Bush's Message: I Won't Enforce Laws We Have Until I Get the Laws I Want
Deporting the 11 million to 20 million illegal aliens already here is simply impossible we are told. But then in tonight’s address the President bragged that we have deported 6 million illegal aliens in just the last five years. Why is 6 million possible and praiseworthy, but 11 million is a ludicrous impossibility?
How can the President promise to use all manner of technology—motion sensors, drones, cameras, fences, vehicle barriers—to keep dangerous illegal aliens out, and then argue that those same criminal aliens become indispensable and honorable once past the gizmos? Why bother to keep out anyone, if they all become wonderful by the time they reach Dallas?
But the President and Senators John McCain and Teddy Kennedy (as well as others) want the amnesty giveaway so badly that they refuse to allow the Senate to vote on the enforcement measures as a separate bill, as the House of Representatives has done.
Essentially, they have offered the American people a take it or leave it deal: give us our guest worker amnesty, or we will let the whole world across our open borders until you do. Give us the laws we want, or we will not enforce the laws we already have.
Go read the whole the column. So many good points that I can't excerpt them all here. And make sure to check out Mac's homepage for some other great columns.
14 comments:
Daniel isn't it frustrating to hear the lie "We can't deport 12 million illegals, especially those who have been here 10 years" What the President said this morning from press conference with Austrailian Prime Minister. How would they know they never have tried interior enforcement of immigration laws, or aggressive enforcement against businesses that hire cheap illegal aliens labor. In my humble opinion do those two things and they would self deport.
This is all very interesting. Haven't we all been telling you un-American Immigrant Bashers that you will lose this fight? Your hatred, bigotry and anti-immigrant rhetoric got you no where. Your scapegoating of a people was thrown right in your face by President Bush.
...ahem.
"Unfortunately for Mr. Bush, and for our nation, the American people no longer trust the leaders of either party to make an earnest effort to enforce the law when it comes to stopping the corruption of illegal immigration."
You people have the strangest choices for your objects of wrath...
The past five years have left us with federal espionage on its own citizens, the suspension of habeas corupus, torture and execution of uncharged and unconvicted prisoners, a disaster response operation that was overwhelmed by a hurricane, a failed war justified by lies, a possible nuclear attack on Iran, "free speech zones," "signing statements," a subordinate Congress, an opposition party sitting on its hands, a Supreme Court that's forgotten that judicial review even exists, an infant mortality rate exceeded only by Latvia, and an executive philosophy (from a President who literally doesn't read a newspaper) that simply knowing and talking about the existence of any or all of the above is giving our enemies "aid and comfort" and is therefore treasonous.
I'm not saying illegal immigration doesn't belong on that list, but for heaven's sake, don't you guys think you're maybe coming a little late to the party?
Yeah – I guess I can agree with kaelri’s point. I mean there are other issues out there. I think the reason why this one gets a lot of play is it is such a political no-brainer. Enforce the damn law.
As for the rest, well certainly with the spying on its own citizens issue, it is the left that is late to the party. Clintons actions in that area far surpassed anything Bush has ever been even remotely accused of. Torture and execution of unconvicted prisoners? What prisoners? Guantanamo Bay prisoners? Where exactly does it say they get a trial? What torture? A bunch of naked guys in a pyramid with a half cute chick in a military uniform and a leash? That’s torture? Disaster response overwhelmed by a hurricane? That’s nothing new. Clinton was overwhelmed by a heat wave in Chicago that left about the same dead that Katrina did. The list goes on.
I think the thing that is so aggravating about this issue in particular is that the solution is simple, inexpensive and has a broad consensus in every poll of the American people. Enforce the damn law.
Kaelri, sure there are lot's of issues going on. I pick this one. Just because there are other things out there doesn't make this one invalid.
It's like your yelling at someone who helps a needy person in Portland because they aren't also helping a needy person in Detroit.
So Clinton's failures justify Bush's because Clinton's were worse? I don't see your logic, nor do I even completely accept your premise.
"Clintons actions in that area far surpassed anything Bush has ever been even remotely accused of."
I request evidence of covert actions that transcend the ilk of "the largest database ever assembled in the world."
"Guantanamo Bay prisoners? Where exactly does it say they get a trial?"
Modern secular morality, common sense, and the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
"A bunch of naked guys in a pyramid with a half cute chick in a military uniform and a leash? That’s torture?"
Try a few of these. And maybe a bit about this guy.
"Disaster response overwhelmed by a hurricane? That’s nothing new."
I didn't say it was new. But if what happened in New Orleans is going to be our response to a dirty bomb in Chicago or a smallpox capsule in New York City, then it's a mess that needs to be cleaned up, and I have yet to glimpse President Bush with a mop and bucket.
"Just because there are other things out there doesn't make this one invalid."
I didn't say it was invalid. I simply find it a bit strange that you've picked this to care about infinitely more than multiple constitutional crises or death and suffering.
I'm not worried about the death and suffering of terrorists. Scratch that, I am worried about it, I want them dead or suffering!
As for Katrina, I don't think it's the federal governments job to stop a hurricane. And I'm sorry for the people who suffered, I gave money to that cause but c'mon, when everyone says evacuate then please EVACUATE.
I'm not coming late to the party of criticizing Bush, I just don't have the same criticisms as you do.
"I'm not worried about the death and suffering of terrorists."
A few things to bear in mind:
- Not all Gitmo prisoners are terrorists. Not even close.
- Not all of the insurgents we're fighting in Iraq are terrorists. Most probably are. But you'd be naive to think that there aren't at least a few who have no interest in attacking anyone but the soldiers whom they have come to see as cruel occupiers.
- Not all of the people who live and who have died in Iraq are/were terrorists.
- Few to none of the people who live and who have died in New Orleans are/were terrorists.
- The best way to create new terrorists out of previously sane people is to kill or torture one who already is.
"Scratch that, I am worried about it, I want them dead or suffering!"
I do not take pleasure in pain. I do not take pleasure in death. I do not allow myself to forget that a necessary evil remains an evil. And for your own sake I suggest that you not do these things, either.
"I don't think it's the federal governments job to stop a hurricane."
Irrelevant, aside from the fact that obviously we should be able to trust our government to stop a dirty bomb or a smallpox capsule.
"And I'm sorry for the people who suffered, I gave money to that cause but c'mon, when everyone says evacuate then please EVACUATE."
Poverty tends to prevent people from buying certain things, like cars, or gasoline, or food and water. Coincidentally, many of the dead happened to be poor. I know I don't have to tell you this, Daniel: some people could not EVACUATE.
“I request evidence of covert actions that transcend the ilk of "the largest database ever assembled in the world."
That one is easy. Check up on the FBI’s Carnivore, Echelon and Magic Lantern programs. Ex FBI director Louis Freeh details them a little in his book. They were pretty widely reported on with Republicans like Bob Barr being very concerned and wanting hearings. Of course at the time this was accompanied by the usual cacophony from the left about Barr being a “black helicopter nut”. If that doesn’t suffice there are always the 900 FBI files. In addition there was the spying on civilians using military over flights as came out in the Waco hearings. All of this was reported on and admitted to by the government at the time. The left dismissed all of the concerns over civil liberties out of hand.
Torture – Yes some of what you cite does cause concern. Most of it looks like coercive interrogation but let’s face it, if the guy dies it’s damn hard to argue it isn’t torture. What I would resist though is the concept that unlawful combatants, as the detainees at Gitmo most certainly are, are entitled to some sort of judicial process in the civilian legal sense. That idea, prosecuting terrorism as a law enforcement matter, alone did not get us into this mess, but it was a major brick in the wall. Osama bin Ladin has cited our weakness on Somalia as a major reason why he perceives us as a paper tiger. Our failure in Somalia was a direct result of this law enforcement approach vis a vie our handling of the Mohammad Farah Adid “arrest”. The law enforcement approach also led to the famed Jamie Gorelick memo that made it virtually impossible to monitor any terrorist activity.
To be sure, I have no desire to live in a police state, but I also have no desire to leave this country defenseless as well. The left has a record on this sort of thing that seems more opportunistic than sincere. It is why so many on the right have great difficulty with it.
some people could not EVACUATE
BS
"That one is easy. Check up on the FBI’s Carnivore, Echelon and Magic Lantern programs."
I will. Thank you.
Of course, I must reiterate that what Clinton did has ceased to be relevant. He is no longer the President and his party has moved on. (In fairness, Clinton's administration was also before my time; I didn't pay much attention to the government until I entered high school, shortly after Bush's first inauguration.) Morever, what's done is done; it cannot be changed. It's quite different with Bush simply because he is the President, these programs are ongoing, and with three years left he can, and likely will, make the same sort of stupid and dangerous mistakes. That is the need for impeachment. All the evidence we have says he cannot be trusted. And, as was the point of my responding to this post, these threats penetrate far deeper than the Mexican border.
"What I would resist though is the concept that unlawful combatants, as the detainees at Gitmo most certainly are, are entitled to some sort of judicial process in the civilian legal sense."
It's no easier to treat them as combatants. A terrorist has no uniform, no serial number, no enlistment papers; no identifying marks past the hatred in his head. Al Qaeda itself is becoming less of an organization and more of a philosophy - and that makes "terrorism" impossible to identify as a black-and-white crime. More importantly, it makes it an easy accusation to exploit.
The number of people held in Guantanamo Bay who are innocent, and no threat to us, makes it very clear that abandoning innocent-until-proven-guilty does more harm than good. Trial by jury is the mark of civilization; even the McCarthyites held trials for "communists" to create the illusion of due process. Better ten criminals walk free than one innocent be executed. That, simply put, it why we are better than those who have chosen to become our enemies.
"The left has a record on this sort of thing that seems more opportunistic than sincere. It is why so many on the right have great difficulty with it."
Pick the lesser of two evils, then. It's almost impossible that the next President, of whichever party, isn't going to learn from President Bush's utter failure.
"BS"
Alas. Can't beat that logic.
Kaelri – Ok, I am not trying to be combative here but I think I did say this in my last post. I pointed out Clinton’s transgression not to say they justify Bush, but for an entirely different reason. This is the reason:
A ) Clinton had a horrendous record on privacy rights. This included spying on Americans to a level unheard of in the Bush administration. I’ve listed some. When Republicans pointed them out the left called them “the black helicopter crowd.
B ) Clinton had a horrendous record on constitutional rights. When Republicans pointed out that it really did seem a little excessive to use military over flights, and tanks to enforce a search warrant at Waco, the left ran to Clintons defense. They saw nothing wrong with this.
Because the left in the past has done nothing, zero to counter government excesses when committed by a Democrat and raised howls of indignity when committed by a Republican, one has to question their motives.
Now, before you say: “well Republicans do the same thing”, sure they do. However, I think to a lesser extent. I can name quite a few Republicans who are on Bushes case for all the phone surveillance issues. Can anyone name one Democrat, in office, who criticized Clinton for rolling in the tanks on Americans? No, you cant, because there were none. That is why we question their motives.
Oh - Forgot one thing. I don't know who ever said "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" but I can tell you this person was surely one of the stupidest people in the world. Note - I am not saying you invented that saying here. Terrorism and terrorist have always been quite easy to define. A terrorist act or a terrorist specifically targets civilian rather than military targets. They do this for one reason, to have maximum psychological effect and break the will of the enemy with minimal arms expenditure.
Now I know some will say - "Well, then by your definition, the US is a terrorist state because we killed a whole bunch of people in Iraq who were civilians"
Before you do, go back.... re read.....note the words "specifically targets". There is a whole world of difference between trying to avoid civilian casualties and yet still inflicting them, and purposefully trying to inflict them.
As for trying every unlawful combatant with a full jury trial? Come on? Really? Seriously? Are you kidding me? You really want to conduct this war and all future wars on that basis? Even if you grant them full POW status it doesn't work that way. I don't think you will find more than a few ACLU members who think that it would be a good idea.
Post a Comment