Video: Sessions to Bush — “Back off”
posted at 2:04 pm on June 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
I love him; he’s like a little border-enforcing elf. He’s also one of nine signatories to Jim DeMint’s letter to Bush raising a point that’s been raised in the blogosphere this week: if the “grand compromisers” really do believe it’s important to close the border, if they’re not just paying lip service to the idea to sweeten the pot for conservatives wary of amnesty, then what’s stopping Bush from implementing the enforcement measures already authorized by current law? A show of good faith on this point would go a long way towards convincing us that this isn’t, in fact, a railroading a la 1986 or, worse, a type of legislative extortion, as Newt has suggested.
He needs 14 votes, assuming Jon Kyl does what’s expected and switches his vote against cloture from last week. DeMint says he won’t get them.
Link: sevenload.com
Update: Howard Fineman calls Bush a “hacendado” and displays some of that left-wing interpretive nuance that had Tony Blair in raptures earlier today:
As always, conservatives, who thrive on alienation, are spoiling for a fight. Now they have found it. Among the branch of conservatism fixed on “Us v Them” thinking, the enemy for decades was Communism. After the fall of The Wall, the “neocons” found a replacement Them in jihadist Islam. The old America-Firsters—what we used to call “isolationists,” who distrust foreign commitments—now have a homeland Them, in the form of 12-20 million illegal immigrants, most from Mexico.
The domestic neocons want a fence, a big and real one; they want illegals sent packing to the extent possible. Mostly they want leaders to express outrage and concern. And they aren’t a fringe; they form the core of the GOP.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
we can only hope…
DwnSouthJukin on June 12, 2007 at 2:06 PM
BJ* on June 12, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Love Sessions!
BJ* on June 12, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Meanwhile, the Herald and Zogby are trying to persuade us that 60% of Floridians favor shamnesty. Somehow, I doubt the accuracy of this conclusion:
“Lou Dobbsian”. Cute. No doubt this poll was balanced and completely scientific.
SWLiP on June 12, 2007 at 2:18 PM
I’m glad we have Sessions on our side. I just watched the Senate lunch wrap-up on C-Span. They realize the American people don’t trust the government to secure the borders and we want security first. Perhaps to calm our fears there was talk about the President sending up a supplemental bill (like for the war spending) to pay for things like border agents, etc. That way they could say they’re trying to do security first, while still hoping to pass a guest worker program. The GOP Senators at the microphone after the lunch all confirmed that Bush is passionate about this issue, but won’t sign a “bad bill.” Too bad his idea of bad and our idea aren’t the same.
icelandicfarmer on June 12, 2007 at 2:20 PM
Heh.
Look what the Senate’s own words say about the “amnesty bill” in the Coburn Amdt. No. 1311′s Statement of Purpose:
And yet, we’re supposed to believe it’s not amnesty?
Gregor on June 12, 2007 at 2:21 PM
…”border-enforcing elf”…HA! That’s awesome.
fusionaddict on June 12, 2007 at 2:24 PM
God Speed, Mr. Sessions!
Tim Burton on June 12, 2007 at 2:25 PM
What can Bush expect at the policy lunch? How about a ham sandwich or a great big steaming heaping of crow!
Funny isn’t it, when it comes to the GOP base Bush suddenly grows balls?
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on June 12, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Imagine what Sen. Sessions does to Sen. Kennedy. Their just passing each other must be fun. I’ve always liked him, even before this big joke. No one trusts Washington any longer. All of Washington. I like this time. It feels like the end of a storm, with a few more dark clouds to overcome.
Entelechy on June 12, 2007 at 2:34 PM
They just refuse to acknowledge that 77% of Americans, of all walks of life, oppose this bill. You can’t get 77% of Americans to agree on almost anything else and that makes the overwhelming opposition to this legislation remarkable. Yet, they pretend like the sentiment does not even exist. It’s amazing…
TheBigOldDog on June 12, 2007 at 2:34 PM
And, how arrogant/stupid/out-of-touch has Bush become? He has the perfect opportunity to slither away and let the whole thing die down, and what does he do? He goes and pokes the bear again. What a total jackass.
TheBigOldDog on June 12, 2007 at 2:42 PM
And what a sad truth that is.
Zetterson on June 12, 2007 at 2:46 PM
He poked the Bear and TheBigOldDog all at the same time. Now thats stupid!
Zetterson on June 12, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Heh…send that proposed legislation to the Island of Misfit Bills.
“Just put one foot in front of the other,
And soon you’ll be walking ‘cross the bor-or-der!”
James on June 12, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Southerners
tdau1997 on June 12, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Because, just like the Communists, they didn’t really want to kill us.
wherestherum on June 12, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Fineman displays all the intelligence and understanding of a college freshman with a hippie-liberal history professor.
Who actually reads Newsweek anymore, anyway?
reaganaut on June 12, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Hooray for Senator Sessions.
Fineman’s problem is just obvious.
When will these, pass the amnesty now please, members of government realize that there is zero-zilch-nada credibility with which to persuade anybody that any kind of good faith honesty exists to convince us that NOW after forty years of bait,switch and hump our leg till many millions of illegal aliens have invaded every corner of America; that enforcement will better because you say so…not.
Get a clue, nobody believes you.
Until the border IS secure, until there IS enforcement through attrition and until birthright citizenship for illegal aliens IS stopped forever, there won’t be either.
Speakup on June 12, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Thomas Lifson today in the American Thinker.
there it is on June 12, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Yep, unfortunately we didn’t have to go looking for the replacement Them, they found us on our own soil.
hollygolightly on June 12, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Sorry, didn’t mean to blockquote that second paragraph.
hollygolightly on June 12, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Bush needs to back off . . . the people recognize this “snake oil” bill for what it is and putting sugar in it isn’t going to change its taste.
rplat on June 12, 2007 at 3:34 PM
You need Bush to enforce laws already on the books?
tomas on June 12, 2007 at 3:54 PM
I did once. Hey, my choices waiting for my number to be called at the DMV were Better Homes and Gardens and Newsweek. Forgive me.
Hollowpoint on June 12, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Isn’t Bush’s term over yet?
*Resumes counting days*
JayHaw Phrenzie on June 12, 2007 at 4:39 PM
As I’ve preached on here for 6 months, the GOP must run away from Dub Yuh if it is to have a chance to retain the White House in 2008.
I have no doubt that if Rudy or Mitt is the nominee, the GOP can convince the majority of voters that it will not be business as usual if either of them is elected.
Two of the groups that are most opposed to the CAB are the ethnic voters who descended from legal immigrants and the labor voters of the industrial northeast. This is the heart of democrat power in donkeyland; if enough of those votes can be picked off by the GOP, we can take states like Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey and Illinois.
This is a golden opportunity for the GOP. We must realize it for what it is. We must continue to block the Kennedy/Bush/Reid monster.
Burn it up, slice it into little pieces, put the pieces in a blender, and pour the results in the Potomac.
Labamigo on June 12, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Bush complains that the “status quo” will not do.
Who the hell IS the status quo, but him?
Who the hell is stopping him (and Cpongress) from securing the border and enforcing our immigrations laws (already on the books) NOW?
Why would we trust them to obey NEW laws if they won;t obey those we HAVE?
How goddamned stupid must they think we are?
Verify, then trust.
profitsbeard on June 12, 2007 at 5:55 PM
there are no laws on books that need Bush’s approval to enforce. They can be enforced at anytime.
tomas on June 12, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Tomas, are you talking to yourself? Are you responding to someone’s comment? What’s your point? Are you asking a question? You ask …
Is this a serious question, or sarcasm? I hope it’s sarcasm.
Gregor on June 12, 2007 at 6:24 PM
I tried to call the White House today. I never got through because it was busy all the time. I called after 5pm (EDT), and got a recording that the comment line closes at 5pm (EDT).
SouthernGent on June 12, 2007 at 6:35 PM
It is both…why do you need Bush to enforce laws that are on the books?
tomas on June 12, 2007 at 7:34 PM
tomas-
It’s a question of leadership. GWB’s primarily.
He sets the tone that the rest follow.
If the boss is farting around and being obstructionist, the staff will be less likely to risk doing anything that might get them unwanted attention. By adhering to things (the law) that the leader isn’t taking particular notice of.
Bush isn’t needed for the borders (and laws) to be enforced.
But it would be nice if he joined the citizens in wanting to secure the country.
Especially in the bloody beginnings of globel terrorist Jihad.
Instead, he insults those who believe in keeping the nation coherent.
profitsbeard on June 12, 2007 at 9:49 PM
You want an issue not action.
tomas on June 13, 2007 at 7:00 AM
tomas,
What you refuse to recognize is that this President has made it an active policy, from day one of his administration, to slacken or ignore enforcement.
You say it doesn’t take the President to enforce existing laws, and you would be completely correct if that was the beginning and end of it. However, when the Federal executive lets subordinate departments, agencies, and organizations know that they are expected to fall in line with an expected standard of behavior which specifically includes AVOIDANCE of enforcement, then enforcement will slide, and the Johnny Suttons will prosecute the Ramos’s and Compeans, and everybody up the chain of command will nod their heads quietly.
This isn’t a passive behavior on our President’s part. He has his hand in this failure to comply with our laws, he chose to call brave citizens who sought to provide border assistance “vigilantes”, he has fought everything that would have strengthened our fight against illegal entry, and aided everything that will increase illegal “citizenship”.
There has been action so far, and all of the WRONG kind. We want correction, enforcement, and improvement of our nation’s security. The recently deceased bill provided none of those.
Freelancer on June 13, 2007 at 11:00 AM
You are supposed to be seperating yourselves from Bush, right? He is a lame duck president because of you guys…you get what you give.
tomas on June 13, 2007 at 11:49 AM
tomas
Who do you think called Boeing and told them to stop building the fence?
“The survey, conducted between June 1 and 5 by American Border Patrol, confirmed earlier findings that border fence construction was halted on or about May 10, 2007.”
“In November of 2005 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) and in September of 2006 the Boeing Company was awarded the contract to design and implement the SBInet, a multiyear program that will use the latest in technology and strategies to attempt to secure America’s borders.”
Because the Bush administration has stopped the fence from being built even though GWB signed it into law, Illegal Aliens are invading the border in hopes of gaining Amnesty in unprecedented numbers.DHS Leaves Border Wide Open
He appointed Julie Meyers to ICE who has zero law enforcement experience and Chertoff to DHS who is a political hack. As a result, enforcement actions with GWB at the helm are in the toilet.
Chertoff is guilty of Treason and Sedition for not enforcing the immigration laws. He keeps trying to say we cannot deport the “migrants”.
Here is as excerpt from an article that explains that it can be done and quickly:
Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America’s southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.
President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents – less than one-tenth of today’s force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.
Then on June 17, 1954, what was called “Operation Wetback” began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day. By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.
By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.
By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.
So much for the lying propaganda coming out of this Whitehouse and its minions.
ScottyDog on June 13, 2007 at 2:26 PM