Friday, June 29, 2007

Chertoff complains enforcing law upsets some people

Frustrated with the monumental defeat of surreptitious Senate-sponsored amnesty, Michael Chertoff had this to say:
"I'm going to say to those people who say build a fence, 'Come with me when I go to Texas, and I tell the ranchers and the mayors that they may not like it but they're going to get some fencing'. When people say enforce the law in the interior, I'm going to say 'Come with me when we do conduct enforcement operations, and we have to put people in detention and remove them'."
How incredibly lame. The Secretary of Homeland Security doesn't like upsetting people who disagree with the laws he's sworn to enforce, so he's going to drag his feet? And he actually has the audacity to say so?

Imagine John Walters balking in the campaign to remove hard drugs from the urban core because the dealers find his initiatives to be bad for business.

Or Robert Mueller whining about how upset members of terrorist cells in the US would be if they found out the Bureau was trying to infiltrate them.

Think if, after calling the police to check out the loud party going on across the street while the parents are out of town, an officer shows up at your door complaining that he doesn't want to approach the kids because they're going to be mad if he makes them turn down the music or confiscates their kegs.

My job's tough. It's hard work, really hard work. Some people don't like the things I do in my hard work. I don't want to do it anymore. If it's that important to you, you do it. But don't try to help me do it, you vigilante!

What a crybaby.


Anonymous said...

I imagine the Bushie posse will not be enforcing the border very much at all the last couple of years of his presidency out of spite.

I cannot understate the importance of the next election. If we elect a Guiliani, McCain, or Clinton, we will be getting a massive amensty a few years later after they treat this like Bush did.


Roy said...

I agree with anonymous. Sure this amnesty lost, but it could be worse in a few years.

Bush seemed to step up enforcement recently as a means to get his bill passed. Now Bush has no incentive to enforce the law, and the Democratic congress won't do anything. Is there any rational reason to think Bush won't completely stop enforcing immigration law?

Unless Mexicans start thinking a pro-enforcement Presidential candidate has a good chance of winning, I expect the number of illegals to skyrocket in the next year or so.

al fin said...

I cannot overstate the importance of the next election. The Democratic Party are running this amnesty ambush, not the Bushies--although Bush wants it to happen. The Pubbies are balking.

If we elect an Obama, Clinton, or Edwards we will get an amnesty plus affirmative action for illegals on a massive scale.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon and Al,

Absolutely agreed.


The monumental defeat of the Whitehouse-advocated Senatorially-sponsored amnesty should assuage your concerns somewhat.

As unbelievable as it seems to we the people, much of the political class didn't anticipate the level of public outrage at their subterfuge. Now even the thickest of them have taken a hint.

If the Bush Administration allows deportation to drop after rising the last couple of years, that'll provide the prospective pro-sovereignty Republican Presidential candidates more of an opportunity to distance themselves from Bush and the national Republican leadership--something that is crucial if they are to have a chance against Hillary.