Posted on 09/14/2004 5:17:54 PM PDT by 4.1O dana super trac pak
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) considered calling for a top Bush administration official to resign after reading his recent comments on enforcing immigration laws, according to sources.
Upset with Undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security Asa Hutchinson's remark that it would not be realistic to enforce current immigration laws, Tancredo, a staunch supporter of more immigration laws, contemplated calling for the administration officials resignation.
The two Republicans planned last night to discuss their differences, and it is not expected that Tancredo will ask for Hutchinson to step down.
Hutchinson last week told The Washington Times that it would be unrealistic to say that officials would be able to reduce the number of the millions of illegal immigrants in the country.
Tancredo, chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, is often at odds with the Bush administration over its immigration policies. Last month he criticized the GOP's platform om immigration, calling it weak.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which will hold a press conference on immigration solutions to combat terrorism with Tancredo today, also strongly criticized Hutchinson's comments.
FAIR called Hutchinson the "Bush administration's point man to sell a massive illegal alien amnesty and guest worker program," and the groups Executive Director Dan Stein said: "The only thing 'unrealistic' are the choices of the administration is presenting to the American public."
A spokesman for Tancredo said the lawmaker was "fairly angered" with Hutchinson's comments. The staffer added that Tancredo and Hutchinson were scheduled to discuss the remarks last evening, with the expectation that the matter would be resolved and Tancredo would not call for Hutchinson's resignation at today's press conference.
A spokesman for Hutchinson could not be reached for comment by press time. Prior to joining the Bush administration, Hutchinson served as a member of Congress from Arkansas from 1997 to 2001.
I hate to admit it but ASA HUTCHINSON is probably correct-"the people have no will. The "People's" will has been too sapped by excess eating, drinking, copulating, evacuating the bowels and snoring! No will to do what must be done. Let us move on!!
..."I'll beat Tom to the punch - I hereby call on Huthcinson to resign. Or for President Bush to fire him."...
I'll second.
Motion passes?
Your argument is fatally flawed, as there is NO provision in the Second Amendment which allows ANY level of government to issue "permits" to own firearms. Remember, the Constitution GRANTS NOTHING. It only required the government to RECOGNIZE PREEXISTING RIGHTS. The Constitution is a grant of authority from WE, THE PEOPLE, to the government, to allow it to do certain things in our names. It is NOT a grant of "rights" from the government to us. Do you see the difference and just WHY your argument is unacceptable in a free society?
Yes but the government has to make an actual attempt that is shouted down before it can blame the people for its inaction.
Problem: you want prosecutions. US Attorneys want convictions (i.e., successful prosecutions). They tried this after the 1986 amnesty. Juries refused to convict, despite open-and-shut cases against the employers. Basically, the jurors engaged in jury nullification.
I am not in disagreement with you on any point. My point was that you will not get an answer to your question from the usual suspects who LIKE the status quo...
I believe we CAN have freedom in my lifetime... but I am afraid that we will have a lot of bloodshed to get from here to there, as BOTH branches of the ruling party want the same thing: MORE and BIGGER government. (Like THAT'S a big surprise to many of us here!)
Which isn't succeeding...
are able to enforce every single unconstitutional gun law,
The Feds do NOT enforce those laws. During the entire period of the AWB, there were five prosecutions for violations of that law (and there were a LOT of clauses to that law).
can send aid to every foreign pest-hole on the planet,
The amount of foreign aid relative to the resources required to effectively secure the border is roughly akin to the ratio between buying yourself a hamburger and buying yourself a new Escalade.
and cannot enforce our immigration laws
2,100 miles of land frontier with Mexico alone. 6,000+ miles of coastline. 4,000+ miles of Canadian frontier.
You mind explaining how you'd keep 'em out without breaking the bank, using tactics that will not survive the first showing on CNN, or require drafting men to man the border and women to produce the next generation of border guards?
I never said there was a provision in the 2nd ammendment that allows permits. I'll restate what I said:
" Our biggest argument against Gun control laws is first and foremost that they violate the 2nd ammendment. That argument is closely followed by the fact that they are ineffective."
Our first argument against gun control should always be the 2nd ammendment. But if we make that our only argument, we are ignoring reality. The reality is that gun control is here. As long as gun control is here we should fight it on the ground that it doesn't work, which is true.
The Federal Gonvernment also has a constitutional obligation to protect our borders, as well as to control immigration. But reality shows us that it's impossible to keep everyone out. The best argument we can make now, is to repeal the laws that are impossible to enforce, and make laws that are somewhat grounded in reality.
I was not really expecting an answer from anyone trying to defend the needless while needed goes wanting. Although it would not suprise me to see it here.
I think that we can win our freedoms back without bloodshed. We are very slowly making some good progress and headway. We did not get into this mess overnight, and it will not be fixed overnight.
FReegards.
Agreed, with a couple of exceptions.
We don't need to calm down and think. We are right on this issue.....and the Invaders are wrong. So far, they have been successful in making people feel sorry for them. Who's feeling sorry for us? We need to get pissed off and start flipping cars over. They won't listen to calm and thought out conversation.
We've tried that. They said it isn't realistic.
Fence will never get past the California Coastal Commission. Work with them weekly...the most anal group of individuals, ever.
More concerned about killing off the furry jackalope with a fence than the 3 tons of trash on the other side of the trail left by Invaders.
I'm at a loss for words. Believe it or not. What other means do we have of making them listen? Seems like we're down to the put-up or shut-up part of the issue.
Yeah, we're all mad....wanna kick some ass. But are we mad enough to make them realise it? We dared Asa to blink. He blinked. Now what?
(said in the spirit of Barnes. After Elias got killed...)
I understand the point you are making. Let me ask you this:
Is it going to break the bank to rebuild New York City when, not if, terrorists smuggle a nuke across our southern border? (North Korea, Pakistan and very soon Iran will all have nukes and are either openly hostile to us or are just a coup away from being so.)
Cost? How much is this country worth? Can we put a dollar figure on it?
How are 50,000+ dead US citizens going to play on CNN?
As to the other points you made, there is nothing to be argued with on my part.
Poohbah, I know you know history well enough to know what happens to countries that cannot secure thier borders. I do not think you want it to happen to this country.
We have some hard choices to make, because niether alternative is very pretty.
Then I'm sorry, those were some piss poor prosecutions. It's not just the facts but the presentation (i.e. OJ)
You're joking, right? You actually think that the 'middle' doesn't want the immigration laws enforced?
Utterly mad...
Righteous anger BTTT
That's me in line next to you...
Tancredo is not the only one furious with Asa. I read that article in the Washington times and almost spat out my drink.
Where does Hutchinson get his facts on the American's "lack of will" to uproot ILLEGAL Aliens.
FTAA, the UN/WTO and the global economy are looming...
Have at this one -- and weep -- BUMPping
There are whole animal kingdomesque classes of people among us -- from the treasonous/co-Serial-rapist Hazel O'Leary / Bill Richardson / Gorelicker / Bader-Ginsberg / Sandy Berger / entire Cli'tonista Crime Family-variety on down through twenty or thirty-million-odd increasingly-hostilely-colonizing criminal alien invaders -- for whom the phrase "Rule of Law" represents either what they are leaving behind among their mostly-former authoritarian-state owners, operators and controllers -- and/or that foreign power and/or ideology to whom and/or to which they owe and/or willingly direct their various allegiences.
In part because of the un-and-anti-American consequences of the welfare and other incentives created by decades of the criminal wearing down of our Constitution's protections against their ilk by by the vote-buying career girly men who have usurped our government -- and by the evil axis they've formed with political-activist-bureaucrat henchmen -- the criminal-alien invasion we face already effects an insidious tyranny of far greater negative impact upon our society and already more injurious of our beloved republic that was ever that faced down and defeated by our nation's founding fathers.
Those entrusted with our nation's defense -- the "DemocRATS" to the last girly man -- and many so-called "Republicans" too -- are armed only with their own self-serving weaknesses and strengthened only by their abject and growing contempt for all of the rest of us.
And will I expect be even more dangerous to all of us and to our nation after November 2 when they realize how close against Rule-of-Law's wall -- and all that that implies -- we have them backed.
But they aught to learn and to remember well that they WILL employ our nation's Law in our defense -- or Enoch Powell's dire warnings to his countrymen contempories will ring out in our land -- and will seem puny and Neville Chamberlain-esque in the face of and compared to our growing fury!
Actually, it probably would cost far less to rebuild NYC than it would cost to keep the nuke from getting into the country with a high level of confidence.
You have also set your standard of performance for border security: it now must achieve a 100% success rate. Any illegal alien getting through holds the prospect of catastrophic failure.
Now, for the next question: will border security be any less of a failure if the nuke is smuggled across our border with Canada, or over the beach? Most border security efforts are along the US-Mexican border: the rest of the border is almost completely unsecured.
If the threat is foreign terrorists coming in illegally, then shutting the US-Mexican border is a woefully inadequate response. You now have six times as much frontier to secure, plus many ports of entry located within the US heartland. You've just multiplied an unreasonably high price tag even higher.
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.