Lou Dobbs: Give it a rest, Mr. President

Martyn4802

New member
Dobbs: Give it a rest, Mr. President
By Lou Dobbs
CNN

Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- President Bush is building his legacy, adding another unfortunate line of hollow bravado to his rhetorical repertoire. To "Mission accomplished," "Bring it on," "Wanted: Dead or alive," and of course, "I earned ... political capital, and now I intend to spend it," he has added "I'll see you at the bill signing," referring to his own ill-considered push for so-called comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

Bush emerged from a midday meeting with Republican senators on Capitol Hill to declare, "We've got to convince the American people this bill is the best way to enforce our border."

No, Mr. President, someone you trust and respect must convince you that kind of tortured reasoning should never be exposed before cameras and microphones. Isn't there anyone in this administration with the guts to say, "Give it a rest, Mr. President"?

Sen. Jeff Sessions came close when he said, "He needs to back off." This president desperately needs to be reminded that he is the president of all Americans and not just of corporate interests and socio-ethnocentric special interest groups.

In what other country would citizens be treated to the spectacle of the president and the Senate focusing on the desires of 12 million to 20 million people who had crossed the nation's borders illegally, committed document fraud, and in many cases identity theft, overstayed their visas and demanded, not asked, full forgiveness for their trespasses?

Illegal aliens and their advocates, both liberal and conservative, possess such an overwhelming sense of entitlement that they demand not only legal status, but also that the government leave the borders wide open so that other illegals could follow as well, while offering not so much as an "I'm sorry" or a "Thank you."

This bill would be disastrous public policy and devastate millions of American workers and their families, taxpayers and any semblance of national security. Yet even in defeat, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, one of the reform bill's chief architects, declared: "Doing nothing is totally unacceptable." Like the senator, Bush says the status quo is unacceptable.

The president and the senator are wrong. It is the sham legislation they support that is totally unacceptable. But if Bush and Kennedy sincerely desire resolution to our illegal immigration and border security crises, I'd like to try to help. But a word of caution, if I may, to our elected officials: Resolution of these crises will require honesty, directness and an absolute commitment to the national interest and the common good of our citizens. Here are what I consider to be the essential guiding principles for any substantive reform:

First, fully secure our borders and ports. Without that security, there can be no control of immigration and, therefore, no meaningful reform of immigration law.

Second, enforce existing immigration laws, and that includes the prosecution of the employers of illegal aliens. As Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, put it, illegal employers are the magnet that draws illegal aliens across our border. Enforcing the law against illegal employers and illegal aliens at large in the country will mean bolstering, in all respects, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Third, the government should fund, equip and hire the people necessary to man the Citizenship and Immigration Services. To do so will ensure that the agency is capable of fully executing and administering lawful immigration into the United States and eliminating the shameful backlog of millions of people who are seeking legal entry into this country.

Those three steps are necessary to the security of the nation and the effective administration and enforcement of existing immigration laws. Those steps should be considered non-negotiable conditions precedent to any change or reform of existing immigration law.

At the same time, the president and Congress should order exhaustive studies of the economic, social and fiscal effects of the leading proposals to change immigration law, and foremost in their consideration should be the well-being of American workers and their families.

The president and Congress should begin the process of thoughtful reform of our immigration laws. Public hearings should be held throughout the nation. The American people should be heard in every region of the country, and fact-finding should be rigorous and thorough. The process will be time-consuming and demand much of our congressmen and senators, their staffs and relevant executive agencies.

The importance of securing borders and ports and reforming our immigration laws is profound, and that security is fundamental to the future of our nation. That future can be realized only with a complete commitment to a comprehensive legislative process of absolute transparency and open public forums in which our elected officials hear the voices of the people they represent. American citizens deserve no less.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.
 
I'm more in favor of "STFU, George, and put down the bottle", myself.

The guy has a total tin ear on the entire matter. He just doesn't CARE what the American people are saying about it.

Or what conservatives are saying about it. They all HATE it. He's successfully made just about everyone hate him, now! Every conservative I know is saying "This is not who I voted for!"
 
Every conservative I know is saying "This is not who I voted for!"

Add me to the list. Actually I consider myself middle of the road Republican. I know I should know better at my age, but now I look back and think...a President that has sex in the White House, hey that's not so bad. At least Clinton had the smarts to stay away from the obvious pitfalls that Bush constantly falls into.

I have learned this lesson. A smart President is better than a dumb President.

And this really hurts. About every day my wife says "well you voted for the dummy his first term...not me" and she is also a Republican.

I am not brain dead, I did not vote for him on the second term.
 
Hey Lou, don't blame everything on the President. Here's some news: the President didn't write the legislation. The Democrats control the congress. So the legislation has to contain provisions concerning the disposition of the illegal immigrants who are already here as a compromise to the Democrats.

The Democrats will not allow legislation that only "enforces" the border; you'll never get the appropriations passed. The President can't just wave a magic wand and make the Democrats do what ol' Lou wants.

Yeah, everything is the President's fault (yawn). Give it a rest, Lou. :rolleyes:
 
The democrats are not hellbent on amnesty. That's Jorge and Gonzo and company who are. Please read the quotes THEY have said on the matter.
 
Sorry, but even the incredible Lou Dobbs won't be able to convince Senator Kennedy (and the other Democrats) to allow an immigration bill that only provides for and funds border enforcement, and that doesn't contain provisions dealing with the illegal aliens who are already here.

Welcome to the reality of a Democratic majority.
 
Any blaming of the Democrats for the immigration mess is stopping far short of the truth.

The Republicans had the House, Senate, Presidency and did NOTHING. They did NOTHING to secure our borders even after 9/11. Yes, the Dems are all wrong on the issue but the Reps were simply LAZY and sold us out. They deserved to loose their control and if they cave and let this piece of garbage through then the few left should go as well. Let the Dems run this place into the toilet and then we may get some new Reps who will do what we send them to Washington to do.
 
I agree with Dobbs, on this.

The President didn't need the permission or funding from the Congress. The laws are already in place. The funds were there.

The borders could have been sealed, post 9-11, and the entire Congress would have applauded and funded whatever was deemed necessary. He didn't even try.

Unlawful aliens could have been imprisoned then deported and employers charged, again, post 9-11. Again, the Congress would have backed him 100%. He didn't even try.

This entire mess lays squarely in Bushes lap. Only because 9-11 proved that without border control, really bad things can happen.

This immigration bill was nothing more than pandering to the prospective new votes, by both sides of the aisle, and the heck with what Americans want or even whats best for America.
 
The suggestion this monstrosity is not precisely what el Jefe wants, including the amnesty and preferential treatment for illegals already here, stems either from a lack of understanding of this administration, blind partisanship, or, heaven forbid it, intellectual dishonesty. Heck, he has said so himself, many times. He sent his subalterns, Gutierrez and Chertoff, not to mention the media lackeys such as Linda Chavez, to slander every American who opposes it, calling them heartless racists and nativists, standing in the way of hard-working families "doing the work Americans won't do."

The Democrats' underwriters see a vast pool of perennial life-long welfare state clients (i.e., Democrat voters). The Republicans' underwriters see a vast pool of low-rent, wage-suppressing labor for their corporate masters.

The Republican administration, backed by a Republican House and a Republican Senate, could have shut down this problem if, in fact, they viewed this deluge as a problem at all. They do not. Their post 9-11 inaction, as pointed out, proves the point.
 
Last edited:
This entire mess lays squarely in Bushes lap. Only because 9-11 proved that without border control, really bad things can happen.

I hesitate to applaud you only because you are neglecting the fact that really bad things can be brought about by perfectly legal aliens/visitors/students/H1B/etc. . .

Otherwise, you are dead on.
 
The Democrats' underwriters see a vast pool of perennial life-long welfare state clients (i.e., Democrat voters). The Republicans' underwriters see a vast pool of low-rent, wage-suppressing labor for their corporate masters.

***This about sums it up. Winking at illegal immigration across our southern border appeals to both Dems and Republicans, for different reasons on the surface. However, all politics in this country revolves around big money donations and keeping corporations happy, and I suspect that the business interests that benefit from cheap labor are influencing politicians from both major parties.

The real joke is all the highly visible security protocols at airports aimed at passengers, while anyone and everyone can just stroll over the border with Mexico virtually unchallenged.

Bush is obviously Republican, but I he doesn't seem very conservative, except in a couple hot-button social areas. Some who voted for him are finally waking up to just what they elected.
 
O.K., I must be misunderstanding what has happened, and I'd appreciate it if you would point me in the right direction:

The President didn't need the permission or funding from the Congress. The laws are already in place. The funds were there.

I thought that provisions such as building the fence were approved but never funded. So what funds have been approved and appropriated, and when did that occur? It seems to me that we need not only a massive amount of funds to secure the border, but also to change the whole immigration system.

With regard to enforcing the current immigration laws: have funds been appropriated to search for and arrest all of the illegal aliens here? Federal funding for state law enforcement to investigate illegal aliens? What about detention centers to house all 10 million of them? What about additional court staff to process the massive amounts of people who need to be processed (presumably) for deportation? If the appropriations have occurred for these matters, please let me know.
 
What about detention centers to house all 10 million of them?

How much do some tractor trailors or railway cars cost to get them to the Mexican border along with landmines to keep them there? I would wager less than the cost of filling our jails, hospitals and schools with them.
 
You can conclude that we should "enforce our existing laws"; but the conclusion is berift of the actual means by which our State and Federal governments will accomplish this.

So perhaps the proposed solution (if I'm understanding correctly) espoused by most here is to enforce our existing immigration laws by passing new legislation that simply funds the enforcement of the existing laws, something which (admittedly) the proposed legislation does not do.
 
Musketeer, I'm keeping your post, just like it is. As it shows the utter frustration many in America are feeling.... Certainly, not because it's right. It isn't.

Landmines are a real problem for many countries in this world. Do we really need to propose such a "solution" for America? A real case of the cure being worse than the disease!

Trip, I'm keeping your post, because it is just the expression most of us would express upon hearing someone else suggest we mine any border, let alone ours!

That being said, I suggest we all take a breather in what we are communicating here. A very strong suggestion.
 
The borders could have been sealed, post 9-11, and the entire Congress would have applauded and funded whatever was deemed necessary. He didn't even try.

Agreed.

The President has never needed any further authorization than he already has to secure the borders of this country. He has not secured our borders because he does not want to secure our borders....period.


As stated, he could have secured the borders after 9/11. No one could or would have stopped him. He would have had a chance that Americans, knowing they had a secure border, would now listen to any immigration proposals. Instead we use American troops & lives to secure the Iraq borders, while he (Bush) talks about giving us a secure border if we just pass his immigration bill.

I thought I was a Republican, but lately I find myself saying "where is Harry Truman when we need him"?
 
Last edited:
The President can't just wave a magic wand and make the Democrats do what ol' Lou wants.

Actually he can. You see that is the point. The President of The United States does have a magic wand. In fact, he is the only one in possession of this wand. He can pick up his magic wand and use it to dial his office phone directly to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. He then says "I order you immediately to secure the borders of the United States".

There is only one wand issued in this country. The senate, House, or Judiciary do not have a wand. Not even the vice President has a wand.

Since the President has refused to use his wand I have some suggestions on where he might store it for safe keeping.
 
Back
Top