You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
If Bush is so worried about terrorists then..
- Thread starter aspen1964
- Start date
FirstFreedom
Moderator
..why does he leave the US so vulnerable with his unforgiveably weak border policy....it is like a bank leaving it's doors unlocked at night...can anyone give a reason(excuse) for what is obvious to anyone with a brain...
Ahh yes, your question hit the nail on the head. The answer is, he doesn't care in the least about security - he only cares about his poll numbers and other members of his party getting elected - and that means bootlicking the Hispanic voters who are illegal-immigrant-friendly.
He most certainly could use the bully pulpit to guide - to LEAD the nation toward true security, instead of just helping TSA workers cop a feel off of passengers after confiscating nail clippers, and spy on ELF/ALF members without a warrant (gun owners next).
The problem of illegal immigration via the Southern border existed long before President Bush was elected. However (to be fair to Aspen), President Bush has been in office for 6 years, and the the border/immigration problem is in the same (if not worse) than it was before he was elected.
I do share Aspen's frustration concerning the border/immigration problem. Both parties deserve blame for the current mess, not just the Republicans. I disagree with the assertion that the President doesn't care about providing security from terrorists.
It seems like our elected leaders insist on passing a massive, "comprehensive" border control/immigation bill with a bunch of complicated measures covering a variety of different subjects. Naturally, each of these provisions must be debated, negotiated, and agreed upon before even a single action can be taken. Just so, it takes forever to get anything done, if anything gets done at all.
Perhaps we need to start just by passing legislation to secure the border and stop the massive influx of illegal immigrants, and just accomplish that. Congress and the President could then work on the other matters concerning immigation (such as whether illegal immigrants can stay, have to go, employer's liability, identification, etc.).
I do share Aspen's frustration concerning the border/immigration problem. Both parties deserve blame for the current mess, not just the Republicans. I disagree with the assertion that the President doesn't care about providing security from terrorists.
It seems like our elected leaders insist on passing a massive, "comprehensive" border control/immigation bill with a bunch of complicated measures covering a variety of different subjects. Naturally, each of these provisions must be debated, negotiated, and agreed upon before even a single action can be taken. Just so, it takes forever to get anything done, if anything gets done at all.
Perhaps we need to start just by passing legislation to secure the border and stop the massive influx of illegal immigrants, and just accomplish that. Congress and the President could then work on the other matters concerning immigation (such as whether illegal immigrants can stay, have to go, employer's liability, identification, etc.).
In my opinion President Bush has done more about the illegal alien problem than any President I've seen in my life time i.e. Patriot Acts. However, President or not, Bush cannot crank the gears of our bureauracracy all by himself.
Yeah, those "Patriot" acts sure have done a lot! Illegal aliens are invading the nation by the millions, and at an increasing rate. American citizens, on the other hand, have less freedom from government tyranny, surveillance, capture, and intimidation than ever.
Wow, you gotta love those "Patriot" acts. And look, the illegal alien problem is almost fixed...soon they'll be known as "citizens" overnight, and ta-da! No more illegal aliens.
steelheart
Moderator
So that El Presidente Fox will let us buy Mexican oil at obscene prices...:barf:..why does he leave the US so vulnerable with his unforgiveably weak border policy
KenpoProfessor
New member
We tried in PRK
http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/prop187text.html
But this is what we got in return for our voting efforts.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/
LOS ANGELES (AllPolitics, March 19) -- A U.S. District Court judge has declared most of California's Proposition 187 unconstitutional.
Approved by voters in 1994, the proposition would have denied health care, education and welfare benefits to illegal immigrants. Almost immediately, Judge Mariana Pfaelzer granted its opponents' request for a restraining order, which prevented it from taking effect.
In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility.
Judge Pfaelzer's ruling strikes down portions of the initiative that would have required law enforcement, teachers, social service and health care workers to verify a person's immigration status. Under Proposition 187, they would have had to report illegals to authorities and to deny them social service, health care and education benefits.
The American Civil Liberties Union's Southern California chapter was one of the five groups which sued to stop Proposition 187. In a statement, ACLU spokesman Mark Rosenbaum said Pfaelzer correctly denied California's attempt to regulate immigration.
"[It is] not a matter for individual states to attempt to formulate their own rules and procedures," Rosenbaum said. "School teachers and doctors are not substitutes for INS agents."
But California Gov. Pete Wilson, who supports Proposition 187, vowed to appeal, "so that the will of the people can be upheld."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I registered to vote in CA just to vote on this issue and the Pres., and I quit voting after that, what was/is the point if a judge is going to shoot down the popular vote of the WHOLE state, not just a city. These judges are appointed, not elected, therefore there's very little we can do these days.
Have a great Kenpo day
Clyde
http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/prop187text.html
But this is what we got in return for our voting efforts.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/19/prop.187/
LOS ANGELES (AllPolitics, March 19) -- A U.S. District Court judge has declared most of California's Proposition 187 unconstitutional.
Approved by voters in 1994, the proposition would have denied health care, education and welfare benefits to illegal immigrants. Almost immediately, Judge Mariana Pfaelzer granted its opponents' request for a restraining order, which prevented it from taking effect.
In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility.
Judge Pfaelzer's ruling strikes down portions of the initiative that would have required law enforcement, teachers, social service and health care workers to verify a person's immigration status. Under Proposition 187, they would have had to report illegals to authorities and to deny them social service, health care and education benefits.
The American Civil Liberties Union's Southern California chapter was one of the five groups which sued to stop Proposition 187. In a statement, ACLU spokesman Mark Rosenbaum said Pfaelzer correctly denied California's attempt to regulate immigration.
"[It is] not a matter for individual states to attempt to formulate their own rules and procedures," Rosenbaum said. "School teachers and doctors are not substitutes for INS agents."
But California Gov. Pete Wilson, who supports Proposition 187, vowed to appeal, "so that the will of the people can be upheld."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I registered to vote in CA just to vote on this issue and the Pres., and I quit voting after that, what was/is the point if a judge is going to shoot down the popular vote of the WHOLE state, not just a city. These judges are appointed, not elected, therefore there's very little we can do these days.
Have a great Kenpo day
Clyde
Bush's performance on dealing the illegal alien infiltration during a time of war constitutes, in my humble opinion, an impeachable offense. I think Bush should be put on notice that if we are hit again but terror actions he should prepare for impeachment actions. The issue is not how he compares to other administrations. The issue is he has consistently refused to do anything to hinder the infiltration while simultaneously asking for unconunted billions of dollars for a foreign country.
A parallel issue is largely being ignored by the press (well, there is a surprise). The media is finally paying attention to a slow motion invasion from Mexico, yet at the same time Bush, Vinney, and the new dude from Canada are making plans to integrate the north American continent pretty much along the lines a proposal floated by the Council on Foreign Relations propposal. To the best of my knowledge there is no statutory authority or constitutional provision which permits the president to surrender our national sovereignty. The proposal has a candy store of globalist goodies the centerpiece of which is the free flow of labor across national borders.
So on one hand we the US boiling over in anger at what has happened to us due to multiple presidents refusal to do anything to stop the flow. On the other hand we have the same president entering into negotiations to erase national borders in an effort to facilitate the free flow of labor. Does anyone see a problem here?????????? Bottom line I think impeachment is a realistic course of action. In case you think I am a Bush Basher, I voted for the joker twice. Well, actually I voted against his opposition twice.
A parallel issue is largely being ignored by the press (well, there is a surprise). The media is finally paying attention to a slow motion invasion from Mexico, yet at the same time Bush, Vinney, and the new dude from Canada are making plans to integrate the north American continent pretty much along the lines a proposal floated by the Council on Foreign Relations propposal. To the best of my knowledge there is no statutory authority or constitutional provision which permits the president to surrender our national sovereignty. The proposal has a candy store of globalist goodies the centerpiece of which is the free flow of labor across national borders.
So on one hand we the US boiling over in anger at what has happened to us due to multiple presidents refusal to do anything to stop the flow. On the other hand we have the same president entering into negotiations to erase national borders in an effort to facilitate the free flow of labor. Does anyone see a problem here?????????? Bottom line I think impeachment is a realistic course of action. In case you think I am a Bush Basher, I voted for the joker twice. Well, actually I voted against his opposition twice.
I have no problem with the idea that illegal immigration is a problem. I only have a problem with saying that Bush, or any other president, is soley responsible for fixing the problem.
Oh, and congress and the Pres should definitely re-read the Constitution and then FOLLOW it.
Oh, and congress and the Pres should definitely re-read the Constitution and then FOLLOW it.
overlooking something
I do agree, the illegal immigration situation in this country needs to have something done about it. "round 'em all up and ship 'em home" is emotionally satisfying, but hardly seems practical (at least all at once).
I also like the "build a wall" people, but they are overlooking something. It is a now barely remembered piece of history called, the "IRON CURTAIN". This wall was one of the most extensive, and best guarded in history, and while it did stop many, even it couldn't stop all the people who wanted to cross.
We will never be able to completely eliminate the problem, as long as there are people involved, but it could be reduced.
When the rides are closed, no one goes to Disneyland. Think about it.
I do agree, the illegal immigration situation in this country needs to have something done about it. "round 'em all up and ship 'em home" is emotionally satisfying, but hardly seems practical (at least all at once).
I also like the "build a wall" people, but they are overlooking something. It is a now barely remembered piece of history called, the "IRON CURTAIN". This wall was one of the most extensive, and best guarded in history, and while it did stop many, even it couldn't stop all the people who wanted to cross.
We will never be able to completely eliminate the problem, as long as there are people involved, but it could be reduced.
When the rides are closed, no one goes to Disneyland. Think about it.