Posted on 04/28/2010 2:01:54 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Karl Rove, who served as chief political strategist for former President George W. Bush, is the latest Republican to speak out against Arizona's controversial new immigration law, the Orlando Sentinel reports.
"I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill," Rove reportedly said at a senior community center in The Villages, Forida, where he made a stop on his book tour. "I wished they hadn't passed it, in a way."
Arizona's new law, signed by the governor on Friday, would require immigrants to carry documents verifying their immigration status. It would also require police officers to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" that person may be illegally in the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
If you believe this, then you've been duped.
In January 2001, George Bush took an oath which required him to faithfully enforce the laws. No fair observer can conclude that he has even halfheartedly attempted faithfully to enforce our immigration laws and to see that our borders are secure.
Three weeks after taking the oath of office, Bush met with Vicente Fox to work out the details of the Partnership for Prosperity Agreement (with Mexico). That agreement was signed on September 6, 2001. (talk about fast-track)
It was utterly within Bush's power during his tenure in office to have prevented all of this simply by enforcing existing laws, but he would not. Vigorous action along the southern frontier would have radically diminished the inflow of illegal aliens.
Bush could not vigorously enforce the immigration laws without 'harming' those who helped elect him, and whose bidding he was doing --Wall Street bankers. Never forget that Bush comes from a long line of Wall Street bankers and it is to them he owes his total allegiance.
There are a world of other facts surrounding Bush's actions to undermine the US economy while in office. Visit my FR home page.
Is anyone inside the beltway on our side?
Shut up Karl and go away. You steered Bush wrong and helped lose the Congress in 2006 and I don’t get Hannity calling you “The Architect” You were the architect of death for the Republican majority.
I still maintain that Rove is the symbol of what is wrong with the party. These gun for hire political consultants are only interested in winning an election, not in constructing a political party that reflects basic values and principles. Rove or Morris or Carville or Axelrod can work for any candidate of any political stripe. The power of the media to sell candidates like soap powder has changed the nature of politics. Image trumps substance.
Not even a "nice try" on this one.
While McCain has called the law a “good tool,” Rove by contrast, reportedly said, “At the end of the day ... I think there are better tools.”
Thats not exactly against it.
Try reading the article. This is obviously a typical attempt, using false pull quotes and a misrepresenting headline, to get the mythical “Republican rift” the Left needs to win in November.
You didn't think that NAFTA, reliance on UN "permission", the Security and Prosperity Pact or the establishment of NORTHCOM were in the best interests of Americans do you?
Read to the bottom of the piece. This is more anti-GOP misrepresentation from rabs.
If so, then a 20-year old can enroll to play on a soccer team of 12-year olds, and no law can require him to prove his age with “papers”. Any attempts to oust such advanced adolescents can rightly be called profiling, and hence immoral and unconstitutional.
TSA can no longer require ID (”papers”) to fly on a commercial flight.
No more Driver's Licenses required—anywhere, because they are “papers”.
I can write bad checks to my heart's content, because stores can no longer require me to prove anything with “papers”.
I'm sure all these things will get the same treatment as the Arizona law.
More idiocy.
I don’t see all the furor.
Rove is not saying he doesn’t agree with the law. He’s saying there may be problems with it being declared unconstitutional, and he’s probably speaking from a political standpoint that it takes the focus off the democrats.
Tar and feathers needed
Yeah, let's just dismiss that silly old Rule of Law concept and reward lawbreakers with what they want, i.e., legalized status that allows them to stay and work here. And let's sell citizenship for a few thousand dollars and the learning of English. And forget about fairness to the almost three million intending immigrants who have completed all of the paperwork and checks and who are waiting overseas for their turn to come up, some for up to ten years. What jerks.
I wish we could give amnesty to these Mexicans using the same rigorous standards that we put on legal immigrants, if you don't have a skill then you aren't welcome on a longterm basis.
We don't have a merit based immigration system now. It is based on kinship. The overwhelming majority of legal immigrants we bring in every year are poor, unskilled, and uneducated. 53% of immigrant headed households in this country are on welfare. We are importing poverty.
Maybe if he lived in Douglas, AZ for a few months, he’d think differently.
Do you think Rove read the bill? How can he say it has Constitutional problems?
That's the problem. Rove could care less about the problems citizens are confronted with in AZ. So what if people are killed, robbed, raped, etc by illegal aliens. So what if AZ is going broke trying to cope with the cost of illegals. Let them eat cake.
Karl, You and Bush had eight years to fix it correctly, but you were determined to ignore fellow Republicans and ram amnesty down our throats, so don't complain when others are doing your work.
Who believes Duh-bya was a rancher simply because he bought land in Crawford and drove around in a pick-up truck while wearing a Stetson?
Talk about all hat and no cattle.
But, a lot of folks around these parts and across America swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Many still do. Just like a lot believe he is a good, Christian man.
Newt did the same thing, just as his last book came out he angered about 90% of Republicans and Conservatives.
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.