• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

To possibly help cheer the doomsday crowd

Cal

Well-known member
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5323.html

Bush orders new crackdown on U.S. border

By: Mike Allen
Aug 9, 2007 08:53 PM EST

The Bush administration announced plans Friday to enlist state and local law enforcement in cracking down on illegal immigrants, which previously was largely a federal function.

The administration unveiled a series of tough border control and employer enforcement measures designed to make up for security provisions that failed when Congress rejected a broad rewrite of the nation’s immigration laws in June.

The plans were announced by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez.

The package revealed Friday has 26 elements, and the administration announcement said they "represent steps the Administration can take within the boundaries of existing law to secure our borders more effectively, improve interior and worksite enforcement, streamline existing guest worker programs, improve the current immigration system, and help new immigrants assimilate into American culture.

After the announcement, President Bush released a statement in Kennebunkport, Maine, saying that despite the failure of Congress to pass a new law, his administration "will continue to take every possible step to build upon the progress already made in strengthening our borders, enforcing our worksite laws, keeping our economy well-supplied with vital workers, and helping new Americans learn English."

As part of the new measures, the secretary of Homeland Security will deliver regular “State of the Border” reports beginning this fall.

In one of the most interesting revelations, the plans call for the administration to “train growing numbers of state and local law enforcement officers to identify and detain immigration offenders whom they encounter in the course of daily law enforcement.”

“By this fall, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will have quintupled the number of enforcement teams devoted to removing fugitive aliens (from 15 to 75 in less than three years),” a summary of the plan states.

The announcement is aimed at restoring Bush’s credibility with conservatives who were dismayed that he pushed so hard for broad immigration reform, including a guest worker program for people now here illegally, before the border was more secure.

“The biggest message that emerged from this failed immigration bill is that if immigration reform is to happen in the future, they must first restore the American people's confidence that the federal government is serious about securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws,” said a Senate Republican leadership official. “Frankly, this should have been addressed several years ago.”

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney jumped on the announcement with a supportive statement ahead of Saturday's straw poll in Iowa, calling the new package "a weclome development" and declaring that the nation "must get serious if we are to secure our nation's borders."

As part of the package, Bush is planning to increase muscle at the Mexican border, as conservatives have long pleaded.

“The administration will add more border personnel and infrastructure, going beyond previously announced targets,” according to the summary. “The Departments of State and Homeland Security will expand the list of international gangs whose members are automatically denied admission to the U.S.”

Employers will face tough new scrutiny and requirements. “There are now 29 categories of documents that employers must accept to establish identity and work eligibility among their workers,” the summary says. “The Department of Homeland Security will reduce that number and weed out the most insecure.”

“The Department of Homeland Security will raise the civil fines imposed on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants by approximately 25 percent,” the summary continues. “The administration will continue its aggressive expansion of criminal investigations against employers who knowingly hire large numbers of illegal aliens.”

The administration is promising to reduce processing times for immigration background checks by adding agents and converting paper documentation to electronic forms.

And the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration say they will study and report on the technical and recordkeeping changes necessary to deny credit in our Social Security system for illegal work.

Under the tougher menu, the administration vows to fund additional beds for people caught breaching the border, ensuring that illegal entrants are returned to Mexico rather than being let go because there’s no space for them, as often occurred in the past.

“The administration will implement an exit requirement at airports and seaports by the end of 2008, and will launch a pilot land-border exit system for guest workers,” the summary says. “By the end of 2008, the administration will require most arrivals at our ports-of-entry to use passports or similarly secure documents.”

Other elements of the package:

—The Department of Labor will reform the H-2A agriculture worker program so farmers can readily hire legal temporary workers, while protecting their rights.

—The Department of Labor will issue regulations streamlining the H-2B program for non-agricultural seasonal workers.

—The Department of Homeland Security will extend, from one year to three, the length of the NAFTA-created TN visa for professional workers from Canada and Mexico, removing the administrative hassle of annual renewals for these talented workers.

—The Office of Citizenship will unveil in September a revised naturalization test that emphasizes fundamentals of American democracy, and the rights and responsibilities of citizens.

—The Office of Citizenship will introduce a Web-based electronic training program and convene eight regional training conferences for volunteers and adult educators who lead immigrants through the naturalization process.

—The Department of Education will develop a free, Web-based model to help immigrants learn English.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This is what GW should have done 7 years ago...Hopefully this is not another smokescreen like his NG on the border were... :(
 

MoGal

Well-known member
kind of a moot point now isn't it?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15623

The Bush Administration is pushing to create a North American Union out of the work on-going in the Department of Commerce under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in the NAFTA office headed by Geri Word. A key part of the plan is to expand the NAFTA tribunals into a North American Union court system that would have supremacy over all U.S. law, even over the U.S. Supreme Court, in any matter related to the trilateral political and economic integration of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Right now, Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement allows a private NAFTA foreign investor to sue the U.S. government if the investor believes a state or federal law damages the investor’s NAFTA business.

Under Chapter 11, NAFTA establishes a tribunal that conducts a behind closed-doors “trial” to decide the case according to the legal principals established by either the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes or the UN’s Commission for International Trade Law. If the decision is adverse to the U.S., the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer.

On Aug. 9, 2005, a three-member NAFTA tribunal dismissed a $970 million claim filed by Methanex Corp., a Canadian methanol producer challenging California laws that regulate against the gasoline additive MTBE. The additive MTBE was introduced into gasoline to reduce air pollution from motor vehicle emissions. California regulations restricted the use of MTBE after the additive was found to contaminate drinking water and produce a health hazard. Had the case been decided differently, California’s MTBE regulations would have been overturned and U.S. taxpayers forced to pay Methanex millions in damages.

While this case was decided favorably to U.S. laws, we can rest assured that sooner or later a U.S. law will be overruled by the NAFTA Chapter 11 adjudicative procedure, as long as the determinant law adjudicated by the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals continues to derive from World Court or UN law. Once a North American Union court structure is in place can almost certainly predict that a 2nd Amendment challenge to the right to bear arms is as inevitable under a North American Union court structure as is a challenge to our 1st Amendment free speech laws. Citizens of both Canada and Mexico cannot freely own firearms. Nor can Canadians or Mexicans speak out freely without worrying about “hate crimes” legislation or other political restrictions on what they may choose to say.

Like it or not, NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals already empower foreign NAFTA investors and corporations to challenge the sovereignty of U.S. law in the United States. Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been quoted as saying, “When we debated NAFTA, not a single word was uttered in discussing Chapter 11. Why? Because we didn’t know how this provision would play out. No one really knew just how high the stakes would get.” Again, we have abundant proof that Congress is unbelievably lax when it comes to something as fundamental as reading or understanding the complex laws our elected legislators typically pass.

Under the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) plan expressed in May 2005 for building NAFTA into a North American Union, the stakes are about to get even higher. A task force report titled “Building a North American Community” was written to provide a blueprint for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America agreement signed by President Bush in his meeting with President Fox and Canada’s then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005.

The CFR plan clearly calls for the establishment of a “permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution” as part of the new regional North American Union (NAU) governmental structure that is proposed to go into place in 2010. As the CFR report details on page 22:

The current NAFTA dispute-resolution process is founded on ad hoc panels that are not capable of building institutional memory or establishing precedent, may be subject to conflicts of interest, and are appointed by authorities who may have an incentive to delay a given proceeding. As demonstrated by the efficiency of the World Trade Organization (WTO) appeal process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage faster, more consistent and more predictable resolution of disputes. In addition, there is a need to review the workings of NAFTA’s dispute-settlement mechanism to make it more efficient, transparent, and effective.

Robert Pastor of American University, the vice chairman of the CFR task force report, provided much of the intellectual justification for the formation of the North American Union. He has repeatedly argued for the creation of a North American Union “Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment.” Pastor understands that a “permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” Notice, Pastor says nothing about U.S. business law or the U.S. Supreme Court. In the view of the globalists pushing toward the formation of the North American Union, the U.S. is a partisan nation-state whose limitations of economic protectionism and provincial self-interest are outdated and as such must be transcended, even if the price involves sacrificing U.S. national sovereignty.

When it comes to the question of illegal immigrants, Pastor’s solution is to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada so we can issue North American Union passports to all citizens. In his testimony to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 9, 2005, Pastor made this exact argument: “Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed though toll booths.”

Even Pastor worries about the potential for North American Unions to overturn U.S. laws that he likes. Regarding environmental laws, Pastor’s testimony to the Trilateral Commission in November 2002 was clear on this point: “Some narrowing or clarification of the scope of Chapter 11 panels on foreign investment is also needed to permit the erosion of environmental rules.” Evidently it did not occur to Pastor that the way to achieve the protection he sought was to leave the sovereignty of U.S. and the supremacy of the U.S. Supreme Court intact.

The executive branch under the Bush Administration is quietly putting in place a behind-the-scenes trilateral regulatory scheme, evidently without any direct congressional input, that should provide the rules by which any NAFTA or NAU court would examine when adjudicating NAU trade disputes. The June 2005 report by the SPP working groups organized in the U.S. Department of Commerce, clearly states the goal:

We will develop a trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework by 2007 to support and enhance existing, as well as encourage new cooperation among regulators, including at the outset of the regulatory process.

We wonder if the Bush Administration intends to present the Trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework now being constructed by SPP.gov to Congress for review in 2007, or will the administration simply continue along the path of knitting together the new NAU regional governmental structure behind closed doors by executive fiat? Ms. Word affirms that the membership of the various SPP working group committees has not been published. Nor have the many memorandums of understanding and other trilateral agreements created by these SPP working groups been published, not even on the Internet.
 

Cal

Well-known member
A slanted opinion piece that's mostly based on a lawsuit that favored the US, that began about a decade ago..... somehow makes new border enforcement measures by the Department of Homeland Security a moot point? Really? Too much Hooch with yer Stewed 'Possum perhaps??
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Cal, if the liquor companies depended on me they would all go broke, same way with drug companies or illegal drugs as well. I resent your statement of attacking my morals, character and integrity and I do mean that. I will not tolerate that. Perhaps you need to start reading the Bible more and search the truth. There is nothing Godly about what our congress is doing to the people or where they are leading the people.

Can we debate the issues?? Evidently you just skimmed over the part that we'd all have a North American Union passport. You just watch the American companies (the ones that are left) start lowering their wages and benefits .... you don't like that??? They will hire a Mexican who can just drive up the highway and would be happy with your job.

IF congress has our best interests at heart why have they shelved these bills???

S. 2117 Engaging the Nation to Fight for Our Right to Control Entry (ENFORCE) Act
Sponsored by Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), this bill addresses several important immigration issues. It establishes a National Border Neighborhood Watch program, bars illegal aliens from being eligible for in-state college tuition, and makes illegal presence in the United States a felony. Also, the ENFORCE Act clarifies U.S. citizenship as extending only to children born to citizens or permanent legal residents, who are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The bill also includes steps to reduce Social Security card fraud, prohibits day laborer centers, and calls for the construction of a border fence.





H.R. 4313 TRUE Enforcement and Border Security Act of 2005
Sponsored by Representatives Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Virgil Goode (R-VA), TRUE Enforcement incorporates several key aspects of curbing illegal immigration. It calls for a fence on the southwestern border, requires mandatory workplace verification of all employees’ legal status, and empowers local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. It also eliminates incentives for aliens to come here illegally, such as repealing birthright citizenship and restricting family reunification to only nuclear family members. TRUE Enforcement fulfills the federal government’s responsibility to enforce America’s immigration laws.






H.R. 1070 / S. 520, Constitution Restoration Act of 2005
This bill, sponsored by Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts regarding the acknowledgment of God. The bill also prohibit U.S. courts from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than constitutional law and English common law. The bill awaits action in the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Courts and the Senate Judiciary Committee.






H.R. 2389 / S.1046, Pledge Protection Act of 2005
Due to the outrageous June 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress voted to reaffirm the phrase "One Nation, Under God." Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) wants to move a step further by removing the jurisdiction of the federal courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) from cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance. Therefore, only state courts whose judges are elected (or retained in office) by the voters would hear Pledge cases. This bill is a practical legislative tool to check the power of the courts.
After two hostile amendments were defeated, the Pledge Protection Act passed the House on July 19, 2006 by a vote of 260-167.

In the 108th Congress, the House passed the Pledge Protection Act of 2004 (H.R. 2028) on Sept. 23, 2004 by a vote of 247-173, but the Senate took no action.






H. Res. 97, Resolution Supporting Constitutional Law over Foreign Law
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) introduced this resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Judicial determinations regarding the meaning of the laws of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions.
In the 108th Congress, the resolution was approved in subcommittee on May 13, 2004, and forwarded to the full House Judiciary Committee, which took no further action.





H.R. 1438, No Social Security for Illegal Immigrants Act of 2005
H.R. 858, Social Security for Americans Only Act of 2005
H.Res. 20, Expressing disapproval of the Social Security totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico
H.Con.Res. 50, Expressing disapproval of the Social Security totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico

In January 2003, news leaked out that a deal was being negotiated to give Social Security benefits to illegal Mexican aliens. While a formal "totalization agreement" has not been presented to Congress, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has introduced H.R. 1438 to preemptively attack any such effort to add millions of illegals to the Social Security rolls. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced an alternative bill, H.R. 858. Both bills await action in the House Ways and Means Committee. In addition, separate resolutions of disapproval have been introduced by Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) and Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA).

Eagle Forum supports Congressional action to stop Social Security "totalization" with Mexico.



H.R. 997, English Language Unity Act of 2005
After successfully making English the official language of Iowa, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has introduced a bill to declare English the official language of the United States. The bill awaits action in both the Judiciary Committee and the Education and Workforce Committee.



I do hope you can debate the issues, not a person's character.
 

Cal

Well-known member
MoGal, hooch would probably be homemade so as to not enrich the liqour companies. Am simply trying to understand your state of mind as to some of the stuff that you selectively buy into. Is MoGal your real name so as your worried about your character and integrity....LOL. I use my real name, and many on here know my last....and I write my own paychecks so don't really give a xxit what anyone thinks of my "character and integrity". Reminder; this is the internet.

Anyone that would use this lying basterds quote tells me all I need to know about any opinion piece:
Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been quoted as saying, “When we debated NAFTA, not a single word was uttered in discussing Chapter 11. Why? Because we didn’t know how this provision would play out. No one really knew just how high the stakes would get.”
Talk about someone with lack of character and integrity.....and why didn't any of those bills you just posted not get anywhere?

Maybe it's your anti Bush sentiments, but the provisions of this Dept. of Homeland Security ran border crackdown sound like a good thing....and about time, and not a moot point. Sheeeesh.

....and yeah....I skim over some of your stuff. Don't have time to study it all and there's so much yadda yadda yadda to it.
 

Cal

Well-known member
MoGal wrote:
Can we debate the issues?? Evidently you just skimmed over the part that we'd all have a North American Union passport. You just watch the American companies (the ones that are left) start lowering their wages and benefits .... you don't like that??? They will hire a Mexican who can just drive up the highway and would be happy with your job.

I actually think that we should have a passport (note--it's just a passport, I've already got one, have had one for years, gotta have it when we travel abroad) to travel between the US, Canada, and Mexico, and it's something that's on its way. Would certainly help detect wanted criminals and persons of interest.

You want to know which American companies aren't going to be around for long? The ones that the unions have the stronghold on, for the most part. The union workers that I know are paid way more than their skill or education (I mean lack thereof) should dictate, and think that they are entitled to be taken care of just like a good nanny state until the day they die. Oh, and no Mexican would be taking my job, but I could possibly see myself hiring a Mexican. Look at a map, I live where the Federal Gov. , BIA, IHS and HUD, etc.... has taken away so much of the need to be self reliant.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Well, don't read this link unless you got lots of time Cal........... but it puts it all together so well. But then we're all a bunch of kooks right??

http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/TreasonAbounds.html
 

Steve

Well-known member
Will your children live under THIS NAFTA Flag instead of 'Old Glory'?

MoGal you seem a little displeased with President Bush and NAFTA,..

You post reams of cut and paste stuff to back up you hatred of Him..why?

Is it Nafta that bothers you, or Bush?

Let me set you straight on a few things....
The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) was a response to environmentalists' concerns
Part one.....brought to you by ...the Liberals..
The NAALC supplement to NAFTA aimed to create a foundation for cooperation among the three members for the resolution of labor problems, as well as to promote greater cooperation among trade unions and social organizations
Part two...liberals again..
There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. Finally, Clinton sanctioned the ratification in November 1993.
Part three ...the whole thing....brought to you by a liberal....

I know it is easy to "blame" GW Bush for following the law signed by Clinton....that's why liberals do it...
 

MoGal

Well-known member
I am AGAINST anyone in the Government (state and federal) who is trying to take away MY RIGHTS as an American by undermining the Constitution and its by-laws........... don't you think we've TRUSTED the government entirely too long to have the best interests of the American people.......... they've proven over and over they cannot be trusted.

Whether you want to read the link above is your choice......... at least have an open mind and form your own opinion. Don't be led around by the nose, THINK about where our country is heading..... do you think it is good for the AMERICAN people????

Actually I didn't care for Bush or Gore and would have preferred to have voted for the 2 vice presidents instead of the actual presidents. We haven't had anyone with morals, integrity and character run for presidency for a looooooooonnnnggg time. No wonder that our country doesn't value morals, integrity and character. Although he isn't perfect, the only man who has even one ounce of morals, character and integrity is Ron Paul and he's getting bypassed and overlooked intentionally as he won't fit in with their new world order.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I know it is easy to "blame" GW Bush for following the law signed by Clinton....that's why liberals do it...

Thats whats interesting on this issue of the NAU/NAFTA/A New World Order-- at first it was both ends of the political spectrum fighting the hardest against it and blaming Clinton- then Clinton and Bush...The far left and the far right....

Years ago at the start it was mainly a John Birch issue-- but now as more and more of their predictions have come true over the last 10-15 years-- and NAFTA is being recognized by almost everyone as a total failure as to what was promised-- much more of the main stream America are beginning to ask questions....

I think this is because while Clinton was a little more subtle on the issue (better smokescreener) and had a neocon Repub Congress that was in the pockets of the Big Multinational Corporations (the only ones profiting)-- Bush has been outright arrogant- and even tho 70-80% of Americans told him they wanted the border closed and no Amnesty for illegals-- Bush all but told them F--- YOU- You peons know nothing--I'll do what I want...
 

Latest posts

Top