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."
SOOOOO what treaty overides Gualalupe Hidalgo?. And why is Bush so careful to avoid titling them as Treaties instead preferring to call them AGREEMENTS when they have all the criteria of Treaties. He must be really afraid of that Constitutional 2/3rds Senate ratification.
I know some women who sleep with men for money. Does that make all women whores?
Take a deep breath now. There are over 40 million people in the US who are of Latino heritage. The VAST majority of those people are no less American than the guy named Parrinelli who celebrates Columbus Day (very popular with Italians) or the guy named McCarville who celebrates St. Patrick's day. They are Itallian-Americans and Irish-Americans. I am not fond of people who use there heritage as a prime identifier, but truth be told, nearly all of us are descended from people who came from somewhere else. Generally, the more generations you are here, the more likely you are to identify with America and less likely to identify with your country of origin. I know 10th generation Hispanics who can barely understand any Spanish. I also know second generation Canadians who may look and talk like us, but who will go on an on about the wonders of the Great White North.
We are a melting pot. The operative word there is "melting." Little melts instantly. Somethings melt more slowly than others. Similarly some cultures assimilate faster than others. Depends as much on the heat under the pot as it does on the ingredients in the pot. I think the heat needs to be turned up a bit and those wishing to be Americans need to know that English is a requirement, love of our country is a requirement, and I would like to see some sort of service requirement imposed on those wishing to be naturalized. If they are young enough they should have to put in a couple of years with the armed services or National Guard. If they are older there is all sorts of community service which could help instill an appreciation for our country and culture.
Anyway, didn't mean to jump down your throat or anything, but please remember that someone could have been saying a similar thing about your family a couple of generations back...
"SOOOOO what treaty overides Gualalupe Hidalgo?"
You tell me. While you're doing that, suppose you tell me how Guadalupe Hidalgo is being breached? Yes, the border established by that treaty is porous, but that's a matter of law, not treaties. It's the feds' responsibility to enforce the border laws. If they're not doing that, then it's not really a treaty matter.
You may remember that Congress went right along with NAFTA. I haven't seen any serious calls for it to be abandoned. Too much money working there.
Money drives this nation, not politics. I see you're not from Texas. Go down there, sit in a country club bar somewhere near the border. You'll hear lots of talk about the Messicans and how they're ruining everything.
Then, follow one of the loudest of the complainers to his business the next day. Count the number of employees speaking Spanish.
Lots of folks say one thing and do something else. It's how it works. Money wins.
A little off topic but, I always thought it was Commander and chief. "Commander in chief" just doesn't make sense.
"A little off topic but, I always thought it was Commander and chief. "Commander in chief" just doesn't make sense."
Really? You thought wrongly. It is Commander in Chief in the Constitution. The phrase means the Chief Commander, the Head Honcho, the Guy in Charge.
The Constitution is an interesting document. It's well worth reading.
re post 204 - Well said.
Just yesterday, ya'll were complaining that the Bush positive thread was being hi-jacked by FReepers who were against illegal immigration, and it wasn't going to turn into a bash Bush event.
So now, here you are..Can you say double standard? Not that I give a care..
sw
My neighborhood is full of illegals. I had the pleasure of two of their Marxist parades in front of my house.
So would you rather spend your riches in Nigeria or the US? Money is useless if there is nowhere left that is stable like the US to spend it. You have hung yourself, and bought your own rope.
"I am surprised how many conservatives expect Bush to act like Pat Buchanan; Bush never claimed to be Pat Buchanan."
Ain't it the truth. President Bush laid out his opinion on Mexican immigrants in his campaign in 2000. I, for one, had no illusions about where he stood on that. He has always been pro-NAFTA, just like his father.
Whining about him doing just what he said he would do, almost 6 years into his Presidency seems a little specious to me. We elected him as our President. We knew his positions. He remains our President, because we elected him to a second term.
There's a heckuva lot of calling him a "traitor" here on FR by some folks. Maybe they weren't paying attention back in 2000 or in 2004. He's doing just what he said he'd do all along.
If it hadn't have been for 9/11, we'd be further along in expanding the relationship between Mexico and the USA. The Iraq thingie kind of slowed things down.
"As someone else pointed out, Bush has plenty of time to meet with illegals at the diego garcia center but not those American citizens on the front line of our border war to the south."
Thank you. Why did W elect not to meet with the NAACP? Simple; they only wanted him there so they could launch into a fusillade of attacks on him which would be picked up by a liberal media.
Why doesn't he meet with this group? Because they only want him there to launch a series of attacks, which will be dutifully picked up and amplified by the liberal media.
That the NAACP is a bunch of socialists and these guys have a valid point is a separate matter! The *effect* of meeting with each would be to damage W AND the conservative cause in general. The libs do not care why conservatives can be targeted; they only care *that* conservatives can be targeted. Their goal isn't to elect "real" or "paleo" or "[insert your favorite phrase here]" conservatives; their goal is to elect Democrats.
That's why this tactic of demanding a meeting and petulantly griping when the demand isn't met is trashy; because it doesn't serve anyone's ends except the libs.
When conservatives believe they must argue against our President, we should fight like brothers, not like enemies.
"So would you rather spend your riches in Nigeria or the US? Money is useless if there is nowhere left that is stable like the US to spend it. You have hung yourself, and bought your own rope.
"
I have? News to me.
Illegal immigration has never been a hot-button issue with me, despite my general respect for the rule of law. (All right, everyone, take your shots.) I guess, like Mineral Man, I can see that the powers-that-be - business, media, unions, the political parties, the military, educational institutions, many churches, law enforcement - are simply not going to allow a radical crackdown on illegal immigration. there will be a few things done around the edges of the issue, perhaps some minor reforms, but the problem will not go away. Now, if there's a major terrorist attack that can be attributed to open borders, there will be hell to pay, with both parties and the media pointing fingers every which way, as with the 9/11 commission. But the fact will be that NO ONE in a position of power did anything serious to stop it.
You learn something new everyday. Article 2, section 2.
Thank you, Mr. Helper.
"So would you rather spend your riches in Nigeria or the US? Money is useless if there is nowhere left that is stable like the US to spend it. You have hung yourself, and bought your own rope.
"
Nigeria? Nah. There's nothing in Nigeria that's of use to me. I don't have a lot of riches in the first place, and I'll probably spend them all right here before I die. Nigeria? What's in Nigeria that I'd want?
But, what about that Treaty? What has been breached in that Treaty? I thought you were going to explain that to me. We were discussing the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, right? I thought that Treaty was with Mexico, not Nigeria.
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.