Why does Bush refuse to secure the border?

Rogue · Sep 13, 2006

Bush wrongly commited our nation to a war in Iraq, which is now a war on "terror", but he refuses to secure our own border against terrorists. Reports have said that some terrorists have entered Mexico, learned Spanish, desguised themselves as Mexicans and have entered the US. Other than keeping the border open so the cheap labor can come in for his corporate sponsers, what other reason would he have for not securing the border? The majority of Americans have demanded that he secure the border, but he refuses. What can we do about it?

jamesrage · Sep 14, 2006

President Bush is a pro-illegal.He is either in the destruction-of-america/globalist camp or he is in the pro-slave-wage labor camp or perhaps both.Bush is nopt going to do something that is against his interest.Which is why he only put the NG on the border with no real authority to detain and not authority to arrest but only to put up fences and act as spotters for the border guards,which is what the minute men are already doing for free.President Bush basicly just threw a **** load of money to only give the appearance of trying to do something about the border.If Bush actually gave a **** about the border the NG would have the authority to arrest,detain and prevent people from illegally crossing,not there to just put up a measely fence and to only say "Look! I see illegals,too bad the only thing we can do is tell the border guard".He can give away our money to other countries,spend billions on the Iraq and Afganistan war but he wants to prentend he doesn't have the money to put up a wall.

Iriemon · Sep 14, 2006

jamesrage said:
President Bush is a pro-illegal.He is either in the destruction-of-america/globalist camp or he is in the pro-slave-wage labor camp or perhaps both.

I'd vote for the latter. His rich and big-business support base likes illegals because they can get away with paying them below minimum wage rates and no benefits.

Synch · Sep 14, 2006

Money

It's a never ending sale on one of the factors of production, who wouldn't love that?

Doremus Jessup · Sep 14, 2006

A future North American Union. Look up SPP and NACC.

Rogue · Sep 17, 2006

Doremus Jessup said:
A future North American Union. Look up SPP and NACC.

I keep hearing about a North American Union. What's your take on it?

Rogue · Sep 17, 2006

jamesrage said:
President Bush is a pro-illegal.He is either in the destruction-of-america/globalist camp or he is in the pro-slave-wage labor camp or perhaps both.Bush is nopt going to do something that is against his interest.Which is why he only put the NG on the border with no real authority to detain and not authority to arrest but only to put up fences and act as spotters for the border guards,which is what the minute men are already doing for free.President Bush basicly just threw a **** load of money to only give the appearance of trying to do something about the border.If Bush actually gave a **** about the border the NG would have the authority to arrest,detain and prevent people from illegally crossing,not there to just put up a measely fence and to only say "Look! I see illegals,too bad the only thing we can do is tell the border guard".He can give away our money to other countries,spend billions on the Iraq and Afganistan war but he wants to prentend he doesn't have the money to put up a wall.

Exactly! This is what I've been saying. But, in the face of mounting pressure from a majority of Americans to secure the border, and he still refuses, I'm wondering if there could be more to it than just providing cheap labor for his corporate sponsers. Is he indeed cramming a North American Union down our throats?

One provision of the Hutchinson Pense so called immigration reform plan called for the illegals here to go home, check in, and turn around and come right back. However, only illegals from Nafta and Cafta countries would be eligible for the guest worker program. ???

One theory I saw on another forum was that a majority of illegals who break in are from rural areas of Mexico who have been displaced by free trade practices. These are the areas that voted overwhelming for Oberon in the Mexican Presidential election. If Bush hadn't kept the borders open and let these millions of dissatisfied Mexicans in they would have stayed in Mexico and voted for Oberon. Since Oberon lost by .056% would he have won if the illegals in the US had stayed in Mexico? Bush gets his cheap labor and Fox's party stays in power. Does Bush so desperately want a guest worker program to keep these Oberon supporters from going back to Mexico and causing a party change?

Any comments? Or does anyone care?

Doremus Jessup · Sep 17, 2006

Rogue said:
I keep hearing about a North American Union. What's your take on it?

I think it will work out great, the rich get richer and the poor will get poorer. Instead of displaced Americans blaming government policies, they can blame it on illegal immigrants, which will eventually lead to race riots, yay globalists.

Any comments? Or does anyone care?

I remember reading somewhere that the protests a few months ago were set up on Spanish language radio and television. Vincente Fox had hired a PR firm with Bush connections, Allyn & Co. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Allyn_%26_Company

Monk-Eye · Sep 17, 2006

Socialist, Communists, Deleterious

"Socialist, Communist, Deleterious"

Rogue said:
One theory I saw on another forum was that a majority of illegals who break in are from rural areas of Mexico who have been displaced by free trade practices. These are the areas that voted overwhelming for Oberon in the Mexican Presidential election. If Bush hadn't kept the borders open and let these millions of dissatisfied Mexicans in they would have stayed in Mexico and voted for Oberon. Since Oberon lost by .056% would he have won if the illegals in the US had stayed in Mexico? Bush gets his cheap labor and Fox's party stays in power. Does Bush so desperately want a guest worker program to keep these Oberon supporters from going back to Mexico and causing a party change?
Any comments? Or does anyone care?

When at the store, there are three in the basket and a baby on the way.
Hispanics have a hidden agenda to breed their way into political control of vast areas and to secure their presence with anchor baby child citizens.
The leftist bent of the lower socioeconomic groups in mexico and south america bound for the US are breeding into state the same taxing conditions of origin where they would receive little if any support. They have no disinsentive to abstain from births, rather greater incentive to arrive and breed.
Already there are reports of poor emergency room services as the result of fewer people with health insurance.
There is child education, lunch, books, schools, police protection, fire protection, social services, emergency services, needed; and the taxes to support these areas are being redistributed from wealthy to poor who cannot afford the standards.
This is a fifth amendment violation and the citizen has no obligation to support a non-jurisdictional person or their non-citizen offspring.
These issues should alarm the right wing anti-communist tax weary attack dogs but nothing exists in the press.

dsanthony · Sep 17, 2006

Hispanics, for better or worse, are the fastest growing block of voters in the US. Neither party wants to alienate them.

Rogue · Sep 17, 2006

dsanthony said:
Hispanics, for better or worse, are the fastest growing block of voters in the US. Neither party wants to alienate them.

This is so true. But do you think that Bush and his handlers are refusing to secure the border just so not to alienate the Hispanics? Bush and his handlers are pandering to the Hispanic community but there is no way that they can out pander the Democrats for the Hispanic vote.

Bush and his handlers are fools. Republican candidates are jumping off the Bush bandwagon and are running on a strong immigration enforcement platform in order to try to get reelected.

The House passed H.R. 6061 the Secure Fence act of 2006 by 238 to 138. This would build approx. 700 miles of border fence.

219 Repubs and 68 Dems voted yes

6 Repubs and 131 Dems voted no.

This pretty much tells us that, except for Bush, the Repubs are the party for immigration enforcement and the Democrats aren't.

dsanthony · Sep 17, 2006

They voted to build the fence, but voted against paying for it.

Jerry · Sep 17, 2006

Rogue said:
Bush wrongly commited our nation to a war in Iraq, which is now a war on "terror", but he refuses to secure our own border against terrorists. Reports have said that some terrorists have entered Mexico, learned Spanish, desguised themselves as Mexicans and have entered the US. Other than keeping the border open so the cheap labor can come in for his corporate sponsers, what other reason would he have for not securing the border? The majority of Americans have demanded that he secure the border, but he refuses. What can we do about it?

New-World-Order

Report to Leaders
June 2005

On March 23, 2005, you announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. At that time, you instructed Ministers to create an architecture which would further enhance the security of North America while at the same time promote the economic well-being of our citizens and position North America to face and meet future challenges. This effort builds on the excellent, long-standing relations among our three countries. The response to your request is attached.

In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership - Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people. While the Security and Prosperity agendas were developed by separate teams, we recognize that our economic well-being and our security are not two separate and distinct issues. In that spirit, we have worked together to ensure that the appropriate linkages are made between security and prosperity initiatives.

Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed. We will also encourage them to continue to provide us with new ideas and proposals which will help shape our forward agenda and our vision for North America......

From Congressional Record of the 76th Congress, Third Session #94, August 19, 1940;
Source 1
Source 2

'Mr. Thorkelson. Mr. Speaker, in order that the American people may have a clearer understanding of those who over a period of years have been undermining this Republic, in order to return it to the British Empire, I have inserted in the Record a number of articles to prove this point. These articles are entitled “ Steps Toward British Union, a World State, andInternational Strife.” This is part I, and in this I include a hope expressed by Mr. Andrew Carnegie, in his book entitled “ Triumphant Democracy.” In this he expresses himself in this manner:

'Let men say what they will, I say that as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, to shine upon, the greet again the reunited states–the British-American Union."

Continued at second url.

See also,
*British-Israel-World Federation

*British Israel or Anglo Israel

*North American Competitiveness Council Promotes Regional Growth

In March, U.S. President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Vicente Fox announced the creation of the NACC as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) initiative. The NACC officially was launched June 15 and will be made up of 10 high-level business leaders from each country, who will meet annually with senior North American government officials to provide recommendations and help set priorities for promoting regional competitiveness in the global economy.

*U.S.-Mexico merger opposition intensifies

...WND can find no specific congressional legislation authorizing the SPP working groups nor any congressional committees taking charge of oversight.

Many SPP working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.
.......

*Bush Administration Fast-Tracks Formation of North American Union

....The Council of the Americas provided the more detail regarding the June 15, 2006 meeting of the NACC than was found on U.S. government websites. A NACC membership list found on the Council of the Americas’ website lists the U.S. members as coming form the following corporations (listed in alphabetic order): Campbell Soup Company, Chevron, Ford, FedEx, General Electric, General Motors, Kansas City Southern Industries, Lockheed Martin Corporation; Merck; Mittal Steel USA; New York Life; United Parcel Service; Wal-Mart (gota love them....); and Whirlpool.

*snip*

A White House website shows photographs of President Bush, Mexico President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper at their March 31 joint news conference in Cancun, Mexico, shaking hands in front of a backdrop proclaiming “Cancun 2006. Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.” Increasingly, the three leaders are referring to the SPP as if the Waco, Texas press release announcement of March 23, 2005 constitutes an official new treaty-like trilateral status, advancing the trilateral partnership forward into a more institutional phase that can be termed at a minimum “NAFTA-Plus.”

*snip*

The DOC's SPP website announcing the formation of NACC provides no information as to the membership requirements, the selection process, or the terms of the members appointed to the NACC. Nor is there any discussion of who pays for the travel expenses and the time of the participants. We find no charter published for the NACC, or any other specific delineation of roles and responsibilities, or reporting authority (except for a mention of the “SPP Ministers”). Equally lacking is a description of the enabling legislation or treaty under which the NACC operates.

.........

What can you do about it? Live righteously is all one can do for anything. We can not stop the coming global government anymore than we could stop the industrial revolution.

Billo_Really · Sep 18, 2006

This is a non-issue.

Rogue · Sep 18, 2006

Billo_Really said:
This is a non-issue.

Why is it a non-issue?

el_joven · Sep 21, 2006

The fact of the matter is that it is a sad day when the president allows and [secretly] supports both outsourcing and illegal immigration [next to] slave labor. Then spends billions fighting a war. A war in which his Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice says, 'If you support withdrawal of the troops you might as well support slavery.' It is a sad day indeed. And on hispanic voters, I do agree but the real issue is that the illegal immigrants aren't affecting the white upper-middle class. As a matter of fact they are probably enjoying their migrant odd-job workers. When the white upper-middle class is affected legislation will begin.

Monk-Eye · Sep 21, 2006

Future Political Arena

"Future Political Arena"

The anglo upper middle class will be affected when they are outnumbered by the leftists leaning lower socio-economic class over-imported multitudes, that after bleeding them for social support suddenly demand more and decide to take it by populous vote. Then it will be too late.

LeftyHenry · Sep 29, 2006

Rogue said:
Why is it a non-issue?

Because only fascists who wish to distract our attention from the nightmare in Iraq are making it an issue.

Jerry · Sep 29, 2006

LeftyHenry said:
Because only fascists who wish to distract our attention from the nightmare in Iraq are making it an issue.

Bush is doing a dam good job of distracting me, given his collaboration in the creation of a North American Union and all.

Ever stop to think that Iraq is the distraction?

akyron · Oct 5, 2006

President Bush yesterday signed into law the annual homeland-security spending bill that provides the first down payment for 700 miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The $33.8 billion spending measure boosts the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents to 14,800, funds 27,500 detention beds for illegal aliens, or an increase of 6,700, and includes $1.2 billion for a fence, vehicle barriers and other infrastructure.

Bush signs the fence bill-Washington Times

Its about time. Modernizing and controlling the borders is a good move.

Rogue · Oct 5, 2006

The Washington Post article says that Bush hasn't actually signed the fence bill yet. What he signed was the annual homeland security bill! If he signs the fence bill in private maybe we should check it for a Presidential signing statement. His Presidential signing statements tell which part of a bill he is going to enforce and which part he is going to ignore.

doughgirl · Oct 9, 2006

No political party will secure the border because they dont want to lose votes.

Our border is a seive.........

Rogue · Oct 9, 2006

doughgirl said:
No political party will secure the border because they dont want to lose votes.

Our border is a seive.........

Whose votes will they lose if they secure the border? Whose votes will they lose if they don't?

Why does Bush refuse to secure the border?

Rogue

Conspiratist

jamesrage

Iriemon

Synch

Well-known member

Doremus Jessup

Rogue

Conspiratist

Rogue

Conspiratist

Doremus Jessup

Monk-Eye

Dream Walker

dsanthony

Member

Rogue

Conspiratist

dsanthony

Member

Jerry

Billo_Really

Rogue

Conspiratist

el_joven

Monk-Eye

Dream Walker

LeftyHenry

Jerry

akyron

Rogue

Conspiratist

doughgirl

Rogue

Conspiratist

Why does Bush refuse to secure the border?

Conspiratist

Well-known member

Conspiratist

Conspiratist

Dream Walker

Member

Conspiratist

Member

Conspiratist

Dream Walker

Conspiratist

Conspiratist

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency