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."
"We shall see."
Of that I have no doubt. But, consider this: Of the primary realistic Presidential candidates being bandied about for 2008, which do you think are not globalists?
A North American Alliance is just around the corner, and I expect it to be ratified in 2010. Whoever is the next President will lead the way on it.
So, which viable Presidential candidate do you think is going to block it? Remember, it must be a viable candidate.
Clinton? Kerry? Gore? Giuliani? McCain?
Make no mistake. I'm against such a thing. But, I'm into RealPolitik. What you want is simply not in the cards.
What are you talking about? Are you that opposed to even being willing to be intellectually honest?
Are you simply just against the word "comprehensive"?? - Because the 3 issues I mentioned most certainly do have to be addressed (and everyone discussing these issues admits as much....it is just a matter of debate on what to do regarding all three).
Do we have a border security issue? Most certainly.
Do we have a terribly flawed current guest / temporary worker program? Most certainly.
Do we need to come up with some type of policy on what to do with the current 12 million illegals? I think so (perhaps you don't).
Eisenhower did a good job deporting illegals.
"And what other president in modern times has shown any serious interest in securing the borders?"
There's an excellent question...an excellent question indeed. Further, which of the viable candidates for 2008 has shown any such serious interest?
"Eisenhower did a good job deporting illegals."
That was over half a century ago, and is the proximate cause of the current trend of illegal immigration. I lived through that, with the end of the bracero program in California. Within two years, all the braceros had been replaced with illegals. All.
Half a century ago, we were watching crummy black and white television sets, and computers filled entire buildings. That's old stuff, dirtboy, and is irrelevant, except as the beginning of the influx of illegals into the USA.
The American citizenry will not stand idly by and allow the republic to be combined into a North American superstate.
There are still enough partiots left to be sure of that.
We don't need any new legislative solutions. Everything we need to get the job done is already on the books, it's just a matter of bothering to enforce the laws.
I have a feeling that by 2008, for a candidate to be viable, they will have to show a serious interest in securing the border. I sense a tremendous upswelling of anger from many sectors. Even some liberals I know are getting sick of the impact of illegal immigration.
I was just noting that Eisenhower was the last one who was serious about deportation. But I have a feeling the next president will have to be.
"The American citizenry will not stand idly by and allow the republic to be combined into a North American superstate.
There are still enough partiots left to be sure of that."
I could be wrong, but I have a hard time believing that a President Gore or Kerry would have done anything serious to tighten up the borders. Just a local note: where I live, a mile north of the Seattle city limits, there has been a HUGE Hispanic influx in the last 5-6 years. Virtually every fast food place now employs 70% - 100% Hispanics. When I go jogging at the local high school, there are now groups of young Hispanics hanging around playing soccer, basketball, music, etc. Even two years ago, I never saw this. At one time, I even thought this was a Dem plot, bringing them all in to turn this swing district into a solid Dem district.
If you would allow our sovereignty to be surrendered you are no patriot.
If you would allow our sovereignty to be surrendered you are no patriot.
from Bush's home state, would merit some of Bush's time
Alas, he has forsaken us too! I'm about sick of his attitude.
"I was just noting that Eisenhower was the last one who was serious about deportation. But I have a feeling the next president will have to be."
I disagree with you. The next President will be moderate to liberal, whether a Republican or Democrat. Having looked at the short list of "viable" candidates, I see none who will give more than lip service to real control over immigration. Business won't like it if they do.
We have 50 years of movement toward globalism under our belts. I see no chance of that changing in 2008. The voices opposing it are loud, but they come from a minority. They sound awesome, but are pretty much like the Wizard of Oz. Once the curtain is removed, their numbers are not that large.
The voters will do as they have done for a long, long time: vote for someone who is right smack in the middle of the political spectrum.
Is that what I want? Nope. Is that what I expect? Yup.
"We need to expose the lack of border security before it is too late," Poe said.
"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."
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.