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 ...
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.
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.