Posted on 07/23/2007 10:48:39 AM PDT by AuntB
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.
Insecure Borders: Let’s Give Blame Where Blame Is Due
By Peter Gadiel
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.
LOL Why the heck are you asking that? Did I even mention those things before you asked me about them? No, I didn't.
Goodness, you really are thick (or maybe you just lose all reason when someone dares to disagree with you).
Now we're getting somewhere. How do you think they make the situation worse? (I know what I think they do. I want to hear your take on them.)
Let me ask you (although I'm sure you won't answer the question), was Reagan's grant of amnesty good or bad?
Bad. Very bad. When you reward lawbreakers it emboldens them and others around them to not only commit the same crime, but also commit new crimes because they know that the punishment is either lenient or non-existent.
That is what makes the Partnership for Prosperity, New Alliance Task Force and Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico so much worse than the actions of Bush's predecessors. Not only does Bush want to give 20+ million (vs. Reagan's 500,000) illegal aliens amnesty, but he gave them access to US bank accounts as well as auto and home loans and wants to allow illegals to receive US Social Security benefits for the time they've worked here illegally.
I defy you to show how any previous presidents actions are as equally bad as what Bush has done.
Yes, I know. Reagan gave amnesty to 500,000 illegals. But show me where he changed banking laws to cater to those illegals so they could buy US property. Show me the agreement Reagan signed that would allow those illegals to collect US Social Security benefits for themselves and their families back home in Mexico.
This doesn't even get into the dramatic drop in interior enforcement and employer sanctions that have occurred while Bush has been in office. Bush then insults our intelligence by trying to tell us that reduced border apprehensions equals increased enforcement. Talk about think-speak.
And people like you defend him.
Good grief, you are so thick! I was refering to the question you had previously asked numerous times, sometimes multiple times in the same post. I would have thought you were intelligent enough to know that since I've already mentioned it. Get a grip.
I say you've been dancing around the questions. Prove me wrong. Please point out where you responded to my questions about the Partnership for Prosperity, New Alliance Task Force and Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico.
You don't have to quote it, just respond with the post number.
Okay, then we are in agreement that former Presidents share in the blame for the situation we have today.
So. . .why the heck are you arguing with me?
No, we agree that giving amnesty to lawbreakers was as bad a policy in 2007 as it was in 1986.
You still haven't written a word about the specific actions that Bush has taken during his administration.
Nothing about the Partnership for Prosperity.
Nothing about the New Alliance Task Force.
Nothing about the Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico.
So. . .why the heck are you arguing with me?
Why won't you answer my questions?
I like the word of the Lord fine.
Border bot words are getting a little stale with me though.
No
LOL Make up your mind. . .either Reagan's granting of amnesty was good or bad.
You are hopeless. You are arguing with me just to argue.
Have a nice day.
Now you're trying to put words into my mouth. As I explained, all amnesties are bad because they encourage criminal behavior. What you're trying to do is to get me to agree that Reagan's amnesty of 500,000 lawbreakers is just as bad as Bush's attempts at so-called 'comprehensive immigration reform', which contained a lot more than just amnesty for 20+ million lawbreakers. But then you already knew that, didn't you?
Sorry, but I'm not going to engage in moral relativism. Each man's actions are distinct and separate from the other's and each stands or falls on it's own merits.
Meanwhile, you blithely ignore what Bush has done in addition to his amnesty. You acknowledge that these are 'all bad', but for whatever reason, you refuse to discuss the details.
I'm still waiting for you to explain, in your own words, why the Partnership for Prosperity, New Alliance Task Force and Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico are 'all bad'.
These are the things that Bush has done that have made the bad situation worse. Had he merely sat on his hands, as Clinton did, then I would agree that he shares blame with former presidents for continuing their failed policies. He didn't. Instead he instituted his own policies which have made this bad situation worse.
You are hopeless. You are arguing with me just to argue.
No, I'm arguing with you so that everyone can see that you're intentionally trying to muddy the waters by trying to get me and others to agree that Bush's actions are no worse than Reagan's.
The truth is that they're worse. Much worse.
Have a nice day.
Thanks.
If you want some border action, come to South Texas.
It’s an International Speedway down here.
LOL Hogwash. You are still just arguing with me for the sheer sake of arguing.
You're still avoiding my questions.
Because you'll just argue no matter what answer I give. You are just arguing with me for the sake of arguing.
Try me.
Haven’t read through the entire thread yet and I’m sure there will be those who say that border issues started long before Bush. However, 9/11 occurred on Bush’s watch and the borders should have been secured on 9/12 by our military until it could be permanently secured (Duncan Hunter has said this would take 6 months).
Also, Bush will always be remembered for holding our border security ‘hostage’ to CIR. His statement, “In order to secure our borders, we MUST have comprehensive immigration reform” was a lie and imo, blackmail. Bush has intentionally refused to secure our borders. If a terrorist attack happens as a result, he must accept full responsibility.
Nor does he plan to prosecute those misguided enough that aid and abet the criminals who have broken our laws.
It’s sad that the president I helped work so hard to get elected would allow his main agenda to rip apart those who love America.
Just enforce the law now on the books and every thing will be OK.
“I just do not agree with the axis of power that is emerging between Left and Right against Bush”
Never would have happened if Bush had stayed on the RIGHT side of the isle instead of joining hands with the like of lefty Kennedy on this issue. His choice to do so is what divided the party and his choice to do so in a critical election year risking and loosing both the House and the Senate, is HIS blunder.
I already have. Every time I answer one of your questions, you just argue some more. Arguing must just be your hobby.
Really? I've already asked you to point out where you addressed Bush's actions on immigration. Your response was to accuse me of arguing for the sake of arguing.
Other than writing that they're 'all bad', you (still) haven't written a word about any of the actions Bush has taken during his administration.
Nothing about the Partnership for Prosperity agreement.
Nothing about the New Alliance Task Force.
Nothing about the Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico.
Nothing about Bush's so-called 'comphrensive immigration reform'.
Instead, you equate these as being no different than Reagan's amnesty of 500,000 illegal aliens.
Yes, really.
Not a flame, just a correction.
Bush has never been on the right side of this issue.
In February 2001, he began talks with Vicente Fox that ultimately resulted with the two signing the Partnership for Prosperity agreement (signed September 6, 2001). That agreement empowered the FDIC to form the New Alliance Task Force, which relaxed the banking rules to allow Mexican illegal aliens to use Mexican Matricular Consular cards as valid ID to open US bank accounts and obtain auto and home loans. Prior to 2001, this was impossible because a valid SSN was needed to open a bank account or obtain a loan.
IMO, this action caused massive increases in illegal border crossings and the current sub-prime lending debacle currently unfolding.
While your attention was diverted by the events surrounding 9/11, George W. Bush was working behind your back to give sell out America.
In June 2004, Bush's appointed SSA commissioner signed the Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico. This agreement, if allowed to proceed, would allow the Mexican illegal alien to apply for, and receive US Social Security benefits after having worked (illegally) in the US for only 6 quarters (18 months). US citizens (read: you and I) have to work 40 quarters (10 years) before we're eligible to apply. Not only that, but the agreement would allow the Mexican illegal alien to apply for, and receive US Social Security benefits for their Mexican (national) wife and children, even if they've never stepped foot in the USA.
So, not only does George W. Bush want to US citizens to pay US Social Security benefits to the Mexican illegal aliens already here, but he wants us to pay for their family back home in Mexico, too!
Which post was it where you address Bush's actions? (other than calling them 'all bad')
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.