Posted on 01/15/2004 9:49:14 AM PST by Theodore R.
Bush gives country away
Posted: January 15, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
President Bush's plan to legalize 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens – maybe considerably more – is one of the most irresponsible, dangerous, reckless proposals to come out of Washington in my lifetime.
And that's saying a lot.
In my lifetime, I have witnessed:
wage-and-price controls imposed by Richard Nixon;
the greatest expansion of unconstitutional, immoral wealth-transfer programs in the history of our country;
the use of the Internal Revenue Service by President Clinton to harass and intimidate political adversaries;
the sacrifice of more than 50,000 U.S. servicemen in a war they would not be allowed to win;
the shredding of the Constitution in a thousand ways to bring us to the point at which politicians no longer even question the limits of the federal government;
the transfer by President Clinton of sensitive technology with military applications to a budding superpower for campaign cash;
the demoralization and emasculation of the country under President Carter;
I watched all this and more in nearly a half-century of life. But, honestly, President Bush's proposal to legalize untold millions of illegal aliens is potentially worse than any of these blunders, any of these mistakes, any of these abuses.
Why?
First, because it is immoral. Bush claims this is the "compassionate" thing to do. But he is misusing the term "compassion" the same way do those who would most like to unseat him from power. There is nothing compassionate about inflicting pain on others, in hurting the country, while accepting none of the responsibility, nor pain, nor sacrifice yourself. This move will not materially affect George W. Bush's life. But it will impact those competing for jobs at the lower end of the economic ladder. It will impact those who live in crime-plagued areas of the country and who don't have Secret Service protection. It will impact those who chose to obey the laws rather than flout them as their first act in America.
Second, it is unconstitutional. The federal government has few and limited areas of responsibility in our republican system of government. Among those clearly defined areas are the defense of the nation and the defense of our borders. This act is a reprehensible betrayal of the president's oath of office to uphold the law and execute it.
Third, it is bad policy. Even the simple act of proposing this notion encourages more illegal immigration into our country. More foreigners will want to get in on the action. It sends a horrible signal that America doesn't really believe in enforcing its laws. It promotes chaos at our borders and crime in our streets.
Fourth, it risks national security. Presumably, there was a reason this president placed the Immigration and Naturalization Service under the Department of Homeland Defense. The American people assume it was because he finally recognized that out-of-control immigration is a real threat – especially at a time when terrorists are trying desperately to kill and maim as many of us as possible.
It's not strong enough to call Bush's proposal "irresponsible." It is borderline seditious. And there is a widespread perception he is making this move because he believes there is personal political gain in it.
That is hardly "compassion," Mr. President. That is the worst kind of cynicism. That is the worst kind of selfishness. That is the worst kind of example a leader could set for the nation.
Shame on Bush. Shame on his party for standing by quietly as he sets out to destroy the fabric of our nation. Shame on the opposition for suggesting his move doesn't go far enough. Shame on all Americans who lie down and accept this outrage from Washington.
Yeah 15,000 Pakistanis, so. You stated that there were 50,000 illegal Pakistanis.
Psst, Saber, there are 160 times more illegals, mostly hispanic. For the same rate of success manpower would have to be increased 160 times.
JMO, the vast majority of the hispanic illegals are not terrorists or violent criminals.
In this case, a turd by any other name would smell as foul.
Can't see us actually deporting them, but the rest is doable .....with a little political will (which the Bush administration obviously doesn't have). Cutting off their free social services is a good way to get most of 'em to head back home.
Unfortunately pandering for votes and payback to special interests (that desire cheap labor) is far more important than preserving our borders, language, and culture.
I'm sure a lot of people support the concept, but how many of them would actually support the steps needed to physically round up 8 million illegals?
No, there's better ways to deal with this, but they're less sexy. Secure the border as best we can. Punish employers who hire illegals. Limited amnesties for certain classes of illegal (brought here as a very young child, been here for 30 or so years). Make it more difficult to go through everyday life without proof of citizenship/residency.
Taking these steps would lead to a gradual attrition of illegals over the long-term.
No doubt, but this isn't 1954. There wasn't a TV news camera on every street corner. The images of throwing women into a truck will cause outrage. An outrage for what, people for the most part working menial jobs.
Also the number is six times as large.
If you buy the Bush line, you have to accept that we are too weak and powerless to defend our own borders and enforce our immigration laws but we are powerful enough to successfully impose democracy on a part of the world--the Middle East--that has had despotic government for millennia.
Huh? Maybe trying to deal delicately with a neighbor we share a 2,000 mile border is a better idea. Putting up a wall ain't going to solve the problem, and solving this problem is going to be arduous. Also Mexico isn't exporting terrorism, that's a fact. Mid-east islamofacsits are.
I guess you know your turds, you seem to like to spread them around on FR.
And it's 1-2-3 what are we fighting for, don't asked me I don't give a damn, next stops the amnesty plan.
Lets hear it!
A little 60s music for our kompassionate konservatives...
All you need is love!
And why won't a fence work? We certainly have the engineering know-how to construct one. Are you afraid the Mexicans will call us names?
As we do today when they are caught. In 1999 we deported over 1.7 million undocumented immigrants. We have averaged over 1.3 million deportation each year in the previous decade. One by one they are deported, but over time many have slipped through, and have integrated into our society with varying degrees of success. It would be unconstitutional NOT to address the problem, and that is exactly what President Bush is doing, addressing the problem.
Farrah's article is mostly baloney. Doing nothing different today is what is unconstitutional, dangerous, and immoral. His lack of any suggestions on how President Farrah would handle the situation differently really means his article is all bluster.
I agree that they shouldn't be on welfare, but that is up to the states. California is generous, Texas much less so. As for schools if they aren't paying property taxes, no school. Most are probably paying property taxes since they are living in apartments where the tax is included in the rent. If they go to school, they should be taught in English. California passed such an intiative a few years ago.
Like it or not we are going to have to deal with Mexico, you just can't wish it away. Heck even Sabertooth himself said that a wall is not a good idea.
It is already the law.
Oh you of little intelligence and imagination... Have you ever heard of a bounty?
They work.
As for dealing with Mexico, so far we have dealt with Mexico by passing a ONE TIME amnesty in 1986 which was supposed to stop illegal immigration but didn't and by passing NAFTA which shipped a lot of our manufacturing down there and was supposed to stop illegal immigration but didn't. Now Bush wants to reward the illegals not caught up in the first amnesty and basically eliminate the border.
That's not dealing with Mexico. That's surrendering to Mexico.
Oh yeah, right, enforcement just happened to slip the mind of the chief executive officer in charge of enforcement.
Got another fantasy?
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.