A Few Questions For Die-Hard Bush Supporters

Toogood Reports ^ | June 5, 2002 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[Stand Watch Listen]

Let me just say up front that I am not addressing you if you voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and regret it. The same goes for those of you who voted for Bush and insist on holding his feet to the fire on the important issues. If, however, you cast your vote for Bush, still believe he is the only hope for America and intend to support every move he makes without so much as a raised eyebrow, this is for you.

It has been nearly a year-and-a-half since George W. Bush, the savior of conservatism, descended from on high to begin his earthly reign in Washington, D.C. Republicans assured us that he would restore integrity to the White House and would be a marked improvement over the promiscuous Bill Clinton. Well, in all honesty, that could have been accomplished by electing a neutered chimp to the office of president.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush the man proved to be a nice break from Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Unlike Gore, Bush had a more likable...well, he actually had a personality. He also possessed the unique ability to address the American people without the smug and condescending vibe Clinton exuded. However, when it came to policy, George W. Bush the candidate failed to demonstrate that he would govern any differently than his Democrat counterparts.

Still, throughout the campaign, there was a loyal group of Bush supporters who would take offense at even the slightest implication that their candidate was anything but a staunch conservative. Even now, they continue to stand by their man, and I find this to be rather perplexing.

Perhaps those who have pledged their undying allegiance to President Bush could answer a few questions for me, in no particular order of course:

•  How would you have reacted if Bill Clinton had signed the Patriot Act into law and given the government sweeping new surveillance powers?

•  Would you have criticized a Democrat president for signing a $26 billion education-spending bill?

•  Did you feel betrayed when Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform into law?

•  What do you think about Bush's position on granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants?

•  Would you have tolerated a Democrat proposal for federally funded faith-based initiatives?

•  What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had said, "No one should have to pay more than a third of their income to the federal government"?

•  What do you think about the president's granting of Permanent Most Favored Nation status to China?

•  What's the difference between Bush and the Democrats on the issue of farm subsidies?

•  How would you react if a Democrat president sent a $2.13 trillion budget to Congress?

•  Would you have stood for a Democrat saying "No!" to arming airline pilots?

•  What would your reaction have been if a Democrat had pushed for the federalization of airport security?

•  Are you willing to stand by and let the Bush administration cater to the environmentalists on the global warming issue?

•  What do you think about Bush's call for a Patient's Bill of Rights?

•  What one thing has Bush done that sets him apart from the Democrats?

•  It's been a year-and-a-half since Bush took office. When do we start to see a decrease in the size and scope of government? For that matter, when do we start to see even a remote indication that this administration will think about doing anything to try to limit the federal government?

This list is by no means exhaustive, but I would really be interested in some answers. Perhaps it would help shed some light on the mindset of modern compassionate conservatives.

The fact that a Republican president is governing like a Democrat isn't surprising. What's amazing to me is that there are a few select Bush supporters out there who cannot—or will not—utter one word of criticism against their president for any reason. In their minds this man is the epitome of conservatism, and to question his actions would be to question their own beliefs and cause them to wonder why they supported him in the first place.

The way I see it there can only be two explanations for this: 1) these people really and truly believe in what Bush is doing, or 2) they do not wish to face up to the real reason they voted for him — he was simply a slightly more palatable choice than Al Gore.

[BeAChooser]

"What SPECIFIC part of my commentary on this thread do you find annoying?"

Every word of it, including "the", "if", and "of".

Well I see you have about as much understanding of the word "specific" as Clinton did of the words "is" and "sex".

[Luis Gonzalez]

"…the mechanism is already there, the difference is that without 245(i) they would have to return home to apply, with 245(i) they don't have to."—LG

"Clearly, that's false, as is most of what you post on these threads."-Garfield

Let's start with your "amnesty", the word that you so love to throw around.

245(i) is not "amnesty", it simply establishes a period of time for illegals, or people whose status is in question for reasons ranging from an INS snaffu, to their own ignorance, to step forward, voluntarily, and apply for a hearing to determine whether their status can be adjusted to "legal".

Is that false Garfield?

I didn't think so.

This section 245(i) neither guarantees that a hearing will take place, or that the outcome will be a favorable one to the applicant.

Are you saying that's not true? If you are, can you prove your claim?

"I made this rather clear-cut analogy to illustrate the foolishness of your earlier attempt to pretend an Illegal leaving the country and getting in line for a visa is the existing "mechanism" for Amnesty."

If a person who entered the country illegally, gets back across the border to Mexico (let's assume this person to be Mexican...assuming that being an illegal immigrant automatically makes you Mexican seems to be all the rage in FR these days), walks up to our consulate there, and applies for permission to migrate to the US. How would the consulate know that he'd been living in upper Tijuana (A.K.A. Los Angeles) for the past ten years?

Then, he gets himself a Mexican passport, applies for a tourist visa, gets on a plane, and next thing you know, he's standing in line outside "It's a Small, Small, World" while his request is being processed by the INS.

If he had kids all those years in the US, it’s even easier than that.

Now, another reality that you ignore are the requirements that the applicant needs to meet in order to even qualify for a hearing, you never even bother posting them.

They can be found here.

You also claim that I lie when I say that upon being declined for adjustment of status, the applicant is eligible for deportation, you can read it here.

A couple more thoughts, while you are busy bashing Bush on this issue, all the while making light of his signing of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, you’ve been giving the Democrats a pass.

Telling.

So now, what have we learned, other than the fact that you must have graduated Summa Cum Laude from the Bill Clinton Institute of Spinology?

We have learned that 245(i) isn't amnesty...but rather than having everyone just take my word for it, let's quote a leading US Immigration Attorney:

"Unfortunately, section 245(i) has been the subject of many inaccurate and misleading reports. Therefore, whenever we mention this subject, we take the opportunity to explain what section 245(i) is all about.

As we explained last week (May 10, 2002) in our article President Voices Support for INA Section 245(i), 245(i) provides a procedure for individuals to be allowed to obtain permanent residence even if they had been out of status or made an improper entry to the U.S. It does not provide an amnesty or a new way to obtain permanent residence. These individuals must be eligible for permanent residence in all respects, usually based on family or employment relationships. All 245(i) does is enable a person to complete the process from within the U.S. rather than having to travel to a consulate overseas. This provision is important because certain persons who have remained in the U.S. without legal status would be subject to a 3-year or 10-year bar on returning to this country if they travel abroad. Section 245(i) also does not expedite the green card process in any way."

Mind you, this is a person whose job is to interpret the laws in a way that benefits her clientele. But why should anyone believe her, when we have you, and those cute, little jumping kitty cats.

Ay chihuahua luis! I think you hurt el gato...

[BeAChooser]

"I challenge you to show me even one Clinton-era crime which was properly investigated and prosecuted?"

Monica Lewinski and BJgate.

Investigated ... small maybe ... but prosecuted? No way.

For example, Sid Blumenthal was caught red handed lying under oath in an impeachment trial about lying under oath. Was he ever prosecuted? No. Same for Vernan Jordan's testimony. He was caught red handed lying under oath and never prosecuted. And ... when all was said and done ... despite all the statements (even by democRATS) that the crimes Clinton committed (the perjury, etc) could be pursued once Clinton was out of office ... that didn't happen. Properly prosecuted ... no.

I maintain that the Monica investigation was a deliberate distraction on the part of Ken Starr. What a coincidence that she came to light just as Starr was telling us he was done and was going to wrap the whole matter and go back to academia. What a coincidence that she came to light just as the Ron Brown whistleblower accusations were gaining some traction in the media ... and more importantly, in the black community. There are other reasons to distrust Starr too. Why did he allow the Whitehouse to keep the illegal FBI files for YEARS after he told us it was illegal for them to have them and YEARS after the Whitehouse told the public they had been returned? No one here has ever even tried to answer that question.

And besides ... Monica was about something that could be spun. Now try one of the more serious allegations.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Investigated ... small maybe ... but prosecuted? No way."

I guess you must have missed that whole impeachment thing.

[Satadru]

There are laws in the book against illegal immigration. Hence, the word illegal. Illegal immigrants can have overstayed their visa or have entered the country illegally. If one is entering the country illegally, I am fairly certain it is a felony offense. You will get deported if you overstayed your visa and got caught. If you are trying to enter illegally by jumping the border, you get prison time and then get deported. The Bush administration is completely overlooking the issue of border crossing. In fact, Bush is encouraging it by saying if you are here illegally we will make you somehow legal. That is a violation of the separation of powers. Congress has passed laws against illegal immigration, and the President must enforce it.

As far as unconstitutional agencies that Bush is funding and even adding as of today, geez where do I start. I guess the Dept of Education, whose budget he tripled, Dept of Transportation, whose sole job is to dole out Union contracts and whose budget has also been increased, Dept of Agriculture, NEA, NEH, EOEC, OSHA, BATF, Title 9,7,5, and several more that I am sure better Constitutional and government affairs folks can list. The most painful was the federalization of airport workers, who instantly became shrewd geniuses in security overnight owing to their new status as govt employee. The Bush adminstration continues to use Medicare money to fund abortion, and fatten up Planned Parenthood. I am sure other folks more knowledgeable than I am can give more examples.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You wanted me to be more specific than that?

Dude, is English your first language?

[Sabertooth]

Saberkitty, I still believe that most of the people who will have been granted waivers for the status situations you listed above are those whose situation RESULTED from the INS's backlog in paperwork. Their official okay by the INS for them to remain in the country didn't come through in a timely fashion, and their status lapsed from legal to illegal.

No, those folks you refer to are eligible for other subsections of Section 245 of the Immigration and Naturalization Code. No one has a beef with legal immigrants who are cought up in red tape and bureaucratic snafus through no fault of their own.

"Entered the U.S. without being inspected by an INS official," means came into the country illegally. That's not a snafu, that's willful disregard for our laws.

Marine Inspector and Ajnin work with the Border Patrol. They will confirm this definition of "entering without inspection."

I may well have to call my Congressman to check this out if you continue to insist I have it wrong, but that is my honest understanding of this policy, which has been in effect for some time, and is simply being renewed.

By all means, call... but call with more than questions, call with answers of your own. There is a great deal of spin and disinformation coming out of DC on this Section 245(i), which is part of Clinton's INS Legacy.

For yet more confirmation, here are some links to pro-Illegal sites...

Many potential immigrants are aware of the section 245(i) legalization program that expired on April 30, 2000. Basically, the law provided that a foreign national who was in the US on December 21, 2000 and who has a family member or employer to sponsor them, can petition for and be granted Lawful Permanent Residence ("Green Card") even though they were out of status (illegal) at the time they filed their petition.
American-Immigration.com

Most people who entered the U.S. without inspection, overstayed an admission, acted in violation of the terms of their status, worked without authorization, entered as a crewman, or were admitted in transit without a visa, are considered out of status
American Immigrant Lawyers Association

Congress had enacted a new law which temporarily restores Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act that was signed into law by President Clinton on November 26, 1997.
Section 245(i) allows certain individuals who are in the U.S. and who are not in lawful status but who are eligible for an immigrant visa to file their paperwork for immigrant visas here in the U.S.
Frosina.org

Section 245(i) is the law that gives almost all applicants for permanent residence, including undocumented immigrants, the right to be interviewed here. By being interviewed here, out-of-status applicants avoid the three and ten year bars to permanent residence. So long as you have a relative petition, employment petition, or a labor certificate application pending by the January 14, 1998 deadline, you'll be interviewed here regardless of the wait in your quota category.
For instance, suppose you came here without papers and your permanent resident mother files a family petition for you before the cutoff...
Immigration Answers

There's plenty more like them. Just run a Google Search on "Section 245(i)" and start clicking around. You'll quickly find that people who are both for and against Illegals both agree that Section 245(i) is there to allow Illegals to do an end-around our laws and "change status" to legal.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The Bush administration is completely overlooking the issue of border crossing."

You are making this way too easy.

Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act

[Reagan Man]

First things first. It's clear you didn't have your facts straight and you didn't follow the flow of our discussion. You're always getting off topic and using inflammatory rhetoric, not just to make your points, but also to insult people. Cut the crap.

Also, I ever said, the list I supplied was anything more the a guide, of the most logical choices for Bush to pick from. Many of the most cosnervative names listed, have been mentioned at one time or another by people close to the President. If Bush has said, Scalia and Thomas are his ideal SC justices, then it is fair to say, he would choose highly conservative jurists for nomination.

Face it, Bush never had your trust to start with. Most polls, show Bush receiving overwhelming support from the American people and that includes most Republicans and the vast majority of conservatives. So you can presume and assume all you want. Makes no difference to me. Just get your facts straight and keep them straight.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Other than your ill-informed opinion, what makes the existence of those agencies unconstitutional?

[mafree]

Thanks for the flag- very interesting debate and you are holding your own.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You really go to Chicago U?

I'll make sure that I don't send my kids there.

"That is a violation of the separation of powers. Congress has passed laws against illegal immigration, and the President must enforce it."

It's Congress that's pushing the extension of 245(i), as a matter of fact, Daschle just introduced a much more liberal version of the bill last month. Soon, we are going to wish they would have ratified the version Bush supported.

One last thing, the constitution grants Congress the power to make, AND CHANGE, immigration laws.

[Satadru]

He obviously fooled me to get my vote. If he told the American people all about CFR, stem-cell funding, Adarand, steel tariffs, lumber tariffs, amnesty, education bill, farm bill, etc., then I am sure he would not have gotten conservative votes for sure. All I am saying is that I do not trust him any longer. He could have used his 85% popularity rating to force a full Senate vote on Pickering. Instead, he let Daschle, Leahy and Hillary, bottle up his nominee in committee. Who looks strong now? A President with a 85% popularity rating who would allow his nominees to be ambushed, or senators from states that noone has even heard of.

[Satadru]

This is what I call sophistry. Do you think that the border jumpers, who are dying in thirst in the desert and running from border patrol are carrying tamper-proof passports? Huh!

[BeAChooser]

" And what is wrong? Suddenly you don't seem to want the Admin Moderator and Jim Robinson to read what you post."

Are you referring to post 1152? Read the list again.

Oppps! My mistake!

But I didn't make a mistake about what you posted on that other thread. Let's go over it again just so you can be as honest as I and retract your "mistake".

*********

BeAChooser to Reagan Man

"You are wrong. Most American's don't have a clue of the scope and seriousness of the crimes Clinton and company committed. That information was kept from them by the liberal media."

RedBloodedAmerican to BeAChooser

"That information was kept from them by the liberal media"

It wasn't released to the media.

********

You clearly weren't talking to Reagan Man because you clearly quoted my statement about "information" begin kept from the public by the media. The "information" I was referring to clearly included the matters of Broaddrick and Blumenthal that I mentioned in my post to Reagan Man. And you clearly were claiming that information wasn't known to the press, something which my post to you then proved was untrue.

Care to retract your claim that I was lying about you refering to anything having to do with Broaddrick or Blumenthal?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Do you think that the border jumpers, who are dying in thirst in the desert and running from border patrol are carrying tamper-proof passports? Huh!"

Well, if they're not, they go back.

I guess you were wrong yet again.

You also fluffed over the increased spending, which by the way, came from Bush defunding the War on Drugs.

[BeAChooser]

Well for not worrying about others I stand by my assessment... You spend a hell of a lot of time on other people and what their thoughts and opinion are...

Oh ... sort of like the people who are criticizing the "BushBashers" on this thread? Humm?

[BeAChooser]

Ignoring posts by liars, slanderers and false accusers. Ciao.

Running as usual I see. But thanks for all the good material to mention the next time we chat. Ciao.

[Satadru]

Dont worry about sending your kid here. If he is your son, then I am sure genetic defects will not let him graduate from here. I wish him good luck. If you already don't know why these agencies are unconstitutional, then that is the first sign of stunted growth. If you think that the necessary and proper clause makes everything necessary and proper, then you should see a doctor. If you are counting from 1-10, but couldn't find the 9th or 10th amendment anywhere, that is another sign.

I am well aware of what Congress can or cannot do. Bush is trying to get liberal Democrats and RINOs to include amnesty, or should I say look-the-other-way bill, in the immigration or some spending bill. He has previously criticized conservatives by saying that they are trying to keep Mexicans in poverty. He simply fails to amaze me. Such an open hypocrite, but so many allegedly Republican followers.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You mean the thread that was designed to insult anyone who supports President Bush?