George W Bush: ‘I’m Disturbed’ by Immigration ‘Debate Taking Place’


There wasn’t a peep of protest from Bush when Obama was wrecking the country.
Now that we have a President who wants to enforce existing immigration law, he gets all up in arms about it.

Some thoughts from others …


I have no words for W that are fit for a family friendly forum.


Ditto. This whole issue relates to a bunch of politicians INTENT on establishing a “One-World Government”…presumably with THEM in charge. WHAT could possibly be behind this push??? Is there some “other-world” entity pushing for this?


Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos.


And these idiots call themselves the last republicans after they admit voting for Hillary?


Most terrorists come here on planes. Not across the border. Nigh-every terrorist you can think of, from the Boston Bombers, to the Millennium bomber, to the guy who tried to set off a bomb in time square, came here, on an airplane.

Plenty of things to blame Bush for; wars we couldn’t keep up, growing the administrative state, supporting TARP, etc. This is not one of them.

Bush tried to build the wall, and he’s running into the same problem Trump is now; towns & tribes on the border who don’t want the wall, who sue the Federal government, and get construction stopped.


Stop the nonsense, Slim. They have caught hundreds of Pakistanis, Syrians etc. coming across. That means many more hundreds and possibly thousands more didn’t get caught. A percentage of those are not coming here to assimilate and share in the American dream and you damn well know it.


Old dog, notice you didn’t even address to me what I said?

Can you name to me a single terrorist, who came here, across the border?

I know of exactly one, and he didn’t do it illegally.

But here’s the thing old dog, I had to get a certification in security, that’s why I know aviation is the bigger window. I had to listen to people who worked in national security, explain why this was.

Here’s a blog you can follow from my old professor on this subject, if you’re interested:

The numbers of them who come here on planes each year, number in the 10s of 1,000s.

That’s why airports are the bigger issue, and likely, the reason terrorists use them. Unless they’re carrying bombs, it’s easier to hide, and quicker to get here.

It was by no surprise that most sightings of people on our watch list in Arizona alone, occurred close to the Phoenix airport.


This is the best you can do? My mother told be to eat my broccoli as there were millions in Africa without enough to eat. She couldn’t name one of them.

OK, fine so Airports are a bigger issue. Therefore ignore all other avenues even the one that we know how to fix? That would be the border Wall since I have to spell it out for you.

Seriously, your use, or should I say abuse, of logic seems to be deteriorating.


Hey, You’re the one suggesting terrorists specifically are crossing the border this way, so where’s the evidence?

It seems to me you came across stories about this, and you believed them, because of your temperament.
Not because actual evidence was forthcoming. Or any actual discernment on your part, as to what methods a terrorist would use to get here, and why.

Hey old dog, another clue-in for you: ISIS was not building a camp in Mexico. People who say that, have no idea what Mexico is like.

Yet you’ll spend billions more than we do on airports, on the border, using means, we know is ineffective for keeping people out?

Because you mistake that for Counter-terrorism?

Something that is a combination of intelligence gathering, and investigation, far more than it has to do with static defenses?

Which organized criminals, be they the Cartels, Coyotes, or what have you, always find a way around of, because they are. not. static.?


A significant portion of the billions of Moslems are sympathetic to the radicals. Common sense tells you that some of the illegal Pakistanis are in that group. They need to be vetted before possible legal entry. A hundred years ago we at least attempted to exclude anarchists and polygamists with the tools available. You can never stop 100%. Therefore don’t even try. Is that your “logic”.


Even most symapthizers don’t become terrorists, just like how most Neo-nazis today aren’t out & about whacking black people.

No Old Dog, the pathology of terrorism takes more than that.

The numbers game would show us a few 100, aren’t likely to be terrorists, because they don’t have scale, and unlike someone who could afford a plane ticket, are far more concerned about eating as a priority.

Indeed, radicalism + benefits, and no employment, is a more likely formula for someone to become a terrorist.

Hence why the U.K., despite having a smaller population of Muslims, has more terrorists than we do.

No, it’s the lack of perspective I question. You’re wasting exponentially more resources on the smaller concern.

It’s like if you spent the entire Navy’s budget building Lattice Combat ships which can’t enforce out in blue water effectively, yet you claim it’s to stop the Russians expanding in the Mediterranean. Defending the move with the line “We’ll have more ships”.


The Wall is cheap compared to the money being pissed away by Congress every year. It’s not 100% but it will turn the flood down to a trickle.


BS. The UK has more OPENLY hostile Muslims than the U.S. does because they “tolerate” them…even elected likely one as London’s mayor.


People get across the border, because there’s organized resistance to get passed it. Thus, even in places where the wall exists, people get past it.

Law enforcement already admits that they can’t keep up with the pace that tunnels are built. If people see the wall, and resolve to build even more, how has the problem been fixed?

Seems to me your chasing after symptoms, not causes.

And when it comes to security, again, this is the smaller issue, yet, you’re putting more resources to it than the actual entrance point for terrorists.

Which tells me that this is a veil; it’s not your real reason for wanting this.


Dave, I don’t think you followed what I said.

Muslims become terrorists, because they’re sitting around on welfare, doing nothing. It’s an “idle hands” thing.

Also, the comparison? It comes from Daniel Hannan whose an M.P. there. He attributes it to the welfare, and the comparative lack of patriotism in the U.K. itself.


We can only stop 95% with a Wall so lets throw up our arms and surrender to an invasion?

Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were symptoms. According to you we should then go talk to these folks, find out what caused them to act this way and help them find a better way to solve their problems.

You are really beyond belief.




The wall is completely ineffective. It doesn’t stop tunnels, it doesn’t stop boats, it doesn’t stop swimmers in the rivers, it doesn’t stop people with a ladder that is 1 ft taller than the wall.

Walls don’t work, but good policy does.

Understanding the incentives for why people would want to move past the law, understanding how those incentives drive bringing together expertise & resources to overcome our border defenses, and finally, understanding how to disrupt those incentives.

That is treating the problem.

Yes they were; in both cases, of poor intelligence gathering.

In the latter case specifically, it was a false-sense of security in the intelligence agencies, brought on by having caught Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the 1993 WTC bombings, and not seeing OBL as a “big deal” because his organization had killed <50 Americans up to that point.

It was also infighting in-between the agencies who weren’t sharing information, and overlooked chances to question and deport the Hijackers. Like the 20th would-be hijacker managed to be.

It was the lack of imagination of officials who claimed they couldn’t imagine planes being used as missiles, despite a plane having twice been used to crash into the White house, a 1993 Fed Ex hijacking and that of Air France Flight 8969 having been executed with the same motive.

9/11 was a symptom, of intelligence being fragmented, government-run airports who under-prioritized security, and legacy policies that treated terrorist acts on airplanes as being either hostage crises, or bomb threats.

It may have also been the common strategy-- airline policy to intentionally turn over control of an aircraft to the hijackers, but that’s harder to know for certain.


Reading this makes me sad that had some much faith in Bushes 41 and 43. Vote for Hillary Clinton? Hell I’d leave the ballot blank if I were that unhappy with the choice. When it’s between a “blowhard” and a crook, I could never vote for the crook. The Bushes are RINOs, and I won’t any of the current generation of them.