Posted on 06/16/2006 10:41:38 AM PDT by Small-L
President Bush has refused to meet with border law-enforcement officials from Texas for a second time. His response to their request came in the form of a letter Monday, angering both lawmakers and sheriffs.
In fact, some Republican members of the House, upset by what they call the administration's seeming lack of concern for border security, are preparing to hold investigative hearings in San Diego and Laredo, Texas, early next month.
Members of the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation hope to expose serious security flaws that could potentially lead to terrorist attacks in the country, said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who is a member of the panel and has pushed for the hearings.
"The next terrorist is not going to come in through (Transportation Security Administration) screening at Kennedy airport," Poe said. "We already have information that people from the Middle East have come through the border from Mexico. They assimilate in Mexico learning to speak Spanish and adopt customs and then they cross the border into the United States."
Poe requested the meeting for members of the Southwestern Sheriffs' Border Coalition a group that includes all 26 border-county sheriffs from California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. The sheriffs wanted to speak to the president about the increasing dangers in their communities and along the border.
"The president is the busiest man in the world but he needs to take the time to talk to the border sheriffs and learn what's happening in the real world from them," Poe said. "We can't understand why he refuses to meet with them."
In May, all of the Republican House members from Texas traveled to Washington to meet the president regarding border security. Bush did not meet with them, however, and former White House spokesman Scott McClellan was sent in his stead.
Poe said the White House letter dated Monday showed the disconnect between the administration and the American people who want the border secured.
"The president would appreciate the opportunity to visit with border sheriffs," said the White House letter written by La Rhonda M. Houston, deputy director of the Office of Appointments and Scheduling. "Regrettably, it will not be possible for us to arrange such a meeting. I know that you understand with the tremendous demands of the president's time, he must often miss special opportunities, as is the case this time."
Rick Glancey, spokesman for the sheriffs coalition, said its members are angry and disappointed in the president's response. Glancey said Bush's recent tour of the border with Border Patrol spokesmen did not reflect the reality of what locals live with every day.
"It's a slap in the face to the hardworking men and women on the front lines of rural America who every day engage in border-security issues," Glancey said. "He missed the opportunity to take off his White House cowboy boots and put some real cowboy boots on and walk in our shoes for a few minutes."
The border hearings will expose the truth to the American public and force the administration to take a serious look at the border, said Allan Knapp, Poe's legislative director.
Knapp and Poe have traveled twice to the border this year, spending time along barren stretches where they witnessed no security and numerous migrants crossing into the United States, they said.
"We need to expose the lack of border security before it is too late," Poe said. "We're fighting a war on terror in Iraq and we're winning, but we're losing our own border war. These hearings will be a necessary step in the right direction."
Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based Friends of the Border Patrol, said he has been called to testify before the panel in San Diego. Ramirez said he has turned in two years of Border Patrol documents and memos, which he will discuss before the committee.
"The president has basically pushed his whole administration's agenda toward the war on terror, yet he can't find the time to meet with law-enforcement leaders responsible for border security," Ramirez said. "It is appalling and outrageous that the war on terror and border security does not extend to the U.S. border."
I know it's beyond your ken to grasp, but the point about the Congressional picnic is to show that members of Congress don't need to make special trips to Washington -- unless, as someone else up thread pointed out -- they are engaged in a stunt.
(1) They are there every day when Congress is in session. (2) They have easy access to the WH by phone, by appointment, and even by special events such as the annual congressional picnic, which occurred just yesterday.
Why do you feel the need to engage in such knee-jerk defenses of Bush when he is so wrong on this issue
That is YOUR OPINION about a matter of policy. As with all Americans, while you are entitled to your opinion, it does not make those who hold different opinions from yours wrong (or right).
Lol! Dream if you must but it is a very large group and the president is not even coming close to winning this one.
If he was winning it would already be over, and it ain't even close to that.
You are suggesting that because one silly Congressman Culberson suggests what he *thinks* might have been signed in 2004 (but he doesn't know) he just speculates is valid reason to support the notion that GWB wants to give America away to Mexico? - You people are nuts (with all due respect).
You (seemingly) along with a small portion have seemed to find some type of perverted solace in hanging yourself as martyrs on this cross of immigration.
The reality is we have a 40 (20) year in the making problem. Which the President is trying to address in a comprehensive way. Don't agree with him....so be it. But people are simply going off the deep end on this issue and relishing in their own perverted since of self-worth by declaring themselves minutemen and the such.
We have main problems (which are 40/20 years in the making).
1. Border security (which is being addressed and there will be even more clearly put into this effort - From border agents, fences, anti-vehicle berms, ec).
2. The current terribly flawed guest / temporary worker programs. From which apprx 6 million of the current 12 million illegals have come from (meaning they came here via some type of visa and have simply never returned back).
3. What to do with the current 12 million illegals that are here - From which we have three options. 1. Mass deportation (which isn't going to happen. The logistics alone would be virtually impossible - not too mention we couldn't deport simply one six-year old boy without this Country practically falling apart). - 2. Find some type of way at making this current illegals become part of our legal and productive society and find a reasonable path for citizenship for those who wish to do so....as long as they meet certain requirements, pay fines, penalties, ect, etc. OR 3. Simply do nothing with these current illegals and keep the status quo.
In fact, some Republican members of the House, upset by what they call the administration's seeming lack of concern for border security, are preparing to hold investigative hearings in San Diego and Laredo, Texas, early next month.
- - - -
Good. I hope they make a super big stink over this. About time for some grass roots involvement to arise larger than the puppet masters can manage short of their death camps.
another border Ping.
Why would Bush bother to want to fix a propblem that he has helped create?
We don't need a "comprehensive" solution, we just need the feds to control the border and enforce the laws.
Unless you are: (a) the First Lady, (b) the Vice President, (c) the Secretary of State or Defense, (d) a member of the Secret Service detail assigned to the Iraq trip, (e) a member of the press pool who went, (f) a presidential aide who went, or (g) some other insider with privileged info, you are lying.
It's for real. What I can't understand is how it escaped the MSM putting it out before us in the '04 election cycle -- not that it would have changed things since Kerry was blatant about wanting the same things...
okay I get it. lol You are like those Brits that follow every move the royalty makes.
sheesh
You're right, if I didn't fall into any of those categories I would be lying.
I love how you can be so condescending, but then complain when someone bites back. What a hypocrite.
but the point about the Congressional picnic is to show that members of Congress don't need to make special trips to Washington
Nice try, but no stogie. You got caught spinning.
That is YOUR OPINION about a matter of policy. As with all Americans, while you are entitled to your opinion, it does not make those who hold different opinions from yours wrong (or right).
You sound like a liberal with that moral-relativistic attitude. There is a reason I hold my beliefs - because I believe them to be right. If someone convinces me otherwise, I change them. However, by any sane evaluation of history and politics, Bush is wrong on this issue.
"If he was winning it would already be over, and it ain't even close to that.
"
I'm afraid you are incorrect. It is, indeed, over. The first wave of NorthAmerican citizens is already here. They've become economically indispensible. If you doubt that, then I strongly urge you to open your eyes and see who's working in the places you frequent.
This all did not begin with the current President Bush. It began with NAFTA and will expand on that camel's nose. If you think there is sufficient opposition, you are mistaken.
The time to have acted to prevent all this is long past. By default, we have elected globalist leaders for a long, long time now. The point of no return has passed, and it's time to make the best of what we have elected our leaders to do.
I'm afraid you've fallen prey to the fallacy of believing that your beliefs are shared by a majority. They are not. Business likes the illegals. Business runs the nation. Business wants a single NorthAmerican political entity. Business runs the nation.
I am not the dreamer, here.
The cat is out of the bag... even in our small town, when an old codger called out local talk show, a couple of months ago (about the NAU and the ramifications for our dollar, etc.) he was laughed off the show.... today he called in and the hosts appologized to him.... Why? Because it is finally seeing light of day in the media.
We most certainly do need a comprehensive plan for dealing with the current 40 (20) year in the making problem. It has 3 stages currently associated with it - Those 3 main issues (as I see it) and the additional 3 issues regarding those currently here illegally (and who have come here over the last 20 years...not just the last 5). Do you honestly see mass deportation of the current 12 million illegals as a viable opition?? And if not, what should we do with them?
Understand the currently terribly flawed guest / temporary worker programs we have end up accounting for a sizable portion of those currently here illegally. They came here via legal means originally and simply never left. We have to find a system that helps reduce this greatly.
1. Border security (which is being addressed and there will be even more clearly put into this effort - From border agents, fences, anti-vehicle berms, ec).
2. The current terribly flawed guest / temporary worker programs. From which apprx 6 million of the current 12 million illegals have come from (meaning they came here via some type of visa and have simply never returned back).
3. What to do with the current 12 million illegals that are here - From which we have three options. 1. Mass deportation (which isn't going to happen. The logistics alone would be virtually impossible - not too mention we couldn't deport simply one six-year old boy without this Country practically falling apart). - 2. Find some type of way at making this current illegals become part of our legal and productive society and find a reasonable path for citizenship for those who wish to do so....as long as they meet certain requirements, pay fines, penalties, ect, etc. OR 3. Simply do nothing with these current illegals and keep the status quo.
We shall see.
You can parrot your own points ad nauseum but it doesn't change the fact that a "comprehensive" solution is not needed.
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.