Posted on 07/19/2007 5:27:42 PM PDT by backtothestreets
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - President Bush sharply challenged critics of his stalled immigration-overhaul efforts on Thursday, suggesting that failure to pass a guest-worker program could trigger a labor shortage in the United States.
At a town-hall style meeting, Bush also rebuffed a question about whether he would consider pardoning two Border Patrol agents in prison for the cover-up of the shooting of a drug trafficker in Texas.
"No, I won't make you that promise," Bush told a woman who asked about a possible pardon. Many Republicans in Congress have said the men should not have been convicted and have criticized the federal U.S. attorney for even prosecuting the agents.
"I know it's an emotional issue but people need to look at the facts. These men were convicted by a jury of their peers after listening to the facts" as presented by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, said Bush. Bush called Sutton a friend.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
That explains it even better: GWB really is, as the Democrats have long claimed, out for his rich friends and few others.
I'm an American unlike you. Go back to Mexico!
I NEVER said illegals were “put” in front of the line.
right. no you didn't. Keep changing your tune to fit whatever argument works at the moment.
I'm sure you are unlike me. My American roots go back to Jamestown, and I've been back there.
As for Mexico, I've been there twice and know plenty of its people up here in California. One thing I respect about them is that they support their own country. Something I don't see in your kind.
Dear Mr. Jorge,
I asked you nicely:
“Perhaps you have another explanation why they (our leaders) refuse to enforce our immigration laws and protect the borders?”
You refuse to answer.
Apparently you disagree with what we are saying on this forum but — so far — have made no argument supporting why you disagree.
Indeed, you have made no argument at all, and furthermore, it seems that — to be frank — you are incapable of mounting a cogent argument.
You may prove me wrong by mounting an argument for illegal immigration and or amnesty for illegals.
I have been cordial to you because you seem to be a little slow at grasping simple concepts and I don’t think that should be held against you.
Is English your primary language?
As I said if you have any questions feel free to ask and I will do my best to try to explain.
And don’t be shy about using a dictionary if there are any words I use that you don’t understand.
Ask Nixon.
As if a promise from Dubya ever meant anything in the first place.
You should take some lessons from (respectively) Hoplite. In so doing, it would enable you to “better” construct your arguments.
One more thing.
This is a link to a web site started by Col. Al Rodriguez whose’ family, like many Americans,(such as my own grandparents from Russia and Poland)immigrated legally.
An excerpt from the site:
“Col. Rodriguez became fed up watching media coverage of the mass protests of April. ‘Their leaders were saying it was a march for immigrant rights and a Latino/Hispanic movement,’ says Rodriguez. ‘I thought to myself, Hey, those are illegal aliens, not immigrants!’ Col. Rodriguez began speaking out to others saying, ‘I’m of Hispanic ancestry and those people are acting like they speak for me. Well, you don’t speak for me!’”
“Col. Rodriguez began asking others to help him reach more people who felt the same way and ‘You Don’t Speak for Me’! formed from this loose coalition of individuals. It is a group of concerned Americans of Hispanic/Latino heritage, some first or second generation, others recent legal immigrants, who believe illegal immigration harms America and a guest worker amnesty will do the same.”
AND ALSO THIS (SEE THE ABOVE POST)
Those who have waited in line to become Americans (that includes many Latinos) are not pleased with those that would throw the borders wide open to illegals... illegals that have “cut in” to the front of the line at the behest of those leaders: that would give away OUR country for personal gain.
Bush is full of B/S on this border,way out in left field.
“Bush called Sutton a friend.”
Here’s a quote from another one of Bush’s “friends”.
“There’s no doubt that Mexican men and women full of dignity, willpower and a capacity for work are doing the work that not even blacks want to do in the United States.”
(Vicente Fox)
Bush, of course, is in full concert with the above statement having said many times that “they are doing jobs Americans don’t want to do” etc.
Under these circumstances is it any wonder that these people(illegals)feel entitled be be here?
Of course not!
This is why my ire is directed at those leaders that have done everything in there power to condone illegal immigration — short of personally escorting them here.
I was confused as to why you would ask this question as the answer is so obvious to me. But then I took a look at the "News" coverage of this case and was amazed at the rather incredible wall of outright propaganda that has served as coverage. I had previously only been aware of the actual facts of the case - which couldn't possibly contrast more than they do with the coverage. For that I have learned a lesson.
To give an answer to your question: the shooting was completely illegal and therefore the related convictions would surely qualify (though I admit I can't list the actual convictions off the top of my head and didn't find them listed anywhere in my "News Media" review). And while I know that the entire case is on-line (including the trial testimony) I'm apparently not savvy enough to easily find such stuff.
I guess I can only say that I do indeed have personal familiarity with similar cases, and that while I realize that I'm not going to influence your opinion, my very different opinion is even less likely to be influenced by this discussion.
So, for my part, I'll just have agree to disagree with my added admission that I was rather naive of the "public" history of this case.
I like the "to give an answer to your question" part, since you never do get around to answering my question to you. But nice try at finessing. You might slip that non-response by someone not paying attention. Take a week or so, maybe you can figure out the underlying crime they were involved in when they fired on the smuggler.
Your boy Sutton was counting on that and never expected to have to defend his own actions. After all, he's Bush's boy, so he figured he could get away with anything that furthered Bush's no-border agenda. Too bad for him that Feinstein and Cornyn noticed he's at least guilty of bad judgment and prosecutorial overreach. The House gets a turn soon, and I hope Delahunt gives his committee wide latitude in the questions they ask Sutton.
As far as: "maybe you can figure out the underlying crime they were involved in when they fired on the smuggler."
Do you really believe that they would be convicted of the crime if it didn't apply? You've never been in a court room have you?
I'll see if I can find it for you if you really care.
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.