Insecure Borders: Let’s Give Blame Where Blame Is Due

There is only one person who has the power actually to do something about the egregious state of our immigration law enforcement and lack of border controls. As FSM Contributing Editor Peter Gadiel charges, that person is the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

For five years, members of 9/11 Families for a Secure America have lobbied in Washington and in many state capitols for immigration law enforcement and secure borders. The opponents of our goals are many throughout Congress and elsewhere, but during this period the most powerful of them has been that individual with the sole authority to require the federal government to enforce these laws and who, by his refusal to do so, has made that government a co-conspirator in undermining the security of this Nation. That person is of course, George Bush.

As chief of the Executive Branch he has under the Constitution not only the sole power but the duty to enforce the laws of our country, a duty he refuses to honor. He thumbs his nose at the obligations imposed on him by the Constitution, which, in the name of the God he claims to worship, he has sworn to uphold. Since the people of the United States have no recourse through the court system to make him enforce the law, he alone has the power to decide that illegal aliens will be permitted to prey on Americans, and he has made that decision.

The harm that George Bush has done to this country is seen by many but felt most severely by those who have been the victims of crimes committed by illegal alien criminals, many of whom, after all, are in the United States due to Bush’s refusal to enforce federal laws already on the books.

The president’s efforts to undermine the collective security of the Nation and the individual security of citizens have caused many to ask: “Why does Bush allow illegal aliens, every one a law breaker, to enter the United States freely? Why does he refuse to enforce existing law and to allow terrorists, violent felons and drug smugglers full access to their intended American victims? Why does he continuously ignore the Constitution and the oath he swore to uphold it? Why doesn’t he care about Americans suffering as a result of depressed wages and working conditions, or about the Americans who have been the victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens?”

Each time I speak with a person whose family has been shattered by the violent act of an illegal alien, an illegal who almost invariably has had numerous previous encounters with the law, I wonder anew what kind of man it is who occupies the White House and tolerates, and by that tolerance encourages, these crimes. What kind of man is this who lifts not a finger to acknowledge his role in these acts of violence and refuses to take action to prevent future crimes?

I have been meeting such victims and families for almost six years. As time passes I’ve grown more disturbed by what the Bush malfeasance indicates about his character. In part this is so because I meet ever more victims and see the list of victims grow longer. But there is another list that is also growing and this too affects my view of the man: the number of elected officials I have spoken with who, because of their positions in the government, have had one-on-one conversations with the president and who insist he is fully aware of the crimes inflicted by his illegal alien friends. There was a time when I gave Mr. Bush the benefit of the doubt; I believed he was insulated from the facts…that he didn’t know what was happening in the states. But now I grasp the truth: He does know. He doesn’t care: What kind of man must this be?

Shortly after September 11, I began encountering 9/11 family members who were convinced that George Bush had had advance knowledge of this conspiracy and that for his own purposes he refused to interfere. Vehemently, I disagreed for two reasons. First, I did not believe that George Bush would intentionally allow thousands of Americans to die. Second, I believed that the incompetence of our government was so highly perfected that it would be impossible to keep secret for very long the fact that officials had advance knowledge of such a catastrophic event.

Today, I have had over five years’ experience in meeting with bureaucrats and members of Congress. I’ve read Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports; transcripts of Congressional Committee hearings and testimony; the 9/11 Commission Report and its associated documents; reports produced by private think tanks and individual experts on crime, immigration and national security. These have confirmed my judgment that our government is staffed by so many individuals who are incompetent or corrupt that it is insane to believe that a secret such as advance knowledge of 9/11 could remain a secret six years after the event. (The 9/11 Commission, in an exquisite formulation of words succeeded in describing and excusing the pervasive incompetence and negligence of federal officials with the phrase “a failure of imagination.”)

But as to George Bush (and many other elected officials and bureaucrats) I have come to realize my original appraisal was wrong. His actions since 9/11 have, for me, established that he lacks concern for the lives of individual Americans. Three thousand people died on 9/11, but since that day far more than three thousand have been killed, individually or in small groups, by illegal aliens. And still he refuses to enforce the laws that would end the killing. Thousands of Americans have been killed in intentional murders, or as ‘by-products’ of robberies, rapes, beatings or auto accidents caused by drunken illegals driving automobiles. Thousands more lives have not been ended but have nevertheless been shattered by acts of violence short of murder, such as child molestation. (The Bush Administration makes a proper accounting of these crimes impossible by virtue of its refusal to require local police to inquire into the illegal status of those arrested.)

That George Bush’s refusal to enforce the laws of this Nation has been the direct cause of these Americans’ death and suffering is simply beyond dispute. He and the Tony Snows and Michael Chertoffs he hires can protest all they want about the “impossibility” of securing our borders. He and they can pretend to be merely incompetent for only so long before Americans wake up and realize they’re not just incompetent, they are misrepresenting the truth.

To the many who wonder why Bush is doing what he’s doing, I offer some advice. For a long time I wondered too. Finally, I realized the futility of spending another moment on this imponderable. The reason why doesn’t matter. The fact that it is so is all that matters. But for those who need to have an answer as to the ‘why’ of the Bush actions I suggest you look at the motives of others who have betrayed our country: ideology, revenge, greed.

One or more of these pretexts must be what Bush employs in his own mind to justify his tolerance of violence and death. In that sense he is undoubtedly conventional, typical of his breed. But in one respect Mr. Bush has carved out a place that is unique among corrupt politicians. In his obsession to pass his amnesty, a major tool in the permanent elimination of our borders, he offered what amounted to a bribe, in public, to members of the US Senate, telling them that if they would vote for his amnesty bill he would provide 4.5 billion dollars to build the border fence that a 2005 federal law he signed required to be built. In those two years Mr. Bush has managed to get only a few miles of that fence built, but suddenly he saw that enforcement of this federal law could be used as a payoff to be offered to Senators to vote for his amnesty. Presto, he promises to come up with four and a half billion to build it.

Of course Mr. Bush is far from the first politician to engage in illegal or immoral behavior. But it is customary for politicians to try and keep their corruption a secret. For example, Boss Tweed of New York; Sen. Tom Dodd (father of the current Sen. Dodd) of Connecticut, Ted Kennedy. These bribe takers, philanderers, drunk drivers and lady killers at least tried to keep their crimes hidden from the public. As reprehensible as they were or are, they at least comprehended that their actions deviated from the norm and felt sufficient concern for public opinion that they didn’t want their crimes exposed. Mr. Bush appears to be unique in this regard, for either he lacks awareness that his behavior is wrong, or his contempt for the people of the United States is so absolute that he is doesn’t care that we see him offering bribes.

Naturally, when corrupt politicians are discussed Bill and Hillary Clinton cannot be ignored: Whitewater; cattle futures; Travelgate; Vince Foster; pardons for Susan McDougal, Puerto Rican terrorists, and Marc Rich; questioning the meaning of the word “is.” We also cannot forget that for eight years prior to September 11, while Moslem terrorists escalated their attacks against the United States these co-Presidents successfully schemed to avoid dealing with terrorism by sweeping it under the rug for their successor. These are the two who paved the way for September 11 by their refusal to respond with sufficient force to the numerous terrorist acts that occurred during their presidency: the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the embassy bombings, the Mogadishu atrocities, the bombing of the USS Cole, etc. By their inaction they encouraged and permitted the growth of the power of binLadin. Ultimately, the greatest responsibility for September 11 lies not with Bush but with the Clintons.

Yet it is George Bush who has been in office for six years after the murders of 3000 on 9/11. It is he who has been president since then as crimes by illegals have killed thousands more. It is possible to excuse the inaction of the Clintons as opportunistic passing of the buck to their successor in the White House. But George Bush cannot claim that excuse. The resulting damage was obvious for all to see. He cannot claim ignorance. He cannot avoid his guilt. Yet, he marches on, completely dismissing the blood that is spilled and the pain that results from his refusal to act.

It is useless to speculate about “why” he permits these crimes. So to those who continue to wonder, my advice is: don’t waste another moment of thought on the matter. Use your energy to contact your members of Congress, your governor, state legislators. Then contact them again, and then again. Educate your friends and enlist them in the cause of immigration reform.

Elected officials do respond to pressure from constituents. You have power, but only if you use it by communicating repeatedly with them. The richly funded campaigns of LaRaza, Chamber of Commerce, Ford Foundation, bankers, lawyers, et al., to open our borders succeed precisely because they make themselves heard while others remain silent. Your silence in the face of their campaigns is as powerful an ally of the open borders lobby as the open borders lobbyists themselves. So, make yourselves heard. You have a voice. Use it.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Peter Gadiel is the president of 9/11 Families for a Secure America. He is a lifelong Republican who voted for George Bush in 2000.

But, Reagan didn't sign an agreement with Mexico to formally encourage illegal immigration as Bush has done.

No, he just said, "It's okay if you come here illegally. We'll just grant you amnesty."

Reagan also didn't order the border patrol to stand down on internal enforcement as Bush has done.

Can you give me a RELIABLE source that shows that Bush gave this order?

What has Bush done to reverse what Reagan did wrong? The answer is 'nothing'.

So blame Reagan for his error and the subsequent results of that (a great influx of illegals). Don't place all the blame in Bush's lap.

Okay. Reagan started it. Bush made it worse. Happy now?

Actually, it started before Reagan. He made it worse. Then Bush Sr. made it worse. Then Clinton made it worse. Now Bush has made it worse. But somehow, people want to put all the blame on Bush. That's silly.

The real question is when are you going to start holding Bush responsible for his actions instead of excusing them simply because Reagan did it first?

Please copy and paste where I ever said Bush should be excused. Oh, that's right, you can't. I never said such a thing.

There were terror attacks both here and abroad before Bush took office. Also, Reagan had the issue of Russian spys who would have liked nothing better than to harm the U.S. because of the pressure Reagan was putting on the USSR. So he had real reason to close the border - but didn't.

You can deny it all you want, but 9/11 was a seminal event and a qualitative difference between the AQ terrorist attacks before that and what happened on our own soil in NYC, the Pentagon, and PA.

Meaning Bush gets all the blame that should be shared by former Presidents?

You seem more hung up on this blame game than our national security. After 9/11 Bush assumes all responsibility for what has happened on his watch since then. AQ aside, I blame Clinton for what happened on 9/11. He failed to act after WTC I, Khobar Towers, the bombings of our embassies in East Africa, the USS Cole and failed attempts including the millenium bomber. Bin Laden declared war against the US in his 1996 fatwa.

The question is whether Bush has learned any lessons from 9/11. I support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Bush Doctrine. However, it is incongruous for us to leave our borders open despite knowing that terrorists are coming across. Do you know why Bush is derelict in this area?

Yep. And people overstayed their visas under former presidents as well.

You still don't get it. 9/11 changed all of that. Why do you allow the same system to remain in place without doing something about it. The US Visit Program was passed in 1996 and it still has yet to be fully implemented? Why?

By the way, your comment implies that the other hijackers were legal immigrants. So what is your proposal there - stop all legal immigration as well?

No, they weren't legal immigrants. They were here legally on visitor visas, student and tourist. We need to do a better job of screening those who apply for visas. The Visa Express for Saudis was stopped and the intelligence agencies are now sharing their info and making it available to consular personnel in their visa lookout data. We still have a partially open door in the form of the Visa Wavier Program, which allows residents of 27 countries to come here without visas. That is the reason we need a tracking system for all visitors who come here so we know when they come and when they leave.

I personally heartened to see more people are willing to stand up on these posts against the Border bots.

There has not been an attack on this nation like 911 since 911.

Congratulations President Bush for your awesome job.

Rest assured that the many conservative backstabbers who pretend the 911 attackers marched across the Mexican border on your watch have done little if anything to help you keep the nation safe.

Your implementation of Homeland security and various aspects of surveillance have greatly enhanced our ability to know who is in the country far beyond anything the border bots are even capable of imagining.

Though people like to quote the high side of 12-20 million, we know simply that life in America is so great and life in Mexico so horrible that literally millions continue to try to get here by any and all means.

We know with some clarity that there is a community that is not interested in constructive political dialogue but diatribe. This community is characterized by terms such as traitor and worse than Clinton.

The border radicals could have easily pulled the rug out in 2004 but know full well that Democrats are not going to enforce the border more than you have. Nonetheless, they are content to throw rhetorical firebombs at you and feign ignorance of you never promising them a Rose Garden.

There was never a promise by Bush to close the border.

He has been a man of his word and you despise this.

You will now predictably quote the Constitution to me but I will not listen.

You can deny it all you want, but 9/11 was a seminal event

Please copy and paste where I ever denied it. Oh, that's right, you can't. I never said it wasn't.

and a qualitative difference between the AQ terrorist attacks before that and what happened on our own soil in NYC, the Pentagon, and PA.

Emboldened by lack of action by previous Presidents.

You seem more hung up on this blame game than our national security.

Nope, just tired of everyone claiming it's "Bush's fault" when the blame is shared by former Presidents (and lets face it, by Congress as well).

After 9/11 Bush assumes all responsibility for what has happened on his watch since then.

Never said otherwise. But Bush is not responsible for all the illegals here. Many of them have been here for years and years (before Bush took office) and others were emboldened to come due to the action or inaction of previous Presidents.

However, it is incongruous for us to leave our borders open despite knowing that terrorists are coming across.

I agree, we should put pressure on Bush and on Congress to seal the borders and deport all illegals.

Do you know why Bush is derelict in this area?

For the same reason previous Presidents were. They didn't want to deal with it in the way it should be dealt with.

You still don't get it. 9/11 changed all of that.

It should have been changed prior to 9/11, because, as I said, we had terrorist attacks before then. I hold Bush responsible for not fixing it, but I hold the previous Presidents responsible for not fixing it as well.

They were here legally on visitor visas, student and tourist.

Yep, they were legal.

We need to do a better job of screening those who apply for visas.

I agree. As you mention in your post, we've stopped the visa 'express' for Saudis, so we've made some progress. We need to keep that progress moving forward.

Nope, just tired of everyone claiming it's "Bush's fault" when the blame is shared by former Presidents (and lets face it, by Congress as well).

Just not true. Everyone isn't claiming it is Bush's fault. What many of us are saying is that Bush is responsible NOW for securing our borders and 9/11 makes it imperative. You still haven't provided a reason why Bush refuses to do so.

I never said that Bush is responsible for all the illegals here. I do have a problem with him wanting to give them amnesty and failing to enforce the immigtration laws on the books, including employer sanctions. Even Clinton did a better job in that area.

For the same reason previous Presidents were. They didn't want to deal with it in the way it should be dealt with.

Other Presidents didn't have 9/11. I might add that Eisenhower took a far more forceful approach: Operation Wetback

LOL. There you go again with the blame game. You sound like the 12 year old saying that all the other kids are doing it, why can't I? Bush is in charge now. He is the one accountable, not previous Presidents. It matters not a hill of beans if we are attacked with a WMD and discover that it was transported from Mexico last month. Bush has had almost 6 years since 9/11 to fix it.

Yep, they were legal.

But not IMMIGRANTS. Big difference. About 50 million people a year enter this country legally.

I agree. As you mention in your post, we've stopped the visa 'express' for Saudis, so we've made some progress. We need to keep that progress moving forward.

LOL. A real sense of urgency--not. Congress stopped Visa Express, which actually continued after 9/11, which led to CA's Mary Ryan retirement from the State Department.

No, he just said, "It's okay if you come here illegally. We'll just grant you amnesty."

Please show where Reagan ever uttered those words.

Can you give me a RELIABLE source that shows that Bush gave this order?

In June 2004, the BP in Temecula, CA performed a series of immigration sweeps to round up illegal aliens. The 12-man team made 450 arrests that month. In response to to outcry from illegal alien-apologists, the team was ordered to 'stand-down'. A town-hall meeting was conducted with Undersecretary of Homeland Security Asa Hutchinson in attendance. According to him, "...the raids were executed without the approval of higher ranking officials. While the sweeps were not illegal, they violated policy and the chain of command." (See: Union official: Frustration grows at Temecula Border Patrol station & Bush official slammed for stopping illegals sweeps)

How about employer sanctions? Are they up or down since Bush took office?

Federal records show that in 2001, 141 companies across the country were hit with fines, 15 of them in California. By 2002, those numbers had dropped to 73 and one, respectively. In 2003, 15 companies in the United States were fined ---- none of which were in California. And as of May, just one company ---- in Maryland ---- was fined this year. (Employer fines plummet for hiring illegals)

"The decline in arrests of employers of illegal immigrants, said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Temecula, and host of the Aug. 13 town-hall meeting, is due to an almost complete abandonment of interior enforcement in the two decades following an amnesty in 1986." (Employer fines plummet for hiring illegals)

Yesterday Richard Stana of the Government Accountability Office told a House panel that under the Bush administration workplace enforcement of immigration violations had fallen sharply. For instance, consider the numbers of employers who received formal letters warning about possible fines for violating immigration laws:

Under Clinton in 1999: 417 employers
Under Bush in 2003: 3 employers
(Workplace enforcement plummets under Bush)

Perhaps you could show evidence of how Bush has rejected the poor policies of his predecessors on immigration enforcement.

So blame Reagan for his error and the subsequent results of that (a great influx of illegals). Don't place all the blame in Bush's lap.

If you had your druthers, no blame whatsoever would fall to Bush's lap. Accordign to you, only the Presidents who came before him bear any responsibilty for what's going on now.

What responsibility does Bush bear for his part in this fiasco? (i.e.: the Partnership for Prosperity, New Alliance Task Force & Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico)

Fine. What exactly has Bush done to reverse the bad policies of his predecessors and correct the situation?

Please copy and paste where I ever said Bush should be excused. Oh, that's right, you can't. I never said such a thing.

Again, what has Bush done to fix what's wrong?

Please show where Reagan ever uttered those words.

LOL We both know Reagan didn't say those exact words, but isn't that the message that is sent when illegals are granted amnesty? If not, what IS the message?

Thanks for the links. It shows that the station officials ordered them to stand down, not Bush. (Which refutes the original claim that Bush ordered them to stand down.) By the way, we know that sweeps for illegals continue. There have been reports posted here on FR that shows they are occurring, so it's clear Bush has NOT ordered an end to them.

Perhaps you could show evidence of how Bush has rejected the poor policies of his predecessors on immigration enforcement.

Since I never claimed that he did, there's no reason for me to do so.

If you had your druthers, no blame whatsoever would fall to Bush's lap.

Please copy and paste where I ever said Bush doesn't get some blame in this fiasco. Oh, that's right, you can't. I never said that.

Accordign to you, only the Presidents who came before him bear any responsibilty for what's going on now.

Again, please copy and paste where I ever said that. Oh, that's right, you can't, since I never said such a thing.

What responsibility does Bush bear for his part in this fiasco?

As I have said repeatedly on this thread, he shares the blame with the former Presidents.

What exactly has Bush done to reverse the bad policies of his predecessors and correct the situation?

Once again, I never made a claim that he righted any wrongs. I just said he isn't the only one to blame. That seems to get under the skin of some folks on FR, but it's the truth none the less.

And thank you for admitting I never said Bush should be excused.

LOL We both know Reagan didn't say those exact words, but isn't that the message that is sent when illegals are granted amnesty? If not, what IS the message?

What exactly did Reagan say?

No, the station commanders acted without orders when they started the sweeps. They were following orders when they told the teams to stand-down.

Late last month, Undersecretary of Homeland Security Asa Hutchinson told members of Congress that the raids were executed without the approval of higher ranking officials. While the sweeps were not illegal, they violated policy and the chain of command, Hutchinson said.

As I have said repeatedly on this thread, he shares the blame with the former Presidents.

Blame for what? What exactly has he done that deserves blame?

Once again, I never made a claim that he righted any wrongs. I just said he isn't the only one to blame. That seems to get under the skin of some folks on FR, but it's the truth none the less.

To blame for what? What has Bush done that deserves blame?

What exactly did Reagan say?

Whatever message you think is sent when amnesty is granted. (I notice you haven't said what you think that message is, even though I asked.)

No, the station commanders acted without orders when they started the sweeps. They were following orders when they told the teams to stand-down.

Please direct me to that in the links you provided. The passage you posted doesn't say anyone was told to 'stand down.' Even if in one particular area, they were told to 'stand down' by some official, we know that sweeps have been occurring since these articles were published in various places around the country, so there's been no general order to stop such sweeps from President Bush.

Blame for what?

LOL Did you already forget what we are talking about on this thread? Insecure borders.

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.