Heads Up: GWB to speak on immigration reform 1:30PM ET

fox news | 4/9/2007 | staff

[kellynla]

President Bush will speak on immigration reform.

[rottndog]

OK....Sorry.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

A man of integrity and “unquestioned character” is that way across the board, not on some or most issues. Bush’s job is to enforce the nations laws, a job he is not doing when it comes to U.S. Border Sovereignty and immigration. The laws are on the books, he chooses not to enforce them. After 6+ years, it’s fair to say that that’s his policy. How much integrity and “unquestioned character” is involved in a policy of selective/non-enforcement of the nations laws?

Bush never took an oath to enforce, selectively or otherwise, the myriad laws we have. Rather, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Article 2, sections 1-4 nowhere make mention that it is his job to enact the laws of Congress, or to zealously enforce them, or anything like that. In fact, issues related to the border (repelling invasions and uniformity of naturalization) are SPECIFICALLY under the purview of CONGRESS, not the president.

Congress has had YEARS to deal with this festering problem. It has been a REPUBLICAN house and senate and they have sat on their fingers and done nothing. No border enforcement, and no relaxation of immigration statutes to accomodate the underlying economic reality of what is happening.

Bush is for more relaxed borders than his base is. OK. So they don't agree. CONGRESS is the party responsible for legislation in this area, and whining because the house was more "enforcement now, quotas later" and the senate was the opposite is just idiotic. I am for more relaxed crossings than most, but EITHER EXTREME WOULD BE SUPERIOR TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW. And the blame lies clearly with the branch of Government whose job it is to address the issue..... it ain't the executive branch.

I have huge problems with the president on a number of areas, but it is unfair to lay the border problems at his feet.

[onyx]

I want the last word!!!!!

[kabar]

I was with you for awhile. Yes, migration of peoples is part of history. But Charles Martel defeated the Moors at the Battle of Tours and the Moors were also thrown out of Spain. Dying and weak civilizations can and have been overrun.

If the US were to annex Mexico, we would be far worse off. Incorporating third world countries into the US would cost us more than it is worth.

[ronnie raygun]

Hey George do you want to impress me? CLOSE THE GOD DAMED BORDERS. I don’t want to here any more about a comprehensive illegal immigration policy! With the borders closed and the jails emptied now you can deal with whats left!

[rottndog]

OK...I’m waiting for GB to take action...how about by enforcing laws already on the books?

Illegals, and criminals in general, are dissuaded from illegal behavior if they feel there will be consequences for their actions. No consequences, no dissuasion.

It’s simple, really.

[Gator113]

Oh what the heck, a couple more things.

It’s threads like this that move to convince me that it may not really be important as to who gets elected as President anymore.

The “If it’s not exactly how I want it, I wont play” crowd, has made it impossible for any ‘good person’ to be a functional president. Looking at what so many have become, is like watching a dogfish eat it’s own guts after you slit it and toss it overboard.

For the record, in my view......the open boarder sucks, the illegal aliens are hurting our country, the Mexicans with their speeches and protests make me sick......BUT, blaming everything on Bush, taking every cheap shot imaginable and bashing him at every possible chance......... is going to be what we will later learn to regret the most.

[rottndog]

Sorry, but POTUS is the head of the EXECUTIVE branch, the branch responsible for EXECUTING the laws passed by congress. Congress does not, and can not enforce laws. It's rather silly to say that Federal Law Enforcement is not the job of POTUS, given that he appoints the AG and all U.S. Attorneys, who then serve at his pleasure and carry out his policies.

Either way, whatever congress does, nothing is stopping Bush from enforcing the laws, except Bush.

BTW, the Constitution that Bush swore to defend and uphold does specifically state that: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;..."---Article 4 section 4

[rottndog]

If the US were to annex Mexico, we would be far worse off. Incorporating third world countries into the US would cost us more than it is worth.

You got that right! Annexing Mexico would be like transplanting a tumor to fight the cancer.

[EveningStar]

Have you checked his entire posting history?

He seems fairly thoughtful and nuanced thus far.

[Ieatfrijoles]

You must’ve missed the part about the Rio Grande? good stuff Karl.

[HoosierHawk]

This past Saturday we had 15,000 illegals take over the streets of downtown Los Angeles and DEMAND amnesty...NOW! I might believe this President was becoming serious about border enforcement if he had sent ICE in there to shake things up a bit.

LOL!!

[petitfour]

That would be what I would top as his biggest mistake, but that was when he was governor. As for biggest presidential mistake, I don’t know.

[Netizen]

When Border Patrol gets told to 'stand down', where do those orders come from? INS? Homeland Security?

Alaso, is it unconstitutional to expect citizens to abide by laws that illegal migrants don't abide by?

[rottndog]

When Border Patrol gets told to 'stand down', where do those orders come from? INS? Homeland Security?

Ultimately, the order comes from POTUS. Of course he does this by appointing people (cabinet heads) he knows will carry out his policies, who then do it for him.

Under the 14th amendment equal protection clause, it's unconstitutional to enforce laws unequally. Out of what used to be an American sense of fairness, it's just plain wrong to expect certain people to be held to legal standards that others are not.

Either way, the dichotomy of the situation of Illegal Immigration is unsustainable over the long term, and I truly fear what will happen if rule of and respect for law is not restored.

[daybreakcoming]

You’re right. I say let them feed off of each other.
I came on this thread thinking maybe there would be intelligent conversation on this subject for once. But it’s the same old emotional frothing spittle. Over and over. Insane.

[Netizen]

Ultimately, the order comes from POTUS. Of course he does this by appointing people (cabinet heads) he knows will carry out his policies, who then do it for him.

So, if the President or someone from his White House staff suggested, instructed, directed or ordered the Justice Department, Homeland Security Department or any other Federal Law Enforcement Agency, verbally or in writing NOT to cooperate with State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies when they apprehend suspected illegal aliens, this 'could' be seen as 'OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE'?

[Netizen]

Under the 14th amendment equal protection clause, it's unconstitutional to enforce laws unequally. Out of what used to be an American sense of fairness, it's just plain wrong to expect certain people to be held to legal standards that others are not.

Hmmm To your knowledge has anyone brought suit on these grounds? If not, maybe it's time.

Either way, the dichotomy of the situation of Illegal Immigration is unsustainable over the long term, and I truly fear what will happen if rule of and respect for law is not restored.

We continue our fall into third world'ism'. We become a nation where the people are not heard and the elitists just do as they please..... oh wait a minute.....

[daybreakcoming]

His sign-up date (only five days old) + His Arguing for Amnesty of Illegals = Something rather trollish.

Oh my. He must have disagreed with you. I've only been here 3-1/2 years and never knew there was a waiting period before you could post. Or is it that you feel like you should be the only 007? LOL

[rottndog]

...this 'could' be seen as 'OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE'?

You and I would think so, but SCOTUS has continually held that law enforcement is under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to enforce the law. Sad, but true.