawbreakers into the country.
We need a strong president who is pledged to protect our country. And we need a congress that is willing to back him. That is what we need to work for. In the meantime, the most vital thing we can do is to kill any and all immigration bills that point toward amnesty in any way, shape, or form, regardless of noble sounding provisions that will never be enforced.
This article is so over the top;, it is useless.
Is this the same see nothing, do nothing policy that has been passed down from Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and now Bush Jr? Last chart I saw he hasn’t allowed anymore than the previous administrations.
It is heartbeaking to hear that Ramos has lost 40 ponds (totally beyond Dachau!} and has been suffering in isolation with broken vertebrae for months!!!Bush and Sutton and Cordine ought to be paying the Ramos, Compean, Hernandez, and the latest border patrol agent who merely reported a typo on a document that was enabling him to adopt a sister’s children and was thrown into prison by Sutton!!!
The sad part about this whole border agent issue is that it was a jury of their peers that convicted and sentenced them.
And he half-[butt]ed the part he got right...
Well if some that are posting this anti-Bush mantra are sincere in their beliefs, that’s exactly what they should be asking for impeachment. They will invoke Reagan’s name with breathless reverence (justifiably so) but fail to recognize that Reagan had a fairly similar view of immigration that Dubya does.
I do not agree with the President’s position on this issue. But in order to understand why he’s doing what he’s doing you have to understand the mindset. For whatever reason, Bush is NOT looking at the borders as a homeland security issue. He should be, but clearly he’s not. Instead his motivation for his polices grows from his core belief in free trade. Remember, Bush looks at things in the long term. now I’m not a mind reader, and I could be very wrong here, but I think bush see’s a free trade, EU type of zone as an eventual way to secure our Southern border by way of making sure that Mexico’s prosperity it tied with ours...thus a devstating terrorist attack on us would be equally as devestating in an economic sense, on them. Using this logic, I’m going to assume that Bush believes that Mexico will be an effective partner in securing our sounthern flank and keeping the bad guys at bay from that direction. For many reasons, i believe this to be a flawed plan, if it is what he’s thinking, but such a plan would pretty much explain why he’s so strong in his support for the current immigration legislation.
THANK YOU!!!
Sequential, ok?
Where’s the fence you authorized last year?
(from the article)
“The laws currently on the books, if enforced, would solve most of the problems we have with illegal immigration. The problem is one of enforcement.
Passing new laws that will be misused, ignored or abused is hardly an answer.”
The Senate tried to `rail-road’ new immigration laws late last week in order to get another amnesty for “undocumented workers”.
If they failed to enforce the old laws, why would we expect them to enforce the new ones?
Consequently, we did (and do) not trust them to enforce new obligations, just new rights granted to foreign, resident lawbreakers.
What’s `over the top’ with that logic?
I meant to say “pardoning” not “paying”
Where’s our Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline? Where’s our Moonbase? Where’s our Superconducting Supercollider? Where’s anything when gov’t gets involved?
you have no idea how much suffering has been caused by Bush/Sutton/Cordine
One black mark on an otherwise stellar presidency--more than I can say for the Bush administration.
If Bush is so convinced that this bill is the right solution, why are they afraid to break it into pieces:
Break them apart, each bill contingent on the one before it being accomplished before the next one takes effect. Simple, fair, and legal.
We did that in ‘86 and found out differently.
You have no idea what ideas I have. Has it ever occurred to you that corruption at the border has impacted the whole country?
How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico
By John Dillin
THAT'S the "Big Picture".
“..consciously and overtly refused to uphold his sworn constitutional duty to execute and administer the duly enacted border and immigration..”
I am still trying to figure out how this man, so promising when inaugurated the first time, can intentionally shirk his presidential duties.
My point about Reagan is that even though it was a black mark no one spoke ill about it then or now. One big difference is that Reagan’s amnesty was actually passed as law whereas President Bush’s has been nothing but back and forth that’s going nowhere.
This is what I called over the top. “Since Bush has, for nearly seven years, deliberately, consciously and overtly refused to uphold his sworn constitutional duty to execute and administer the duly enacted border and immigration laws already on the books, he should be disqualified from participating in any further negotiations regarding new border and immigration laws.
Doesn’t that make sense?
Why would we turn to a scofflaw president, one who, out of some misguided ideological conviction, habitually and repeatedly reneged on his oath of office, with regard to immigration issues, to solve a problem he himself exacerbated beyond anyone’s ability to imagine or comprehend?”
There is no accountability in FedGov. This was noted 200 years ago.
I have felt all along that the president and the OBLs wanted us to sit down and shut up so they could do what was “best” for us. What a crock- the President and the OBLs do not care what is best for this country- only what is best for them.
Yes. We must block any “comprehensive” amnesty bill from passing, but it is foolish to let hatred of President Bush distort our actions.
Always, politics is the art of the possible. That doesn’t mean that we have to knuckle under and go along with every compromise, especially on such a critical issue as this. The bill must be blocked.
But we must recognize reality. Bush is still president, and we have to deal with it. He’s not about to change his mind. We need to run a blocking and education campaign for the next year and a half, so that both the Democrats and the Republicans in congress understand that they cannot go down this road and stay in office. Reward our friends in this, and punish our enemies.
The worst thing we can do, however, is to give in to futile rage and let Harry Reid or Hillary use this anger for their own purposes.
If Fred Thompson seems to be our best bet as a candidate, then we need to get him to declare himself on this issue. He has already done so to some extent, but we need a really irrevocable commitment, insofar as that is possible. He will see what the base’s reaction to Bush has been on this, and hopefully he will learn a lesson from it. He will remember what happened to Bush I after “read my lips,” and hopefully take a lesson from that.
At this time, that seems to be our best course of action: to hold the line for a year and a half, educate people, and put in a strong Republican president.
then why is this article ‘over the top’???
Agreed. The bare minimum.
Because we have liked some of the other things he was doing, we let him slide on this one. But fighting against terrorists overseas is meaningless if we don't bother to keep them from coming into our own country.
You are right.
I’m reading from your post# 16 where you said the entire article was over the top (”This article is so over the top;, it is useless”);
to the contrary, I think it does make a good point and so is useful, as set forth in my post# 25, but only I suppose, if you believe that doing the same thing the same way, over-and-over, but expecting different results . . . is sane domestic policy.
To the anti-anti-Amnesty. The answer is two-fold, No TRUST in the Policy Process and No Trust in the policy people involved. This S1348 is never going to be amended to actually control illegal immigration thus the status quo looks better.
Apparently there is no accountability in state, county, or local gov either.
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.