Posted on 07/10/2006 6:44:48 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Bush's disconnect on illegal immigration
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: July 10, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
"We cannot kick people out who have been here for awhile."
That's what President Bush said last week.
And he means it.
That is his policy toward those who have broken into our country, defied our immigration laws, cheapened our way of life and driven a stake through the heart of what it means to be an American.
This is amnesty, no matter what the president says.
If we "can't kick people out who have been here for awhile," then we have no alternative but to forgive and forget they broke the law.
What other possibility is there? How else can one define amnesty?
By making this ludicrous, untrue declaration, Bush has once again waved the white flag of surrender to the hordes who continue to invade our country. He has thrown out the welcome mat for more illegal entry.
Though no statistics are yet available, you can be sure this sign of weakness in leadership was a great encouragement to those still seeking to break into America. Every time this guy opens his mouth on this issue, more illegals make their way across the Rio Grande seeing what could be their last chance to get in, what could be the last wave of an open-door policy by the U.S.
Bush is a lame duck, and he doesn't care. He doesn't care what continued illegal immigration will do to his country. He doesn't care what it will do to his legacy. He doesn't care what it will do to his party in November and in 2008.
He's serving some other master. He's got some other agenda. He's carrying out his father's promise to usher America into a New World Order.
Can I ask some simple questions? What does it mean that we can't kick out people who have been here for awhile? Why is that? What does "for awhile" mean?
Where does Bush get off making such a statement? He was elected and sworn into office to enforce the law of the land. The law of the land is clear on what happens to lawbreakers. They are punished. Those who break immigration laws are deported. There are no special provisions in the law for those who have been here "for awhile," whatever that means.
How does he get away with this kind of trash talk?
I understand he is speaking his mind. I understand he is advocating a viewpoint. But when the president's viewpoint runs contrary to the law of the land, there is no question that he is obligated to enforce the laws, not ignore them, not subvert them, not undermine them.
If Bush wants to change the laws, he is welcome to try. But while he remains president, he is sworn to execute the current laws – whether he likes them or not.
So far, Bush has found little support among the people for his promotion of amnesty. Yet he continues to promote it. Again, whatever his objectives, he is welcome to try. But he defies the Constitution, the Congress, his oath of office, the rule of law and the will of the people when he refuses to enforce the law.
Bush is recklessly irresponsible on immigration. He's like a spoiled child who refuses to do the right thing simply because he has staked out a position against it.
He has no credibility on his primary mission as president – protecting the American people and defending the homeland – as he continues to promote the idea that anyone and everyone is welcome in the U.S.
Bush's behavior can no longer be confused with political tone deafness. He's got an agenda he is promoting. It is not a traditional American agenda. It is an internationalist agenda. It is a multinational corporate agenda. It is an elitist agenda.
It has never been more obvious than it is today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reagan was good at setting out the ideal situation, but he was also prectical about when things would not work. We all want to live in heaven in which no one is sick or injured or hungary, but until there is a way to do that without destroying other good things, it won't work to simply open the borders to let them all in to run rough shod over everything. Even Reagan recognized that.
He never said we would give up our national soveriegnty to do it.
How do you post this and then react to posts referring to "open borders" in other threads as if support at any level of such an idea was pure myth?
Huh? If you'd rephrase your question into something understandable, I'd be happy to reply.
Let's see if I get this right. I see poster after poster saying that Reagan would never do what Bush is doing, that Reagan was a better president, etc.
I post some historical material that shows Reagan proposed totally open borders, and you think that's hypocritical because I've said on other threads that no one on this forum is an open borders person?
Color me confused.
Unless Reagan was posting in this forum, I stand by my statements. I've yet to see any freeper advocating totally open borders.
I do hope you tell me you understand the difference, because I sure as heck don't understand where you're coming from.
Who the hell says we can't. These are not people, these are illegal, undocumented, law breaking, medically dangerous, welfare sucking, tax cheating foreigners. The word people should apply to American citizens with legal social secuirty numbers who obey the law as we are all supposed to do.
Who the hell says we can't. These are not people, these are illegal, undocumented, law breaking, medically dangerous, welfare sucking, tax cheating foreigners. The word people should apply to American citizens with legal social secuirty numbers who obey the law as we are all supposed to do.
Well, how about the next time you see a freeper advocating open borders you ping me? I spend a fair amount of time here every day and I've never seen it.
As to Reagan, if you honestly consider someone who has been out of politics for nearly 20 years and is now dead as representative of the GOP, then I can understand why you don't agree with my statements. But I stand by them.
Reagan proposed the NAA which lead to NAFTA which has now brought us the the SPP and this "guest worker" program. Id say the idea clearly still lingers in the GOP even if the incrementalist approach has become the preferred method of achieving it.
You're exactly right.......all that's needed is to shut-off the welfare bennies and many of them will deport themselves......plus if some of these businesses find out they have to pay even an illegal a decent wage because the taxpayers will no longer forced to subsidize them it'll remove the incentive to even hire an illegal. How stupid are some ofthe gov't types that they can't figure this out?
"Tony Snow said it's like a traffic ticket."
Those with traffic tickets don't cost the taxpayers billions of dollars.
True enough. I don't have medical insurance any more because I cannot afford it. If I were illegal I would be getting free care (not that I want it).
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.