Video: Hey, how ’bout we secure the border first, says Grahamnesty; Update: Bush to veto?

posted at 5:32 pm on July 25, 2007 by Allahpundit

Suddenly he’s for incremental, enforcement-first change, and all it took was two months, two highest-of-high profile cloture defeats, and a ton of venomous press and opinion polls to convince him. “The [amnesty] bill was super super tough on border security,” he notes, politely neglecting to mention that most of the security measures were only added at the eleventh hour to woo conservatives after they killed the first measure of the bill and that among the “super super tough” measures he had in mind were exactly four drones for 2,000+ miles of border. That package was $4.4 billion; the current proposal is only two-thirds that amount. Why scale it back? Hey, why not? They’re keeping the four drones. Isn’t that enough?

The AP quotes him this afternoon as follows: “Border security is the gate that you must pass through to get to overall comprehensive reform.” I prefer the following ipse dixit from the clip: “Our efforts to secure the borders have been miserable failures because we’ve got 12 million people here illegally.” Meditate on that one for awhile and let me know if you figure it out. I’m stumped.

Naturally, the Democrats think they’ve gone way too far.

Update: It’s over budget and therefore must be vetoed, proclaims new fiscal conservative George Bush.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Our efforts to secure the borders have been miserable failures because we’ve got 12 million people here illegally.” Meditate on that one for awhile and let me know if you figure it out. I’m stumped.

Poor grammar, I’m sure:

As a result of miserable failure to secure the borders, we have 12 million people here illegally.

lorien1973 on July 25, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Translation: Oh, sh*t, I’m in deep trouble with my constituents, better put forth a bogus front to look like I’ve finally listened.

Bad Candy on July 25, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Somebody please tell this jerk to go away . . . we all have his number and he’ll never be able to crawl out of the hole he dug for himself.

rplat on July 25, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Lindsey died to me several weeks ago. I don’t even hear his voice.

jaleach on July 25, 2007 at 5:38 PM

“Let ‘em in Lindsey” is a pillar of credibility! BWahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

DfDeportation on July 25, 2007 at 5:40 PM

He looks like he is turning Lurch.

abinitioadinfinitum on July 25, 2007 at 5:41 PM

change of heart has -nothing- to do with approval ratings, I’m sure:

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/grahams-approval-plunges-on-immigration-2007-06-22.html

lorien1973 on July 25, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Totally OT, but click that Grim Reaper cat story in Headlines. Look at the Netflix ad next to it(hope I’m not the only one seeing it). Thats so wrong!

Bad Candy on July 25, 2007 at 5:42 PM

He’s still a constituent back-stabbing tool. He crawled out from under McCain’s desk too late to unf**k himself this time.

Never trust a man with a woman’s name.

Brass Pair on July 25, 2007 at 5:42 PM

I guess ol’ grahamnesty has seen his poll numbers.

What a piece of crap!

conservnut on July 25, 2007 at 5:42 PM

I postponed a move just to vote for his opponent in the primary (any pro-life, pro-gun, anti-illegal conservitive will do)… can’t wait… to be in DeMitt’s district!

m1a1usmc on July 25, 2007 at 5:42 PM

“Why do these open-borders advocates keep endorsing my policies?”

Have at it, Slublog.

see-dubya on July 25, 2007 at 5:43 PM

“Our efforts to secure the borders have been miserable failures because we’ve got 12 million people here illegally.”

Lack of critical thinking skills? That is no more logical then saying the efforts to build a dam have failed before you started because of how much water has already run down the river.

Resolute on July 25, 2007 at 5:43 PM

You’d need a plunger the size of Lake Huron to get this “change of heart” to flush.

Lindsays aren’t doing too good lately.

profitsbeard on July 25, 2007 at 5:44 PM

Translation: Oh, sh*t, I’m in deep trouble with my constituents, better put forth a bogus front to look like I’ve finally listened.
Bad Candy on July 25, 2007 at 5:36 PM

What do you mean? I’ve always been enforcement-first. Ignore the crying in H. Reid’s arms please.

Spirit of 1776 on July 25, 2007 at 5:44 PM

See-Dub, that Ron Paul bit was great, huh?

Bad Candy on July 25, 2007 at 5:44 PM

“Border security is the gate pander that you I must pass through to get to overall comprehensive reform possible re-election”.
Fixed it for you, Grahamnesty.

eeyore on July 25, 2007 at 5:45 PM

The [amnesty] bill was super super tough

eck. anyone who uses “super super” should not be allowed to speak

“We have every confidence that Sen. Graham will be reelected to the U.S. Senate in 2008,” said a spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Rebecca Fisher.

Yeah, good luck getting any Republican money for THAT race.

wryteacher on July 25, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Lindsays aren’t doing too good lately.
profitsbeard on July 25, 2007 at 5:44 PM

You know, I actually tend to believe the other Lindsay when she claims she is getting her act together more so then I do believe congressman when they claim the same, be they named Linsdey or not.

Resolute on July 25, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Yeah, any candidate that is a stronger conservative than Grahamnesty will know to try to tap into National fundraising to capitalize on people being pissed at the tool.

Bad Candy on July 25, 2007 at 5:49 PM

Bad Candy on July 25, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Grim Reaper cat story, what is it you see BC

abinitioadinfinitum on July 25, 2007 at 5:50 PM

Meanwhile …

Those innocent hard working migrants are organizing nationwide.

Gregor on July 25, 2007 at 5:52 PM

Look at the Netflix ad next to it(hope I’m not the only one seeing it). Thats so wrong!

No screen shot? I get an alltel ad :(

lorien1973 on July 25, 2007 at 5:52 PM

“Our efforts to secure the borders have been miserable failures because we’ve got 12 million people here illegally.” Meditate on that one for awhile and let me know if you figure it out. I’m stumped.

AP

Heck, I’ll take a stab. He is attempting to acknowledge that previous efforts to secure the border have been failures, and the proof is 12 million successfully illegal aliens?

Do I win anything?

Ed.: he is using this device to sell his new idea and try to rebuild some credibility with conservatives, because he apparently likes being a Senator…

Jaibones on July 25, 2007 at 5:56 PM

Graham-amnesty says, “the bill was tough.” You call 350 miles of fence tough!!! Is the border really only 350 miles long? That is weak.
What about Visa over-stays?

I think it is time for ACTION, and not just more endless talk. USA citizens keep hearing about “border enforcement” over and over again, and nothing ever gets done. Mere talk does nothing. We know where Lindsey Graham really stands on this issue. Graham-amnesty would rather side with Ted Kennedy instead of obeying the Constitution. And we will remember Graham next year by voting our memory.

Conservatives have not left Graham. Rather, Lindsey Graham has abandoned Conservatives a long time ago, prefering instead Ted Kennedy and the MSM.

ColtsFan on July 25, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Nice try Lindsey but thanks for playing.

I’ll give you a hint. No amnesty, not now and not ever! Your bosses have turned you into a far left George Soros open border shill and you will survive politically only if you start at least sounding like you think about this nation first and stop kissing the criminals asses.

Buzzy on July 25, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Naturally, the Democrats think they’ve gone way too far.

Would it be rude of me to say: **** them?

yo on July 25, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Soooooooo………Where’s the Fence?

D0WNT0WN on July 25, 2007 at 6:00 PM

I’m tired of this effeminate little stain appearing on TV. Where is his primary challenger?????

PRCalDude on July 25, 2007 at 6:01 PM

“How ’bout we secure the border first”?

Awww, dammit, I wish we’d thought of that first.

:O|

OhEssYouCowboys on July 25, 2007 at 6:01 PM

eck. anyone who uses “super super” should not be allowed to speak

wryteacher on July 25, 2007 at 5:45 PM

ah… you don’t get it… its the Political equivalent of a double negative… Super Super in politispeech equals really wimpy…

Romeo13 on July 25, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Pander Pander Pander. Grahamnesty you are too late. Someone else is going to be in line for your job and you created the opening.

Wade on July 25, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Where is his primary challenger?????

PRCalDude on July 25, 2007 at 6:01 PM

I think Graham-amnesty’s challenger is POSSIBLY here.

ColtsFan on July 25, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Maybe there’s hundreds of thousands like me who said, when the RNC called, that I’d be happy to contribute again. AFTER YOU CONTROL THE BORDER! Do you suppose they’re getting the message? Time will tell.

Mojave Mark on July 25, 2007 at 6:04 PM

Those innocent hard working migrants are organizing nationwide.

Gregor on July 25, 2007 at 5:52 PM

Good to see their organizing in D.C. Maybe they’ll throw the bastards out.

PRCalDude on July 25, 2007 at 6:06 PM

Where is his primary challenger?????

PRCalDude on July 25, 2007 at 6:01 PM

And liberal, mainstream media favorite, Ted Kennedy clone Chuck Hagel’s primary opponent is here.

ColtsFan on July 25, 2007 at 6:07 PM

Meditate on that one for awhile and let me know if you figure it out. I’m stumped.

Well, for one he learned the English language; money and mouth…. was his first lesson.

Secondly he learned arithmetic; 21 out of a hundred people is not enough to give him majority vote for office.

My one nano-second-long-duration meditation also revealed (without double checking) that he is up for vote in 2008.

P.S. I learned my meditation skills from Paris Hilton.

Mcguyver on July 25, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Money quote from that entire article:

“At my level of government, what frustrates me the most is that so many people stand in the way of tough policies against illegal immigration,” Mr. Cuccinelli said. “They either ignore it or don’t understand the connection to public safety, security and the community’s well-being.”

PRCalDude on July 25, 2007 at 6:09 PM

The border security measures were added long after he had attacked all dissenters as racists and bigots. Being a two-faced lying hypocrite now will not change the facts as to how this debacle evolved. It cost McCain any hope of the presidency and, in turn, will cost Grahamnesty his political future.

volsense on July 25, 2007 at 6:09 PM

I think Graham-amnesty’s challenger is POSSIBLY here.

ColtsFan on July 25, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Outstanding!

Gregor on July 25, 2007 at 6:09 PM

You are the weakest link. Good bye!

The Race Card on July 25, 2007 at 6:12 PM

Totally OT, but click that Grim Reaper cat story in Headlines. Look at the Netflix ad next to it(hope I’m not the only one seeing it). Thats so wrong!
Bad Candy on July 25, 2007 at 5:42 PM

I kept refreshing until I got the right Netflix ad. You’re correct, it’s wrong…but funny.

The next story we’ll read is that the Hospice Cat will be found to be carrying some sort of virulent toxin affecting the weak. And that will be followed by late night commercials: “If your relative has died at the Steere House Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, call this number right away. You may be entitled to a large cash settlement…”

eeyore on July 25, 2007 at 6:12 PM

IMO this has nothing to do with “Grahmnesty” seeing the light as much as him buying votes for his new “Carbon credit commitee” legislation. HE flips on border security and someone else votes for a giant gov’t program to control the price and sales of carbon credits.
Al gores plans are materializing before our eyes, if you ask me.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!
paratisi

paratisi on July 25, 2007 at 6:22 PM

“Our efforts to secure the borders have been miserable failures because we’ve got 12 million people here illegally.”

What Efforts ??!!!

jaime on July 25, 2007 at 6:27 PM

ColtsFan on July 25, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Oops, my bad.

I watched the video. Graham-amnesty is talking about 700 miles of fence, not 350. And he is talking about visa over-stays, mentioning the 911 terrorists as evidence of the danger of visa over-stays.

Now at 02:05 Graham-amnesty is losing me with his meaningless talk of how the recent amnesty bill was “super tough.”

Just talk, talk, talk.

One judges a true LEADER by not what they say but what they do. And Graham-amnesty showed his true colors by siding with Ted Kennedy, McCain, and the MSM.

ColtsFan on July 25, 2007 at 6:28 PM

Nice! By Lindsey’s own logic, he himself is a bigot now … is he going to tell himself to shut up?

Sorry Lindsey, it’s too late – you’ve already opened your mouth far too much on this issue and you can’t take those words back by a little pandering now.

Oh, and by the way, the reason we have 12 million illegals here is in no small part because of the efforts of people like you to make sure that current laws are not enforced. Here’s a clue, Lindsey – border enforcement does not by and large need any new laws, especially the one you recently championed.

But lest I end this on a sour note, let me offer you something to help you out Lindsey – click here, as you’ll be needing this.

thirteen28 on July 25, 2007 at 6:28 PM

As a voter, it is impossible to believe that Graham-amnesty has undergone a philosophical conversion when he recently called supporters of “enforcement-first” border security BIGOTS.

Graham is just all talk, and no action.

ColtsFan on July 25, 2007 at 6:38 PM

yawn…

JWS on July 25, 2007 at 6:38 PM

I really think the essence of the book “Term Limits” by Vince Flynn needs to be implemented. It’s time for Patriotic Americans to take back our beloved Republic.

stanfil2 on July 25, 2007 at 6:49 PM

As with any infestation, you must secure the perimeter first. Then hunt down those inside the perimeter.

Zaire67 on July 25, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Actually, there are possibly up to as many as 4 primary challengers to take on Graham-amnesty next year.

Here is one possible challenger and here is a different candidate.

Scrolling down this website lists some more different challengers:

John Cina for Senate and also a Tim Carnes.

This information raises a key strategic issue: having the playing field loaded with 4 challengers could backfire and end up with Graham-amnesty winning the GOP primary easily.

Here is my solution:

Why not let Allahpundit and Michelle get together and select a good conservative ahead of time?

ColtsFan on July 25, 2007 at 7:04 PM

He’s always been creepy and wishy washy to me like McCain, Spector, etc. He needs to go away.

Blake on July 25, 2007 at 7:06 PM

You call that super tough Lindsey? This guy is super tough and he’s commin to get your seat in the Senate.

sonnyspats1 on July 25, 2007 at 7:11 PM

Why not let Allahpundit and Michelle get together and select a good conservative ahead of time?

ColtsFan on July 25, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Allah,

By the way, I mean a “pro-life conservative,” though many
of my Libertarian friends are staunchly pro-life as well.

To sweeten the deal, I will dangle this before your eyes, okay?

ColtsFan on July 25, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Update: It’s over budget and therefore must be vetoed, proclaims new fiscal conservative George Bush.

He’s the gift that keeps giving. Looks like D.C. will just have to get some more MS-13 and Mara 18 gang members to convince them otherwise.

PRCalDude on July 25, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Update: It’s over budget and therefore must be vetoed, proclaims new fiscal conservative George Bush.

Is Bush talking about the new Medicare prescription drug program? Is he referring to the “bridge to no-where” in Alaska that was so VITALLY necessary for our national security?

Maybe he is talking about the “No Child Left Behind” program that so many states are rejecting as unconstitutional?

ColtsFan on July 25, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Lindsey your still on MSM time. The jig is up ole buddy. Besides your “We’re going to tell the bigots to shut up” harangue is seared into my memory. Your 15 minutes is up dude/dudette.

sonnyspats1 on July 25, 2007 at 7:26 PM

Grahmnesty is pandering, Jorge is remaining (kinda) consistant. I just wish El Presidente had been as concerned about other projects that were “over budget”.

srhoades on July 25, 2007 at 7:36 PM

and less concerned about this.

srhoades on July 25, 2007 at 7:37 PM

How does this happen on the same day Rahm Emanuel apologizes for no amnesty till 2012?

Does anybody think that millions living “in the shadows” have suddenly given up?
The open borders lobby ran out of money and went home?
I don’t think so.

Speakup on July 25, 2007 at 7:43 PM

“Our efforts to secure the borders have been miserable failures because we’ve got 12 million people here illegally.” Meditate on that one for awhile and let me know if you figure it out. I’m stumped.

What it should read:

“We’ve got 12 million people here illegally because our (non-)efforts to secure the borders have been miserable failures.”

infidel4life on July 25, 2007 at 7:43 PM

Q. What’s the difference between Graham and a lightbulb?

A. You can unscrew a lightbulb.

Tennman on July 25, 2007 at 7:43 PM

Can I have a cookie?

infidel4life on July 25, 2007 at 7:43 PM

R’s have got to keep their eyes on the prize and the prize is winning in 2008. This would go a long way towards rebuilding their credibility and with a huge majority of voters in anticipation of Nov ’08. They shouldn’t give a damn whether Bush veotes it or not, he’s history after 2008.

If it fails, drop it in as the first plank of a “Contract for America”.

Dusty on July 25, 2007 at 7:51 PM

“We’re going to tell the La Raza pandering sellouts to shut up”
Do you hear me Senator STFU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And if we are attacked again on our home soil the blood of The American people will be on your hands .

Mojack420 on July 25, 2007 at 8:00 PM

Here’s two of his co-sponsors..Mel Martinez and John the McInsane himself, no doubt.. Tells ya where this is headed.

Legions on July 25, 2007 at 8:08 PM

Surely, Bush isn’t so stupid and petty that he would veto an effort to enforce our borders. I’ve hated Bush with the zeal of the BDS idiots since his presidency began, but I never thought he would sink so low.

thuja on July 25, 2007 at 8:09 PM

Wait a minute: The guy is RIGHT on this issue (for a change), so why are so many of you viciously dunning him? Look: No one hated Graham more than I did about one month ago, but we WON that particular skirmish, and he got his knicker ripped. He is now doing good (for a change) and I am not about to criticize him for that! (And that is not saying you shouldn’t back another candidate in the primary, either.) Just give the guy credit where credit is due, okay?

sanantonian on July 25, 2007 at 8:13 PM

Guess it doesn’t matter anyway. The AGJOBS bill is going to give amnesty to at least half those here anyway and the open borders / legalize drugs folks are going to find a few more ways to sneak the rest in under the radar.

With drones guarding the border I guess we’ll have a lot of vids of millions more invading our country. Must Si TV.

Buzzy on July 25, 2007 at 8:23 PM

Wait a minute: The guy is RIGHT on this issue (for a change), so why are so many of you viciously dunning him? Look: No one hated Graham more than I did about one month ago, but we WON that particular skirmish, and he got his knicker ripped. He is now doing good (for a change) and I am not about to criticize him for that! (And that is not saying you shouldn’t back another candidate in the primary, either.) Just give the guy credit where credit is due, okay?

sanantonian on July 25, 2007 at 8:13 PM

Simple. We don’t trust his sincerity.

I’ll give credit to those who were sincere about border security all along, and particularly when they were being portrayed as bigots by people like Graham in the midst of a political fight.

On the other hand, I won’t give credit at all to someone who didn’t give a crap about border security at all a month ago only to change his tune now that his poll numbers and fundraising numbers are in the toilet.

thirteen28 on July 25, 2007 at 8:29 PM

Lindsey is a bigot, he needs to focus more on telling illegals to shut-up.

Oh wait I am all confused.

F15Mech on July 25, 2007 at 8:54 PM

Does this make graham a bigot? What were his parameters as to what constituted a bigot? I for one will not forget his grandstanding three weeks ago. Individuals like graham constantly show contempt for the voting public. Do not forget he was a vocal member from the gang of 14 that legitimized the filibuster for judicial nomines.

chicken thief on July 25, 2007 at 9:02 PM

Sorry, Lindsay…I don’t believe anything you say…and I mean ANYTHING.

SouthernGent on July 25, 2007 at 9:11 PM

Ooops…Lindsey…not Lindsay.

SouthernGent on July 25, 2007 at 9:11 PM

Is Graham still……………….unmarried?

DfDeportation on July 25, 2007 at 9:47 PM

Shouldn’t he be over on DailyKos or Americablog.com

DfDeportation on July 25, 2007 at 9:48 PM

What is all the discussion and bickering about?

Here’s my simple and cost effective plan:
1. Electric fence
2. A few sensors
3. Signs posted warning about death by electrocution
4. Signs posted warning about being shot on sight at any attempts to dismantle sensors or cut down fence.
5. A few armed border patrol agents.

End of discussion.

nottakingsides on July 25, 2007 at 9:51 PM

This guy is so full of it, looks like he’s desperately thinking of the next election. “Whoops what have I done”…I hope ya’ll in S.C. remember this turn coat urn in ’08…perfect example of what’s wrong with congress.
Now does the U.S. States Government have enough District Attorneys to prosecute all the border patrol agents if the agents numbers are doubled?

oldernslower on July 25, 2007 at 9:51 PM

The folks who sponsored this (Graham, Kyl, McCain, Martinez, Specter) knew it would fail. It was nothing more than an attempt to make nice to boos their fundraising. Graham is Toast!

TrueGrit_SC on July 25, 2007 at 9:55 PM

Does this make graham a bigot?

Bigot = One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

That does not describe Graham.

He was against it before he was for it.

He incorrectly called me a bigot before he agreed with me.

I guess he is a flip-flopper.

F15Mech on July 25, 2007 at 10:13 PM

I do not trust Graham,Specter,Kyle,McCain or Bush!! Throwing border guards into prison for shooting illegals smuggling drugs in the ass tells you everything you need to know…. What the hell is wrong with that west Texas jury??
BUILD THE DAMN WALL NOW!!!

build the wall on July 25, 2007 at 10:41 PM

“Our efforts to secure the borders have been miserable failures because we’ve got 12 million people here illegally.”

That’s how a senator talks when he realizes the electorate knows he talks out his a$$.

csdeven on July 25, 2007 at 10:52 PM

That was what was so strange about the border bill. Graham’s words were absurd. I used to think he was a reasonable man and good conservative with good common sense. He came from the house which seems more his style.

But when he called people who disagreed with him ‘bigots’, it was crazy. Graham is USUALLY on the right side of issues. This one was an anomoly. I’ve agreed with him so much on so many other issues I can’t throw him out just yet.

I’m glad he lost on this one, he seems to be saying the right things now about security. Like I said, it was just strange to see him during that debate act like he did.

I usually agree with him on everything. Had it not been for his behavior on the last bill, I’d have said, ‘see listen to this guy, he’s right on track’ with this interview. That has been the impression I have gotten of him in history. He has a good record. I don’t know where he was or what he was thinking on this last amnesty bill.

ThackerAgency on July 25, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Thacker–

And he’s still actually leading on the war. He demonstrates admirable good sense on that.

Unlike Hagel.

see-dubya on July 26, 2007 at 12:57 AM

But Graham’s problem is that he is trying to have it all. He finally wants to do what’s right (thank G-d) but he is still claiming that what he tried to do befoe was right.

I am happy that he changed to the correct side (for the moment, at least) but he cannot be trusted at all. he’s shown that he’s the kind of guy who would kill his own bill if he thought it would buy him something else, since we all know that he doesn’t really want to secure the border.

I used to like him, too. But, I started drifting away after he started spouting his moronic theories about interrogation and other points of lawyers handling war.

If Lindsey were serious about this bill, he would have distanced himself from the surrender legislation. So … I’m glad he’s proposing security-first, but I wouldn’t let the little weasel out of my sight for a second, and I would NOT turn my back on him, ever – or go to sleep while he’s around. I trust the French more than Graham.

I just want to add that any complaints about enforcement (or the lack, thereof) should be directed where it belongs, on Bush. The Congress has no role in enforcement. Any problems in that area are the sole responsibility of the Executive.

This point about Bush’s veto threat (?) really steams me. I mean … just unreal.

progressoverpeace on July 26, 2007 at 5:32 AM

Zero credibility. Senator Goober is Kennedy’s lapdog and not to be trusted.

saved on July 26, 2007 at 7:59 AM

Q. What’s the difference between Graham and a lightbulb?

A. You can unscrew a lightbulb.

Tennman on July 25, 2007 at 7:43 PM

A2. A lightbulb can’t screw you.

A3. A lightbulb is bright.

A4. You can get rid of a bad lightbulb without having to
vote.

OBX Pete on July 26, 2007 at 9:46 AM

I used to think he was a reasonable man and good conservative with good common sense. He came from the house which seems more his style.

But when he called people who disagreed with him ‘bigots’, it was crazy. Graham is USUALLY on the right side of issues. This one was an anomoly. I’ve agreed with him so much on so many other issues I can’t throw him out just yet.
thinking on this last amnesty bill.

ThackerAgency on July 25, 2007 at 11:38 PM

When Graham-amnesty and John Kyl of AZ both changed their votes midway in order to refect Ted Kennedy’s liberal position, that changed everything for me. That said a lot about those 2 “conservative Senators.” When he called us “bigots” for wanting secure borders, that changed everything for me.

I ask people, “what was Graham really proposing when he sponsored the recent shamnesty bill?.”

—border enforcement with 350 miles of secure fence???

REALITY CHECK:

It was already a law that stipulated 700 miles to be built. Graham-amnesty actually wanted us to go BACKWARDS not forward, on the very issue of border enforcement.

—employer checks, employer verification???

REALITY CHECK:

My understanding is that it is already ***against the law*** to knowingly hire illegal aliens. We need to start enforcing the laws against bad employers.

So what was Graham-amnesty, John Kyl of Arizona, Mel Martinez, McCain, Ted Kennedy, Hagel of Nebraska, and the Democrat Party really wanting?

Rewarding law-breakers with amnesty (“path to USA citizenship”). That was their real goal. Despite the fact, that amnesty has been given to law-breakers 7 times since 1986. This is what Graham-amnesty really wanted.

And that is why conservatives will always doubt Graham-amnesty.

ColtsFan on July 26, 2007 at 12:23 PM

Hey –

Just found out the Dems relented over the bill. Just heard on the DMZ.

Miss_Anthrope on July 26, 2007 at 12:25 PM

NOT REALLY THE PLACE FOR IT, BUT HOPEFULLY IT WILL GET PICKED UP AND FEATURED (AP)

RAMOS & COMPEAN

Legal Brief Says Border Agents Were Charged With ‘Non-Existent Crime’
By Matt Purple
CNSNews.com Correspondent
July 26, 2007

(CNSNews.com) – Two Border Patrol agents whose prosecution and sentences to lengthy prison terms triggered a political storm this year may have been charged with a “non-existent crime,” according to a legal brief submitted to a federal appeals court in May, and obtained by Cybercast News Service.

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are serving 11- and 12-year sentences respectively for shooting and wounding a Mexican national who was trying to escape after attempting to smuggle 743 pounds of marijuana across the Mexico-Texas border in February 2005.

Although they were convicted on 11 counts, the crime carrying the lengthiest penalty was for the “discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence,” a violation of section 924(c)(1)(a) of the U.S. Code. It carries a minimum 10-year prison sentence.

Cybercast News Service obtained a copy of an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) legal brief filed by Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Virgil Goode (R-Va.), and Ted Poe (R-Texas) in the former agents’ appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans.

They accuse the prosecution of “creating a purported criminal offense never enacted into law by Congress,” and of charging Ramos and Compean with a “non-existent crime.”

Simply discharging a firearm near a violent crime is not illegal, the brief argued, saying the law they were convicted under is not a law at all, but a sentencing factor used to help a jury determine jail time after a conviction.

The brief cited several cases as precedent, including United States v. Barton in which the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that “discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence” could be used only as a sentencing factor, not as an element of a conviction. In Harris v. United States, the Supreme Court made a similar ruling.

The brief argued that, for a 10-year sentence, a defendant must be convicted under the specific terms laid out in section 924(c)(1)(a) (see section).

This provision is applicable, the section says, to “any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime … uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm …” If, and only if, these conditions apply can a defendant be sentenced to ten years in prison for the “discharge” of a firearm.

The brief argued that the shooting of drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila was not “in relation to” the drug crime because Ramos and Compean were themselves not participants in the drug crime.

Furthermore, Border Patrol Agents are authorized to carry and use firearms as law enforcement officers.

“By narrowing the issue to the discharge of the firearm,” the brief said, “the prosecution and the trial court actions adversely affected the fairness of the entire trial, depriving defendants of any opportunity to present to the jury that they were using and carrying their firearms during and in relation to their employment as Border Agents.”

The brief also criticized the prosecution.

“The criminal code cannot be treated by the prosecution as a legal chameleon, changing elements to fit the circumstances of the case that the government, in its discretion, wants to present to the judge and jury,” it said.

One of the brief’s authors, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners for America, told Cybercast News Service that this case could set an alarming precedent under which any law enforcement officer who fired a gun at the scene of a drug crime could be prosecuted under Section 924(c).

He also criticized U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, the lead prosecutor in the case.

“What [Sutton] was apparently trying to do is avoid the little detail that there was no underlying crime of carrying a gun because [Ramos and Compean] were authorized to carry guns,” Pratt said. “So I think he tried to slide around and use the sentencing provision as an underlying crime.”

‘Perverse’

Rep. Jones conceded in a statement that Ramos and Compean may have been guilty of violating Border Patrol policy by shooting Aldrete-Davila and failing to file a subsequent report.

But Jones also blasted Sutton, saying the prosecutor “had no business charging [Ramos and Compean] with a crime that Congress clearly designed to apply only to the individuals who are possessing, using, or carrying firearms for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime – not to federal law enforcement agents.”

“How perverse it is that this statute is now being used against law enforcement officers who were trying to stop drug trafficking,” he added.

Sutton told the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 17 that it was his trial team that made the decision to bring the “discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence” charge, and that he was not consulted on the issue.

“We have a deliberative process that goes on inside our office that I cannot describe,” he said.

Sutton could not be reached for comment, and his spokeswoman said she did not think anyone else in the office would comment on the brief until it responds to the appeal in early August.

Asked about the appeal, Pratt said he was worried that it may be denied because the cited evidence had not been presented previously.

“The thing that concerns me most is that, because [the alleged misuse of Section 924(c)] wasn’t brought up at the first trial, the Fifth Circuit Court could play legal games and say, well, too bad,” he said.

Still, Pratt described himself as “hopeful” and warned that Sutton’s tactics would eventually catch up with him.

“[Sutton] can only hide in the tall grass for so long and, Lord willing, the lawnmower’s on the way in,” he said

America1st on July 26, 2007 at 1:42 PM

I gained a lot of respect for this guy during the Judge Roberts’ senate confirmation hearings, but he blew it on this one. SC peeps, watch out. If he does it once, he’ll do it again. On the other hand, maybe he’s learned his lesson.

RMCS_USN on July 26, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Secure the boarder first??? Is this not the direct polar opposite of the stance Lindsey Graham was taking during the whole Shamnesty debacle? I think someone must have told Mr. Hissy-fit that his job was in jeopardy. This is nuts….. and might I add, too little too late.

Countdown to Graham losing his SC Senate seat: 16 months

Exit Question: Should we now be referring to Lindsey Graham as a bigot, as he did to everyone that opposed shamnesty?

ericire12 on July 26, 2007 at 9:35 PM