barry sayes, "I won’t secure border"

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
LOL, for what it is worth, The worthless POS in the WH has no intension of enforcing a secure border.....

Obama tells Kyl in private Oval Office meeting: I won’t secure border b/c then Republicans will have no reason to support “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Obama tells Kyl in private Oval Office meeting: I won’t secure border b/c then Republicans will have no reason to support “comprehensive immigration reform.” | RedState

* make sure you open the link to watchy the videos of the Senator....

Sunday, June 20th at 8:00AM EDT

On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”

Sen. Kyl also said he reminded President Obama that the President and the Congress has an obligation, a duty, to secure the border.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Anyone having any conversation with Obama should record every word. He can't be trusted at all. He has proven that repeatedly. If he truly said that he is in violation of his oath of office and should be impeached and then imprisoned for treason. If he truly said that he has proven beyond any doubt and beyond any defense that he is absolutely worthless and frankly absolute garbage of a sorry excuse of an American.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
If he truly said that he is in violation of his oath of office and should be impeached and then imprisoned for treason.
As much as I detest him, I guess I have to defend him here. Article 3, section 3 of the Constitution says, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

If we expand the definition of treason so we can "get" people we don't like, the people we don't like can do the same when they're in power.
 

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
He's basically holding not one, but two states hostage. Arizona and Louisiana. He refuses to give them the help that they need and he's doing everything he can do to prevent them from helping themselves. HOSTAGES....

If what the senator says is true then he's given you the reason for Arizona. I honestly believe that the reasoning for Louisiana has more than one part. Two parts that come to my mind are 1. he's not going to do anything that might make Bobby Jindal look even stronger/better than he does right now. Bobby might just end up being one of his contenders in 2012. 2. the obvious, he needs this thing to be as bad as it can possibly be to try and push his cap and tax garbage down our throats. I think we speculated from the beginning about how he would use this crisis to his advantage.....never let a good crisis go to waste.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yes, treason isn't the right crime to imprison him for but certainly it's enough to fire him for his position on the border.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The problem is, Junior had the same position on the border. So did Clinton, and Senior, and Reagan, and Carter, and Ford, and Nixon, and Johnson. In the twelve years of Reagan and Senior, an estimated 8.7 million illegals crossed the border between the US and Mexico. In Clinton's eight years, the number is estimated at 5.1 million. In Junior's eight years, it's about 7 million. So far under Obama, it's about 2 million.

One thing that I find truly bizarre is many cities have adopted "sanctuary laws" that ban local police from asking people about their immigration status. First began in the 1980's, there are about 21 Sanctuary Cities, including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, OR and Portland, ME.

Phoenix used to be one, but has since done away with their Sanctuary policies. Last year the governors of GA and TN both signed into law a ban on cities within those states from employing any kind of sanctuary policies.

The concept of a Sanctuary City just defies belief, really. Like I said, it's bizarre. Part of the issue is that local and state police aren't "trained" in immigration enforcement, since the immigration laws are federal, and are civil laws at that (until you get caught a second time, anyway). The "Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996" tries to address the relationship between the federal government and local governments, where minor crimes such as shoplifting and traffic citations became grounds for possible deportation. But it still had locals who were untrained in federal immigration enforcement enforcing the laws.

It seems to me that if you're here illegally, that alone should be grounds for deportation.

But with Sanctuary cities, you have things happen like where, in 2008, an MS-13 gang member (MS-13, Mara Salvatrucha, is like the Crypts and the Bloods, only they are multinational and originate in Central America) murdered a father and his two sons during a traffic altercation in San Francisco. The city of San Francisco knew he was a member of MS-13, and knew he was an illegal alien, as the gang member, Edwin Ramos, had already been convicted of two felonies previously, but was never reported to federal immigration officials due to San Francisco's Sanctuary Policy. The city of San Francisco has rejected any and all claims of liability.

Also in San Francisco, a 17-year old named Rony Aguilera, an illegal immigrant from Honduras, was arrested and convicted in 2007 for assault. He was never reported to federal immigration officials due to San Francisco's Sanctuary Policy. A year later, he and another friend, both MS-13 members, murdered and nearly decapitated a 14-year old kid in a sword attack.

In 2008, Salvador Vivas-Diaz, an illegal alien, had four arrest warrants, a suspended driver’s license (that was obtained illegally using false information), had been charged with forgery and failure to return to court but he was never reported to federal immigration authorities due to Phoenix's former sanctuary city policy. Then, while driving drunk, he plowed his car into the police car of Phoenix police officer Shane Figueroa, which resulted in the death of the police officer.

In February of 2009, Francis Hernandez, an illegal immigrant, plowed into a Baskin-Robbins ice cream shop in Denver, CO leaving three people dead and two injured. Hernandez had been arrested numerous times before but was never reported to federal immigration authorities due to Denver's sanctuary city policy.

There are countless other examples of this kind of crap. Awesome.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
San Francisco is the trashiest city in the nation as far as STUPID liberals and STUPID liberal policies like sanctuary. Everyone who voted for sanctuary is guilty of murder in the cases you mentioned and I'm sure others as well. That miserable MS13 member and every individual who voted to allow sanctuary to criminal trash like him should be executed for murder conviction. Every one of them. They are all guilty of those murders. Stupidity is no excuse. Liberals shouldn't be allowed to hide behind their stupidity. FOOLS!
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Not a big fan of rice in any variety actually. And yes, ALL the last many presidents were FAILURES when it comes to sovereignty and border security. ALL of them get an F for that subject. Lousy failures, every single one of them. That's no excuse at all for this miserable socialist alien interloper to do the same thing.
 

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
I heard someone, can't remember who, in an interview the other day claiming that the estimate for illegals that have left Arizona since the bill was made law is 100,000 and the law isn't even in effect yet. Maybe those that leave will go to one of the cities that are now calling for boycotts, etc. and eventually those idiots will "get it".
 

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
Not a big fan of rice in any variety actually. And yes, ALL the last many presidents were FAILURES when it comes to sovereignty and border security. ALL of them get an F for that subject. Lousy failures, every single one of them. That's no excuse at all for this miserable socialist alien interloper to do the same thing.

BUT.....this is the first one who has been so blatantly against the citizens of his own country. The first one to actually sue one of the states over this disagreement and I would add that the situation on the border now is far worse than on any other president's watch.

One has to wonder how Ronald Reagan would have handled this escalation of violence toward his own people. I can't see him sitting still for illegals crossing the southern borders and murdering Arizona ranchers.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
That would be nice but look at Kalifornia. They've got incredible amounts of evidence that illegals are bankrupting the state and yet they do nothing about it. Liberals are FOOLS with defective brains, too stupid to be allowed to vote and yet they vote, too stupid to be allowed anything really and yet they breed and multiply exponentially as well as importing illegals to boost their numbers. We are just screwed. We'll never recover from liberalism. That degree of stupidity is insurmountable.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Reagan gets an F on illegals for signing that ridiculous amnesty measure. He wouldn't get an F on borders as I don't think even he would have allowed murders of citizens like is going on but he's near an F there as well. Other than illegals/borders Reagan was the best of the crop over the last half century but even that isn't saying as much as it should.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
BUT.....this is the first one who has been so blatantly against the citizens of his own country. The first one to actually sue one of the states over this disagreement and I would add that the situation on the border now is far worse than on any other president's watch.
I dunno. This is just the first time a state has enacted their own law, so Obama is just the first one with the opportunity. In 2005 there were more killings along the Mexican-American border than any other year before or since (with the exception of the Mexican-American War, of course). I forget who was president then.

Junior's first term was completely different than his second. In his second term he announced that he wanted to fast-track citizenship, expand the Guest Worker Program, and give amnesty to most illegals who were here. That resulted in a near-invasion of illegals hoping to get here and then get quick citizenship.

One has to wonder how Ronald Reagan would have handled this escalation of violence toward his own people. I can't see him sitting still for illegals crossing the southern borders and murdering Arizona ranchers.
One doesn't have to wonder all that long, when all you have to do is look at the "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986" that he signed into law, that gave amnesty to more than 4 million illegal immigrants.

He and Congress figured there were about 2.5 million illegals here who were low risk, hadn't committed any serious crimes, weren't a danger to Americans, and had enough of family ties to be OK to give amnesty to. That quickly swelled to over 4 million. But giving amnesty was also part of controlling the border, which he and Congress never made the funds available for. Also a part of this was Reagan's insistence that businesses who hire illegals would be penalized so severely that any payroll savings from hiring low-cost illegals would be wiped out tenfold.

So, he signed the bill into law without first ensuring that Congress would make the funds available to secure the border, and turned a blind eye when Ted Kennedy and others gutted the provisions of harsh penalties for business owners who hired illegals out of the bill.

The Democrats are the bleeding hearts in all this, mainly because they get votes out of it, but it's the Republicans who have historically been the front and back door enablers with illegals using amnesty and guest worker programs, mainly because it's good for business when you can pay people next to nothing for their work.

Illegals are good for both sides, at least as they see it. It's good for business, it's good for worker/retiree ratios for Social Security, it's good for tax revenue, it's good for filling jobs that Americans don't want (cough, cough).

This illegal immigration, amnesty, guest workers, fast track citizenship, it's all a nasty business, and every president after JFK has blood on their hands over it.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
It's a form of slavery when you come down to it.

Turtle, don't we have a de facto invasion by the Mexican government at this point which may be considered an act of war? They support people crossing the border, they support human trafficking, they assist people in their journey and then don't view it as a crime but rather defend the people in our system through diplomatic means. AND they also benefit from an invasion monetarily.

If the actions of Mexico can be construed as an act of war, then interfering with a state who is trying to protect themselves from an invasion may constitute treason.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
The WH says Kyl is a liar....guess they should sue him.....who do you believe!?!? :rolleyes:

White House says Jon Kyl story not true

By ANDY BARR
6/21/10 9:06 AM EDT
White House says Jon Kyl story not true - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

The White House on Monday denied Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl’s claim that President Barack Obama told him privately that he would not work to secure the border unless it was part of a comprehensive immigration reform package.

In a video that started circulating among conservative blogs over the weekend, the Arizona Republican is seen telling supporters in North Phoenix that in a private meeting in the Oval Office, Obama said “the problem” with border enforcement measures is that “if we secure the border then [Republicans] won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”


Kyl said the president’s supposed statement is proof that Democrats “don’t want to secure the border unless or until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform.”


But in a statement to POLITICO, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer denied Kyl’s account of the conversation, saying “the president didn’t say that and Senator Kyl knows it.”


“There are more resources dedicated toward border security today than ever before, but, as the President has made clear, truly securing the border will require a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system,” Pfeiffer said.


Kyl has been one of the most outspoken critics of the president on immigration reform and has before accused Democrats of holding up border security in order to keep it as a chip to negotiate for broader reform.


Later in the video, Kyl says the reason the federal government has not secured the border is that Democrats “don’t want to do it.”


“They want to get something in return for doing their duty,” the Arizona Republican said. “You don’t have to have comprehensive reform to secure the border, but you have to secure the border to get comprehensive reform.”

Kyl spokesman Ryan Patmintra said the senator is not backing down from his assertion, despite the White House’s denial.

“There were two people in that meeting, and Dan Pfieffer was not one of them,” Patmintra said. “Senator Kyl stands by his remarks, and the White House spokesman’s pushback that you must have comprehensive immigration reform to secure the border only confirms Senator Kyl’s account.”
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Just because they both have an agenda doesn't mean they're both liars. Kyl has given us an insight into the political bargaining and gamesmanship that goes on behind closed doors, and it sounds typical of the methods used by Oborat, Emmanuel and crew. Hopefully, if Senator Kyl gets a call from the White House to administer a Chicago-style butt-chewing he'll tell them to pound sand and stick to his guns.
 
Top