Neil Cavuto’s questions yesterday, along with Bill O’Reilly’s later comments, about President Obama’s immigration policy change suggest that Fox News (along with Mitt Romney) does not plan to make a big controversy over it. But that didn’t mean that the GOP “fair and balanced” network wouldn’t make accommodation for those who are more opposed. So to start yesterday’s Your World, Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ) came on to slam the decision and fear monger that the results will be some kind of “big run” for the border.
Brewer said, “I believe that it is certainly a preemptive attack, if you will, on (Arizona’s) Senate bill 1070 (currently under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court)... I keep wanting him (Obama) to address the issue of securing our borders.” She called it “backdoor amnesty.”
Cavuto asked, “What do you think of the fact that these are the children of illegal immigrants who’ve done nothing wrong themselves, and that they’ve been sort of caught up in this fury?”
Brewer called it a “difficult situation.” But, she said, “We need to get our borders secure and then we can deal with all those other issues but up until that time.. “ Her voice trailed off. “America, the United States, has been the most favorable place to immigrate to around the world... But we need legal immigration… doing backdoor amnesty for almost 800,000 people, almost a million more people, when our economy is down, …and now we’re going to give documentation, work permits, to almost a million more people… Is that fair to the legal citizens of our country?”
Cavuto asked, “Do you think what the White House is saying, is it fair to these children of illegals to be victimized, to hide in the shadows. After all, it’s 800,000, it’s not the 20 some-odd million illegals who are reportedly already here… that this is really fine tuning it to really clear cases… The only ones eligible for this would be those who have no criminal record whatsoever? …So this is a very fine-tuned approach. You don’t buy that?”
In a word, no. “I believe in the rule of law,” she said. “I imagine more people will be making a big run for the border.” She also sneered that more people will “qualify for Obama health care” when her state “already spends 1.7 billion dollars a year on illegal immigration.”
Cavuto again was more moderate. “I want to know where we go with this… If this path isn’t the way, Governor, what path is?”
”This might be the path down the road but tt’s not the path at this time,” Brewer said. “Our mission right now is to get control of our borders… and then we can we can all come together and we ought to be able to come up and find a solution.”
When asked if she’d fight the measure, Brewer said she didn’t know. But that didn’t stop her from a little more inflammatory fear mongering. “Are the lawful American citizens of America, of the United States, are they gonna sit back and say that the rule of law is no longer important? And if he’s allowed to do this under the guise of Homeland Security rules and policies, what more can he do to us? … I mean, they can do anything!”
In fact, the border is more fortified than ever under Obama. Seizures of drugs and weapons are up, and deportations are up, including for criminals. But while Cavuto’s questions were more supportive of Obama’s policy change, he never corrected Brewer’s falsehoods.
You are such a disrespectful little twit and absurd. When I suggested you contact Ms. Brewer yourself, I was not being sarcastic, I was encouraging you to contact her by letter, requesting a response. I am am certain that she will respond. I suspect she will state that the people of Arizona petitioned her and the legislature to institute new laws concerning the matter. Again, you have no cause to be disrespectful to me, I reserved my judgement of you, before you deliberately insulted me about being a grandfather and veteran having no substance.
Funny, you had no problem speaking for her when you entered this conversation. You’d be wise to remember how that ended for you in the future.
I’m neither an intellectual giant, or a putzes.
I salute your service to the country and pray for your family’s well-being.
It is hard to believe that you are a grey-haired Texan, who is a grandfather and is conservative, have an issue with illegal/un-documented immigration and don’t know Fox News.
I apologize if I assumed.
If Brewer is really just following “rule of law”, why does she have to have the law changed every time it crosses her personal set of ethics?
Answer (since you can’t or won’t say it): Because she’s not following the “rule of law” -she’s following a personal agenda, and regularly manipulating the law to fit it. When people bring up tough questions like whether or not she’s getting results, or why other border states aren’t being “invaded,” despite not following her model…
Her answer is empty, fear-mongering rhetoric like this.
Oh, and since you like to blow me off as “arrogant”? You live in Texas- I grew up in Arizona, and lived there off and on through my adult life. My family lives there, so I still visit on major holidays. I’ve seen what this is really being used for firsthand.
Hell, despite that I don’t look latin by any stretch of the imagination and could never give the impression of being from a country for my ethnicity, I’ve been put through that “show your papers” crap multiple times. I told my former co-workers, they said they even put out a reward for anyone who could prove it was done to a white person who met the criteria, or an ethnic immigrant that was light enough to pass for a well-tanned white.
Money was never claimed. Every last story turned out to be fake.
All this is before we get into that I’ve provided examples for you to Google, while all you’ve brought to the table is Teabag patriotism and comments that border on the same crap JT ready spewed when he spoke at Tea Party rallies in Phoenix.
“I am a veteran, and grandfather, whose only interest is in preserving our constitution and freedoms.” -Don’s (hypocritical) second retort to my question.
Not federal, and certainly not known legal principles. These are state laws, ones that were written specifically to sidestep the existing system.
Oh, and this might get me accused of flaming, but:
Like most Americans, I want to protect our borders, language, and culture?
That’s dangerously close to skinhead talk.
Actually, I would like you to elaborate on this part of your first post:
Brewer is simply applying the rule of law to protect her state from the invasion at her southern border.
If Brewer is simply applying the rule of law, why is she changing it to suit her agenda at every possible turn? Also… what invasion? “Invasion” implies an aggressive military offensive. Can you show me where this has escelated?
Thanks for the laugh!