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 Presidents 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 Administrations 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 Administrations 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 Administrations 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.
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.