Posted on 01/13/2009 2:06:15 AM PST by Man50D
President Bush has extensively discussed his immigration reform policy in exit interviews and given a $60,000 bonus to a Border Patrol chief who has been criticized for not supporting Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean – but he refuses to talk about whether pardons could be in store for the imprisoned agents.
In a Jan. 6 interview with John Gizzi, political editor of Human Events, Bush said he regrets that the comprehensive immigration bill he endorsed did not prevail.
"Well, I'm sorry it didn't pass, because I felt strongly that the comprehensive approach to immigration reform was necessary for border enforcement, as well as recognizing that there are people willing to do work Americans won't do," Bush said. "[W]ithout the law, by the way, we did put fence up, and the border is becoming more secure. People are now recognizing the truth that there are fewer crossings, and we've ended the catch and release and issues like that."
Bush expressed concern for illegal aliens who risk their lives to come to the United States.
"I don't like it when the law is so antiquated that people who are willing to do hard work become contraband, they get stuffed in the bottom of 18-wheelers in order to come and do a job that others aren't willing to do. I don't think that's right," he said.
Only two days later, the Washington Times reported Bush awarded a $61,200 bonus to Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar, who has been criticized by members of his own agency for refusing to support Ramos and Compean after they were sentenced to 11 and 12-year prison sentences, respectively, for shooting at an illegal alien drug dealer while he attempted to smuggle 750 pounds of marijuana across the border.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
No, the worst thing was the use of gun laws designed to punish criminals that were never meant to be use against law enforcement agents.
“It wasn’t helpful that they interfered with a crime scene—which is illegal—and it was their own scene.”
You are right. They tried to cover up their doings. If they hadn’t doen that, they might be free today. But don’t try and convince the many Bush haters here on FR. The cover up is always worse than the crime.
This website is infested with open border Quislings now.
See, that's the difference between a couple of you quisling here and the rest of us. We don't think shooting an invader in the butt is a crime. Therefore no prosecution should have ever taken place. But, you keep thinking that they committed a crime while saving the U.S. from an invader if it keeps you happy and saves you from thinking that the Bush administration is negligent and is NOT putting the rights of an invader over its own employees.
Maybe I stated it wrong. No, I don’t think shooting an invader is a crime, but covering it up was. As far as I’m concerned they should be shot while trying to cross our border. The reason they were convicted was becase they covered it up. Is that more clear for you?
If there was no crime how could covering "it" up BE a crime?
“If there was no crime how could covering “it” up BE a crime?”
It’s not my definition of a crime. The crime was defined by a prosecuting attorney. I agree with you, I think the border patrol were doing their job and they should not have been prosecuted, but they got themselves in more trouble by covering it up. Look back to recent years where people done a small crime and then were in more trouble because they lied about it.
It’s not that they don’t want to do the work, it’s that the $10,000,000 a year CEO doesn’t want to only make $9,000,000 a year and pay people a little more.
Seriously when is enough, enough? Is there a difference in your living arrangements, or lifestyle, if you ‘earn’ $10,000,000 versus $9,000,000? Or how about if you ‘earn’ $25,000,000 versus $5,000,000? Not really. There’s only so many cars you can drive at a time, and so many houses you can live in at a time.
I have never understood that argument “They’re doing work that American’s don’t want to do”. Really? Could it be that’s because the entitlement system (Welfare, that is) allows them to just sit back, get money direct deposited into an account, and do nothing?
I was unemployed in November of 2003. I made more money on unemployment than I would working at McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Krogers, or any other job (even with 7 years retail experience, the last 3 in mid-level management). I was unemployed until April 2004. It took that 6 months to find a job in the IT field that was paying $30,000 LESS than what I had been making, but was enough to pay my bills. The only bill I was behind on was the mortgage (3 months). I made those payments up, and everything has been fine since (Praise God for that).
So, don’t use that tired excuse with me Mr. President. The jobs are there. The salary disparity is there, too. CEO’s should NOT make 1,000 times the salary of the company workers.
Bush is not one of us.
This is all the proof we need.
Those in permanent government realize entitlements will destroy their kingdom. We have aborted many Americans who would be doing such jobs and would be paying into Social Security and Medicare. Without new manufactured Americans, those programs will quickly destroy us. The permanent government has determined that we need more legal workers paying into the programs to buy time beyond their personal lives - so the blame goes to the next generation’s permanent government.
If you don’t think the shooting was a ‘crime’ (as I do) then why would a “cover-up” of a non-crime be considered illegal if there was no crime in the first place?
what a f**ktard.
ping
I will repeat my post number 29 for you since you apparently missed it.
It’s not my definition of a crime. The crime was defined by a prosecuting attorney. I agree with you, I think the border patrol were doing their job and they should not have been prosecuted, but they got themselves in more trouble by covering it up. Look back to recent years where people done a small crime and then were in more trouble because they lied about it.
W delivers his latest snub to his base.
We're not his base. We clearly share a mutual disdain.
Yes, it’s stunning how many are still willing to sell this country out for cheap labor or ethnic reasons.
I smell it, too. Either there is more here than meets the eye, or this man is obstinate to an unhealthy degree.
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.