Posted by: reddiva | December 28, 2009

Before or After?


WARNING:  This article contains strongly worded political opinion and represents the views of the author and owner of this blog.  No other inference to agreement with any other person is intended.

I voted for George W. Bush for Governor of Texas.  I voted for him for President.  Was he the perfect president in my view?  Definitely not!  But I do know this.  He loves this country and made every decision based upon good solid prayer time following as closely as possible what he believed to be “the right thing to do.”

Even given that, I still disagree strongly with President Bush on many issues.  The one discussed here is one of my main disagreements with his policy.  I believe in immigration for the sake of the individual who wants to come to America for the freedom and prosperity.  In turn, I expect the immigrant to conform to our laws, customs, language and lifestyle.  If I should move to Mexico, I would not expect them to learn English so I can communicate with them and adopt July 4 or March 2 as national holidays.  I resent the fact that Mexican immigrants expect me to learn Spanish and adopt May 5 as a national holiday.

Our nation was founded by immigrants.  I am grateful for that.  People from many nations came together in a common cause, the search for freedom whether political freedom or religious freedom. Today there are many people who come to the United States of America for the same reasons.  I firmly believe we should welcome them with open arms and assist them in adapting to the country of their choosing for their freedom.

I strongly reject the opinion of those, including President Bush, that we should just throw the doors open for anyone who wants to come make a living in my country and take the spoils back to their native country without contributing one single thing to our society.  One more thing and then I’ll move on – I don’t give a hoot in Hades for political correctness!

My feelings about this only increased after the attacks on my country in September, 2001.  Men who detest America for many reasons including and especially our religion which is primarily Christian rather than their Islamic faith came onto American soil using American lax immigration laws in an attempt to destroy our nation from within by killing our citizens and our financial structure.

Parenthetically, I am aware that well before this attack, there were and still are men who live in America and some have even become American citizens such as George Soros, who seek to destroy our financial structure.

The one thing I appreciated President Bush for doing was taking immediate action to see to our protection and safety which he considered the primary function of the Presidency.  Now here comes Obamanation.

Normally, I would print excerpts from the following article, but I want to reprint the entire article for you because it shows the depths of danger this administration is willing to force on the American people.

Obama Quietly Changes U.S. Immigration Policy

The Obama administration quietly announced last week that it would overturn one of the harsh immigration enforcement measures enacted by the Bush administration following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Beginning next month, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said, those who arrive in the United States fleeing torture or persecution abroad will no longer automatically be welcomed with handcuffs and months in a jail cell. Instead, many of those seeking protection will again be permitted to live freely in the country while their applications for permanent asylum are considered by an immigration judge.

The measure is the latest in a string of little-noticed initiatives by the Obama DHS to reconsider some of the most controversial enforcement policies of the past decade. The administration in August launched an overhaul of the immigration detention system, which had grown out of control as the number of detainees doubled in just five years to more than 440,000 annually. Some of those were simply lost in the system, while others fell ill and died due to poor medical care, and the administration has pledged to stop such abuses. That same month, it moved families out of the notorious T. Don Hutto immigrant detention facility in Texas, which had become a national disgrace after revelations that pregnant women and small children were being held there in prison-like conditions.

The administration has also largely halted workplace raids that resulted in jailing, deportation and even criminal charges for many unauthorized workers, and is focused instead on in-depth audits of companies suspected of hiring those workers. And DHS has curbed the authority of state and local police forces to demand immigration documents from anyone stopped for minor offenses like traffic violations, saying that such checks should be done only for those jailed on criminal charges, particularly for serious criminal offenses. To drive home the point, DHS in October stripped the notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona of federal authority to make immigration-related arrests.

The administration is walking a narrow line. The White House believes it must hold tough on enforcement if there is any hope of assembling a political coalition in Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform next year. Janet Napolitano, the DHS secretary, says the administration has done what Congress sought on everything from the U.S.-Mexico border fence to the E-Verify system for authorizing workers, and that the time has come to enact other elements of reform, including a legalization program for many unauthorized immigrants. If Congress does not believe her claims on enforcement, the rest of the package will likely be dead on arrival.

But at the same time, the administration wants to demonstrate that it’s possible to be tough without being unfair and inhumane. The treatment of asylum claimants is just one example of where the United States had gone awry. Under guidelines enacted in 1997, once an arriving individual had shown immigration officials a “credible fear” of persecution or torture back home, he could be “paroled” into the country to await a judge’s decision on his application to remain, which could take many months.

But after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration began to clamp down, arguing that those released might simply disappear, remaining as illegal immigrants and perhaps even posing a terrorist threat. According to a recent study by Human Rights First, about 40 per cent of those asylum seekers were still being paroled in 2004; by 2007 that number had dropped to just four per cent. Senator Patrick Leahy, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, called that figure “an affront to our ideals as a nation that aspires to be a beacon of light to persecuted refugees.”

The Obama administration’s new policy, which will end such routine incarceration, had been urged by everyone from the bipartisan United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees. And there is no reason to believe that the risks will rise significantly. There is considerable evidence, for instance, that alternative programs to monitor those released will ensure that they comply with whatever ruling a judge finally reaches.

Other initiatives show this more nuanced approach as well. The workplace raids, which were intended to send a warning to companies that hired unauthorized workers, mostly just hurt the workers themselves. Last year, only 13 companies were prosecuted for hiring undocumented workers. Now, the Obama administration is instead focusing on expanded audits of the paper trail that companies must keep on their workforce. Arrests and deportations of workers are down, but hefty fines against the companies are up, providing strong incentives for them to maintain a legal workforce. This is hardly a benign approach – ask the families of the 1,800 immigrant workers who were fired from American Apparel in Los Angeles following an audit – but it marks a departure from the Bush policy of summarily jailing and deporting any unauthorized workers arrested in the raids.

The recent initiatives are only first steps, and the administration is still facing criticism from its own liberal allies that it is simply continuing the Bush administration’s enforcement policies. Indeed, by any of the hard measures – detentions, criminal prosecutions, deportations, the number of Border Patrol agents – there has been no softening of the toughest immigration enforcement campaign in recent U.S. history. Still, the changes in the last year are significant, even if they are as yet little recognized. Indeed, the Obama administration itself has not made much effort to advertise the new measures. With the tough fight looming ahead next year on comprehensive immigration reform, it is easy to understand why.

Edward Alden is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and the author of “The Closing of the American Border: Terrorism, Immigration and Security Since 9/11.”

This article was also posted on The Free Republic.

I suggest we should maintain the “harsh policies” of the previous administration.  At the very least, we didn’t suffer a major attempt to destroy our national security as long as these “harsh policies” were in force.

This begs the question, “Was this new policy announced BEFORE the attempt to destroy an American airliner on Christmas Day – or was it changed AFTER the attempt?”

Why does it seem that Islamist terrorists have more freedoms in America these days than Americans do?  Is religion the real reason terrorists are being given the rights of American citizens complete with trials in American civil courtrooms using American taxpayer money to provide legal assistance which is sworn to protect the rights of the guilty until they are proven innocent (yes, that’s exactly the way I meant to say that)?  Because their religion is the same as Obama’s and it would put him in a really bad position at having to pronounce the death sentence on a fellow Moslem?

Is Obama going to be the death of the American Constitution?  In an effort to be politically correct for too many years, the American people have allowed unchecked Socialistic and Communistic principles and laws to creep into our nation.  I think it is time that the American people stand up and say, “ENOUGH!”

We have elections coming up in many states in 2010.  We MUST take back our country – while we still have a country to take back!

Advertisements

Responses

  1. We take it back the quickest by Article V, U.S. Constitution.

    • Yes, that will work… and so will Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5!

      Thank you for your comment, Mr. Gallo.

  2. […] the original here: Before or After? « Red Diva's Drivel Share and […]

  3. Enough! Should be on all Americans lips right now! We can no longer afford to be PC.

  4. So many Americans don’t realize how deep our illegal alien problem cuts. I’m reading a book by a Catholic priest titled “The Immorality of Illegal Immigration”. Father Bascio did some heavy-duty research (even if his publisher did leave lots of typos)……. Bottomline, the “powers that be” are not reflecting the best interests of U.S. citizens who put them in office.


Categories

%d bloggers like this: