See other Immigration Articles
Title: Why Isn't Bush On The Border?
Source:
Tracy Press
URL Source: http://www.tracypress.com/voice/2005-08-29-buchanan.php
Published: Aug 31, 2005
Author: Pat Buchanan
Post Date: 2005-08-31 20:21:12 by Steppenwolf
Keywords: Border?, Isnt, Bush
Views: 34
Comments: 3
Wednesday, August 31, 2005 Why isn’t Bush on the border? Pat Buchanan Published on Monday, August 29, 2005, in the Tracy Press. WASHINGTON — On Aug. 12, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson declared a state of emergency “due to a chaotic situation involving illegal alien smuggling and illegal drug shipments” on his southern border. Three days later, Gov. Janet Napolitano followed suit in Arizona. Reason: the crisis on the border. The ally-ally-in-free immigration policy of George Bush and Vicente Fox, beloved of corporate America, has created a hell on our southern border. Those Southwestern states are being inundated by illegal aliens trashing ranches, killing cattle, committing crimes and eating up tax dollars. The traffic in narcotics and human beings from Mexico is a national scandal and a human rights disgrace. What is true of New Mexico and Arizona is true of our nation, which is home to an estimated 10 million to 15 million aliens who have broken our laws and broken into our country. It is a mark of the cowardice of our leaders that they are so terrified of being called “bigots” that they tolerate this criminality. The moral rot of political correctness runs deep today in both national parties. A president like Teddy Roosevelt would have led the Army to the border years ago. And if Fox did not cooperate, T.R. would have gone on to Mexico City. Nor would Ike, who deported all illegal aliens in 1953, have stood still for this being done to the country he had defended in war. What are these Bush Republicans afraid of? Dirty looks from the help at the country club? The question of whether America is going to remain one nation, or whether our Southwest will wind up as a giant Kosovo — separated by language and loyalty from the rest of America — is on the table. Where is Bush? All wrapped up in the issue of whether women in Najaf will have the same rights in divorce and custody cases as women in Nebraska. His legislative agenda for the fall includes a blanket amnesty for illegals, so they can be exploited by businesses who want to hold wages down as they dump the social costs for their employees — health care, schools, courts, cops, prisons — onto taxpayers. Not only have Richardson and Napolitano awakened — they are on the front lines — so, too, has Hillary Clinton, who has spoken out against illegal immigration with a forthrightness that makes Bush sound like a talking head for La Raza. Why is a Republican Congress permitting this president to persist in the dereliction of his sworn duty? Bush is chief executive of the United States. It is his duty to enforce the laws. Can anyone fairly say he is enforcing the immigration laws? Those laws are clear. People who break in are to be sent back. Yet, more than 10 million have broken in with impunity. Another million try to break in every year. Half a million succeed. Border security is homeland security. How, then, can the Department of Homeland Security say America is secure? Who can guarantee that, of the untold millions of illegals here, and the scores of thousands ordered deported for crimes who have disappeared into our midst, none is a terrorist waiting for orders to blow up a subway or mall and massacre American citizens? Most of these illegals come to work to send money back to their families. They are not bad people. But because they are predominantly young and male, they commit a disproportionate share of violent crimes. Why should U.S. citizens be assaulted, robbed, raped and murdered, and have their children molested, because their government will not enforce its own laws? Is this not an indictment of democracy itself? What dictatorial regime would put up with this? The Republican Party claims to be a conservative party. But what kind of conservative is it who, to cut a few costs or make a few bucks, will turn his family’s home into a neighborhood flop house? In a recent poll, 40 percent of Mexicans — 40 million people — said they would like to come to the United States, and 20 percent expressed a willingness to break in. Time to cut the babble about how NAFTA is going to solve the problem. This is a national emergency. Twice, Bush has taken an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Article IV, Section 4 of that Constitution reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.” Well, we are being invaded, and the president of the United States is not doing his duty to protect the states against that invasion. Some courageous Republican, to get the attention of this White House, should drop into the hopper a bill of impeachment, charging Bush with a conscious refusal to uphold his oath and defend the states of the Union against “invasion.” It may be the only way left to get his attention, before the border vanishes and our beloved country dissolves into MexAmerica, what T.R. called a “polyglot boarding house for the world.” • Pat Buchanan, a Creators Syndicate columnist, has been a senior adviser to three presidents, twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Steppenwolf (#0)
Question: How can a supposed "nation" presume to defend it's existence when nobody is allowed to even talk about what defines said nation? Here's the definition of the word "nation" from the online Mirriam-Webster dictionary http://www.m-w.com Let's take a look, shall we? Pronunciation: 'nA-sh&n Note the part that talks about, er, "race". You know, that dirty word that nobody is allowed to mention under pain of death? That word? You see, a nation is an entity that consists of a dominant race, religion, and culture. Nations that don't have a dominant race, religion or culture are more properly termed "empires", which is what America is today. The best we can hope for is that maybe some new nations will emerge from the wreckage of the American Empire. Considering current events, we just might be on the verge of seeing how this particular empire breaks apart.
The question of whether America is going to remain one nation, or whether our Southwest will wind up as a giant Kosovo — separated by language and loyalty from the rest of America — is on the table.
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English nacioun, from Middle French nation, from Latin nation-, natio birth, race, nation, from nasci to be born; akin to Latin gignere to beget -- more at KIN
1 a (1) : NATIONALITY 5a (2) : a politically organized nationality (3) : a non-Jewish nationality b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#2. To: Elliott Jackalope (#1)
Becoming an Empire is a Vast Bush/Neocon scheme ,too bad they are trying to accomplish this VAST scheme with Half-Vast ideas.
Nations that don't have a dominant race, religion or culture are more properly termed "empires", which is what America is today.
#3. To: Steppenwolf (#0)
Not a darned thing. This has to do with CAFTA and the FTAA.
What are these Bush Republicans afraid of? Dirty looks from the help at the country club?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest