Errr…What?
Or LaShawn Barber races Michelle Malkin to the bottom. LaShawn Barber has just now decided that George W. Bush should be impeached. Why? For running U.S. immigration and border enforcement like Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter….
As Kenton “Dennis the Peasant” Kelly asks, “Why now?”
Immigration is pretty much the way it has been for the past two to three decades. In fact, one could argue that a guest worker program could stem the flow of illegal immigrants. It would do this by making them legal (temporary) immigrants.
Duh Steve – because 9/11 changed _everything_. Even the time-space continuum.
But seriously, LaShawn’s quite off her nut here. Her lead argument for impeachment is based on:
Well, Bush’s signing statements to the contrary, the Executive’s responsibility is to enforce the laws rahter than interpret or make them. IANAL, but I think I recall the Executive having legal precedent for a pretty wide latitude on deciding how strictly to enforce those laws… That’s why the President (for example) doesn’t get arrested for breaking the law – he has to be impeached by Congress.
Okay, that one got a chuckle out of me. Thanks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051002040.html
Another one off the reservation.
Poor La Shawn. She joins Pajamas Media and loses what’s left of her mind.
Lets assume for a second that “failure to enforce a law” was an impeachable offense. The “failure to enforce” here is that not all illegal immigrants were caught at the border and of those that got through, not all have been apprehended. Now even the harshest critic will note that some have been stopped at the border and some have been apprehended after getting past the border. And even the strongest supporter will agree that not all have been stopped or apprehended. So the question then becomes one of degree.
Now turn to every other president and the rest of the panoply of federal laws. Is any one going to argue that all federal laws have been enforced perfectly other than immigration by Bush? I suspect not. I suspect we can find laws that had higher and lower enforcement rates by every American president.
But lets extend this. Why stop at the president? I think the congress shirked its duties in not addressing SSA last year. Can we toss them out for dereliction of duty?
And how long do we have to suffer imperfect enforcement? If Hillary was elected and we discovered an illegal alien crossed the border on February 1, 2009, can we immediately start the impeachment proceedings for “failure to enforce the immigration laws”? If we impeach Bush, Cheney steps in. If any of the illegal immigrants are still here the next morning, can we start up his impeachment? What do we do in the following month after going through all the congress and secretaries in the line of succession?
Do we need to show that his “failure to enforce” is different after his election than before? This seems to me to be one of those things that elections, not impeachment are supposed to handle. Barber and Malkin both supported Bush for election in 2004 if memory serves. What is the difference in Bush’s enforcement from then to now that would move someone from being worthy of being elected to being someone who should be impeached? Surely being worthy of being re-elected should be a lower standard than impeachment.
Sorry, but the rules of logic apply to the left, center and right. If you don’t think through an argument, you deserve to be mocked. Barber is apparently a bit upset that people aren’t helping her draft the articles of impeachment and instead are calling her on the faulty reasoning. Sorry Charlie, no passing on the right (or left) if your not running on all cylinders.
Good point Y_O_J, but if you apply logic to the left you will be the one responsible for the change to the space time continuum.
you could solve any crime problem with legalization!
Then the question becomes should it be a crime to want to come to the U.S. to betters one’s situation. That used to be the tradition here in America…well until the Xenophobic Border Blowhards came along.
It’s not a crime to want to come here, there are literally million of people LEGALLY waiting in line. It is however a crime to jump across the border and it should be a crime for you to wantonly put your stamp of approval on them doing so.
You’ve obviously never lived in an area that has gone from moderate popuation to full out of control illegal in a few years, watching your schools, emergency rooms and public services be destroyed in the process.
Dismiss Americans who want an orderly flow all you want, but this is still the United States of America and we have laws and we want them followed.
Amnesty, and that’s what converting our current Illegal Immigrants (a.k.a. TULYP or Those UnLawfullY Present) into “Guest Workers” would amount to, is what we tried 20 years ago with the result that we now have an even larger illegal immigrant population than before.
Digger,
Exactly where did I write anything close to this? (Hint: Nowhere). I think we should entering this country easiers for those who want too. The added benefit is that it would make illegal immigration relatively more costly and provide an opportunity for screening those who want to come here.
Uhhh…dude, I live in Southern California.
I’m not dismissing such Americans. I’m dismissing the xenophobic ones who want no flow across the border. Big difference.
I’m not talking about those who are already here illegally, but about those who will be trying (and often succeeding) at corssing the border in the future. I thought that was obvious from the post.