I’m in the first group, BTW.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

- Presidential oath of office. First responsibility of the office is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

- Preamble to the US Constitution (emphasis mine)

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

- US Constitution, Article II, Presidential Powers (section 3)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

- US Constitution, Amendment XIV

The framers were, of all men, most careful of their use of language. They were certainly aware of the effect of their use of OR and AND as logical operators. Hence born or naturalized provides two different but parallel requirements, each of which may help to arrive at the same result, while and subject to the jurisdiction thereof demands an additional requirement, that must carry an equal weight of burden to either of the former requirements in arriving at that result. They did not include arbitrary, ambiguous, or ambivalent clauses in their work, so there must be a concrete reading of this phrase, and of course there is. That reading, in the minds of the framers would NEVER have permitted the “anchor baby” concept to be viewed as permitted under this amendment, later SCOTUS decisions notwithstanding. The phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is specifically exclusionary, and such exclusion, in accordance with european precedents from which this exact language is drawn, refers to people not legally on the subject soil.

The recently deceased bill (sure to be resurrected in similar form before long), did nothing to establish justice or ensure domestic tranquility, and in strongly promoting it’s passage while ignoring demands for enforcement of existing legislation, the President did nothing to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

These are absolutely valid complaints, and in no wise represent “back-stabbing”, which is a far better characterization of the President’s own words aimed at opponents of this horrid legislation. After several paragraphs of an attempted guilt trip about “jobs Americans won’t do”, and referring to illegals as “decent”, “hardworking”, “honest”, “good people”, he shovels this manure at us:

Most employers want to comply with the law. The peach grower wanted to comply with the law. Believe me, he’s a law-abiding, decent man.

But shortly before that, when this peach farmer was first referenced:

There’s a — a lot of employers need a legal way to fill jobs that Americans simply aren’t doing. There’s a lot of jobs here in Georgia that require people from — that are willing to do the work that Americans aren’t doing. It’s just the way it is.

Even when he tries to avoid it, the description cannot be anything but a reference to illegal foreigners. I’m sorry, they aren’t good, honest, and decent if they snuck into this nation. In using such as an excuse for this misbegotten sham of a bill, the President insults the American intelligence and dismisses prevailing federal law.

To which does an American owe their first allegiance: The President, or the Constitution and Laws of the Land?

Noonan is a traitor and she’s been plunging her knife into Bush’s back for some time now, long before the immigration bill.

Jen, Who is she a traitor to? Certainly not the American people. Or maybe to Bush who she helped get elected in ’04?

You accuse us of racism and “hysterical ranting” and then you stoop to the same level Bush, Chertoff, McCain & Graham, which is, BTW, nothing but race-baiting and hysterical ranting.

As good citizens, we should always support the President, especially in wartime

Does that include Bill Clinton when he and his wife were trying to socialize our economy? Or maybe Richard Nixon? Yeah, we should have just rolled over and taken it. This is such an asinine statement that it makes me wonder where you learned social studies. Believe it or not, the First Amendment was designed to protect political speech. More specifically, it was designed to protect political speech against the government. Believe it or not, the government is supposed to be rely on the consent of the governed, not the other way around. Read a history book, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution some day. You will see just how antithetical your previous statement was to American ideals.

I’m throwing in with tomas, jummy and kara26.
Maybe if you guys are hearing “bigot” even when it’s not being said, it’s because the shoe fits.

Jen the Neocon

We’re gonna tell the bigots to shut up.

Sen Lindsey Graham

Your right Jen. It’s not being said.

You should hear yourselves and the hysterical ranting and raving that you pass off as “arguments” against the bill.
Pathetic.
Rush said the bill would be the “death of the Republican party” and he will ensure that it will be by opposing the bill–who wants to be a member of a party or vote for its candidates when too many of them are bigoted, irrational lunatics?
Noonan is a traitor and she’s been plunging her knife into Bush’s back for some time now, long before the immigration bill.
As good citizens, we should always support the President, especially in wartime, but impeachment should never be spoken of unless there’s a damn good reason, and “failure to protect the borders” doesn’t rise to the level of high crimes and mismeanors.
In fact, that’s what Bush is trying to do, if you’d give this bill the chance it deserves.

Bush is a great man and always will be.

tomas on June 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM

I had hopes, but they have been proven incorrect. He is a good man, of that I am certain.

He has chosen sides on an issue that has grave importance to the future of this nation, and it is the side which, should it win, will lose us this nation as we know and love it. The U.S. cannot afford to continue to allow people to illegally gain residence to this land, then presumptively gain citizenship. He is wrong, and those of us who supported him in the past are right to call him wrong.

It causes me no small pain that this is true. But first principles are just that because you must not retreat from them. If you believe that supporting an incorrect policy because it comes from “our side” is a first principle, then do what you must, but you’re sadly mistaken.

NOONAN/RICE IN ’08 !!

Sorry…don’t mean to stutter…

“he didn’t stab you guys in the back…christ all mighty. You are stabbing him in the back.

tomas on June 4, 2007 at 7:01 PM

Who gave this clown a login??? I’d like to appeal that decision.

Bush is a great man and always will be.

Bush is a moron.

that legacy needs to be protected
jummy on June 5, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Here’s where you crash completely off the rails jummy! It’s THE COUNTRY and it’s citizens that need to be protected, NOT one president’s legacy. No president is more important than the country. The legacy is Bush’s to defend.

Please. sir. step. away. from. the. kool-aide.

In eastern Washington, piles of wheat are bought by the government and left to rot. I always wondered why we didn’t send it to the third world.

Are you dyslexic or just wanting to make an utter fool of yourself?

when it arives, i’ll open it and still note that he neither used the word “racist” nor “bigot”, nor alluded to those words. you may insist on hearing those words. maybe feeling like a victim is part of what you’re trying to get out of these “buck fush” hysterics which seem to be all the rage amongst conservatives; a sence of that clinton-era underdogginess.

i’ll also note that even had he said that there was a racist element in the border control rabble, your protestations to the contrary would have been obviated by the words of your comrade, sonnyspats.

In the meantime none of you can cite where the administration has used the words “bigoted” or racist” in reference to the bill’s opponents

Jummy, this is your question.

This is the answer:

I’m deeply concerned about America losing its soul. Immigration has been the lifeblood of a lot of our country’s history. And I am worried that a backlash to newcomers would cause our country to lose its great capacity to assimilate newcomers.

I wonder what Bush means by “a backlash to newcomers”? Gee, that’s what bigots would do.

We’re gonna tell the bigots to shut up.

Sen Lindsey Graham

He and McCain are pushing the bill through at Bush’s bidding and Bush did not correct him (like he did for Trent Lott).

What about Chertoff saying that we want to execute illegal immigrants? Yep, he’s definitely part of the administration. Sounds like he’s calling us racists, does’t it? And Bush didn’t correct him.

So let’s get this straight: Bush says Americans are lazy and shiftless (won’t do work so we have to import a labor pool). He accuses us of losing our souls for not supporting open borders and having a backlash against foreigners. He may have stopped short of using the term “bigot” but his message is clear. His ally in the Senate called us bigots and Bush didn’t criticize him. Chertoff, Gonzales (Att Gen) and Gutierrez (Sec of Commerce) have joined the fray at times using similar language as Bush (although not as egregious as Graham’s).

Keep up here, please.

jummy on June 5, 2007 at 7:48 PM

You asked the question and now you don’t like the answer, huh?

As for folks who sink to calling others despicable names, we don’t need to address them. We know them for what they are. But you and he exhibit the same behavior; you stoop to name calling, just like the aforementioned person. You’ll notice that I haven’t.

So once again, you asked for proof. QED.

bj, your duck and retreat from this argument after having slung an accusation against my sincerity was the single most chickens**t thing i’ve seen in these blog comments so far.

In the meantime none of you can cite where the administration has used the words “bigoted” or racist” in reference to the bill’s opponents

Hey Jummy,

I’m deeply concerned about America losing its soul. Immigration has been the lifeblood of a lot of our country’s history. And I am worried that a backlash to newcomers would cause our country to lose its great capacity to assimilate newcomers.

I wonder what Bush means by “a backlash to newcomers”? Gee, that’s what bigots would do.

We’re gonna tell the bigots to shut up.

Sen Lindsey Graham

He and McCain are pushing the bill through at Bush’s bidding and Bush did not correct him (like he did for Trent Lott).

What about Chertoff saying that we want to execute illegal immigrants? Yep, he’s definitely part of the administration. Sounds like he’s calling us racists, does’t it? And Bush didn’t correct him.

So let’s get this straight: Bush says Americans are lazy and shiftless (won’t do work so we have to import a labor pool). He accuses us of losing our souls for not supporting open borders and having a backlash against foreigners. He may have stopped short of using the term “bigot” but his message is clear. His ally in the Senate called us bigots and Bush didn’t criticize him. Chertoff, Gonzales (Att Gen) and Gutierrez (Sec of Commerce) have joined the fray at times using similar language as Bush (although not as egregious as Graham’s).

When you can find the shift key and type in coherent sentences I’ll bother responding to anything else you say.