Watch me criticize Bush!

Here is a column by Ms. Phyllis Schlafly, which refers to an instance of the judicial activism I constantly talk about.

It is not about abortion or gay marriage, it is about immigration, and, as such may provide the leeway necessary to allow a calmer debate than some of my other efforts.

Discussion, as usual, to follow:

The Judge And The President vs. The People

by Phyllis Schlafly Dec. 22, 2004

Another activist judge strikes again! Federal Judge David C. Bury overturned the will of the people and enjoined enforcement of Arizona's Proposition 200, which would require Arizonans to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote and require a valid ID to be presented when applying for benefits paid for by Arizona taxpayers.
It's clear that Prop 200 represents the people's demand that our government enforce our laws against illegal aliens. It passed by 56-44 percent even though it was opposed by Big Government (all public officials of both parties), Big Business (the Chamber of Commerce), Big Labor (the Service Employees International Union), and Big Church (the Catholic Bishops).

Even 47 percent of Arizona Hispanics voted in favor of Prop 200. The immigrants who had stood in long lines to come here legally see no reason to allow their tax dollars to go to the 4,000 aliens who illegally come across Arizona's border every night.

Judge Bury was appointed by President George W. Bush. That prompts the question: Has a Bush judge already turned into a supremacist judge who ignores the will of the people in favor of his own, or Bush's, policy preferences?

Bush's plan to give illegal aliens "guest-worker" status, which forgoes punishment for their law violations and therefore meets the definition of amnesty, was shot down by Congress earlier this year. Then, just a couple of weeks after November 2nd, Bush went down to Santiago, Chile and insulted those who voted for him by announcing that he would expend the "political capital" earned in his reelection to grant guest-worker status to millions of illegal aliens.

Two dozen congressmen wrote a letter to the President opposing his plan, primarily for national security reasons, but Bush brushed them off with elitist disdain. "I get letters all the time from people who are trying to steer me one way or the other," he said; "I'm going to move forward."

Bush made his commitment during a half-hour meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox. Bush said, "I made it very clear my position that we need to make sure that where there's a willing worker and a willing employer, that that job ought to be filled legally in cases where Americans will not fill that job."

With Bush's mantra, repeated ad nauseam, it's no wonder that Bernard Kerik didn't think it important to reveal to the White House vetting process that he was a "willing employer" who employed a housekeeper/nanny who was an alien "willing worker" illegally living in the underground economy. Of course, he wasn't paying Social Security taxes for her.

Maybe he expected President Bush's attitude to be: "No problem, Kerik. Since the nanny has a job, I'll just give her a guest-worker permit, and in three years she can get it renewed and then have permanent residency."

When Bush speaks of a "willing employer" and a "willing worker," he never talks about the wage the employer is willing to pay or the wage the worker is willing to accept. There are billions of non-Americans who are willing to work for Third World wages and, as the Bernard Kerik case proves, there are U.S. multimillionaires who would rather enjoy the cheap labor provided by aliens than pay the wages Americans expect.

The way President Bush steamrollered the Intelligence bill through Congress this December, demanding that the House abandon its sensible provisions for border security, indicates that he may be willing to split the Republican Party in order to carry out his promise to Vicente Fox. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) emerged a hero in the legislative battle because he fought all the way to include strong border security and a prohibition against granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens, finally saying that the failure to include this "will keep Americans unnecessarily at risk."

It was dishonest of the media and the pro-open-borders Senators to try to pit Sensenbrenner against the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. In fact, the final report of the 9/11 Commission came out strongly for the necessity of clamping down on border security and driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

The 9/11 Commission report stated: "It is elemental to border security to know who is coming into the country.... At many entry points to vulnerable facilities, including gates for boarding aircraft, sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists."

Even though the 9/11 hijackers' driver's licenses enabled them to freely travel throughout our country like American citizens with easy access to vehicles and buildings, all the time concealing their terrorist designs, the Senators and the White House irrationally maintained that driver's licenses should not be denied to illegal aliens. Since Rep. Sensenbrenner's courageous stand forced these issues onto the national news, we hope Congress will deal with the problem of illegal aliens in January.

I have wondered about Bush's immigration policy as it has struck me as somewhat incongruent with conservatism as I understand it.

However, as I do not know enough about it I will refrain from jumping to conclusions. It may be that Mr. Bush has a genuine interest in the Hispanic community (he does speak Spanish I understand) and his motivation may be simply a desire to create greater unity in North America.

A cynic might say he is simply pandering to industrialist's desire for cheap labour.

It might be a mixture of both. :unsure:

Whatever, it will, I suspect, result in some friction at some point down the line.

[sarcasm}my theory on Bush's immgration policy is to import workers that are willing to work for less than Americans. Something that most big GOP supporting ceos no doubt subliminarily suggested when offering donations [sarcasm]

i agree individual states should have the right to decide how to run local affairs however when it comes to the voting rights i strongly believe that certainly in a national election there should be one standard by which all abide.

as one who voted for the proposition; such a statement shows the need for change in immigration policy in Arizona.

Even as I voted for it; I knew there was slight chance of it being implimented; how sad is that?

There have been 4 such propositions; all passed, and none implemented, here in Arizona.

EDIT:
and you should have heard the lies and opposition to it; and it still passed.

on the Spanish radio waves; Dj's were proclaiming that illegal immigrants would be denied medical treatment. Amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny

EDIT:
and you should have heard the lies and opposition to it; and it still passed.

on the Spanish radio waves; Dj's were proclaiming that illegal immigrants would be denied medical treatment. Amazing.

---

well with all the lies and misleading that went on in the presidential election perhaps the standard is now set in stone.

;)


I believe that immigration should be controlled by all countries and unless there are overiding circumstances illegal immigrants should be deported. There is a system in place and they should abide by it.
There is a problem with illegal immigration and IMO there always will be. I am undecided about an amnesty for those already here as i haven't really given it much thought.

That said i don't have a problem with a non resident obtaing a driving license, as long as the residency status was on that license. A few years back i read of a british man that obtained one when his uk one was lost during the journey over here and he needed one to be able to drive the RV they had hired for the holiday. ( not sure how he did it without a ss number ). My reasoning for this is safer roads if visitors actually know the the laws of our roads, plus it would act as a visitor ID.
Here is something to think about though.

Financial illegal immigrants come here because they know that some AMERICAN will pay them more than they could earn in their own country to work....and why is this.....because that AMERICAN can pay them less than he would pay an American worker.

In my opinion an effective way to reduce illegal immigration would be to remove the incentive.... crack down hard on those that employ them.... This doesn't mean that the minimum wage should be lowered to make American workers more competative, (an arguement i find thin). The minimum wage is too low as it is.

Edit: J2

i've been watching this thread and am still waiting to be able to watch YOU criticize Bush..... as your title suggested you would ;) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Edit: J2

i've been watching this thread and am still waiting to be able to watch YOU criticize Bush..... as your title suggested you would ;) :D

---

Now, now....j2 criticizes Bush in his own way. Just because we don't know about it doesn't mean he's not doing it.

Cut him some slack. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Now, now....j2 criticizes Bush in his own way. Just because we don't know about it doesn't mean he's not doing it.

Cut him some slack. :dry:

---

perhaps you missed the tone of the edit...... but then it wasn't for you.

:dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

perhaps you missed the tone of the edit...... but then it wasn't for you.

:dry:

---

Perhaps missed the tone of my post.

Since I'm the one who brought up this "personal lack of opinion" in the first place.

:dry: Maybe I used the wrong smiley. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

:dry: Maybe I used the wrong smiley. :dry:

---

Surely. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Edit: J2
i've been watching this thread and am still waiting to be able to watch YOU criticize Bush..... as your title suggested you would ;) :D

---

I would have thought my posting of Ms. Schlafly's column should have sufficed, as I'm into the "easy way out" these days....

Okay.

I am absolutely nonplussed at George Bush's continuing mispronunciation of the word NUCLEAR, and state therefore that the fact of his doing so marks him as an utter cretin with regard to a proper respect and discipline in his use of the language.

He probably says ecks-cape, too; I'd bet he's been doing it since kindergarten, and fie on his parents, also, for not beating him severely when first they noticed this annoying trait.

Hope that helps- :)

J2

:rolleyes:


Actually i would have prefered if the article you pasted was done in your own words..... as it is i feel that you have just been a "tease".....( i won't use the full term :lol: :lol: promising us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2

I am absolutely nonplussed at George Bush's continuing mispronunciation of the word NUCLEAR, and state therefore that the fact of his doing so marks him as an utter cretin with regard to a proper respect and discipline in his use of the language.

---

Why do you think the term "Weapons of mass disraction ( sorry "destruction")" was invented ? :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I would have thought my posting of Ms. Schlafly's column should have sufficed, as I'm into the "easy way out" these days....

Okay.

I am absolutely nonplussed at George Bush's continuing mispronunciation of the word NUCLEAR, and state therefore that the fact of his doing so marks him as an utter cretin with regard to a proper respect and discipline in his use of the language.

He probably says ecks-cape, too; I'd bet he's been doing it since kindergarten, and fie on his parents, also, for not beating him severely when first they noticed this annoying trait.

Hope that helps- :)


J2

---

Strangely, his brother (from the little I have seen) has much clearer diction and a less affected style. Were they brought up separately?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Strangely, his brother (from the little I have seen) has much clearer diction and a less affected style. Were they brought up separately?

---

No-the difference is that Jeb was not a coke freak.

Affected style?

You must be kidding... :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

No-the difference is that Jeb was not a coke freak.

Affected style?

You must be kidding... :huh:

---

I was thinking of the curious blend of business school cowboy - especially when his father is, as you say over there, so old school preppy.

However, a mis-spent youth does funny things to the mind (or in George's case syntax and pronuciation)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

I was thinking of the curious blend of business school cowboy - especially when his father is, as you say over there, so old school preppy.

However, a mis-spent youth does funny things to the mind (or in George's case syntax and pronuciation)

---

I know what you were thinking, my good man. :D

"tis good, after all this time, to see that you understand. ;)

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Were they brought up separately?

---

Yup.
The Council of Four thought that by rearing the two children in different galaxies, they might be spared the blight of their genetic pool.

The outcome remains to be seen, but initial impressions are not favorable.