If Bush gets the 'line item veto' he wants how would it impact any Immigration Bill? Do we WANT this? I don't

Question

If the House and Senate pass a border security bill and it goes to Bush (who clearly doesn't really want border security) and he pulls out that part which got support only as a compromise with others, but passes the other parts, then what? He could pick and chose what HE wants to leave in.

I've supported him on a lot of things, but I don't support him on immigration. He wants cheap labor for big business, period.

Also, this would apply to ANY President, of course.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration

Leogirl0804 - but that is the point. So far Bush's only suggestion for border security that wasn't forced on him was to put troops there. That in my opinion is because it would obviously be temporary and would leave nothing behind when removed. That might be the only part he would leave.

Turn it around. Suppose Hilary Clinton wins the next election, do you want HER to have line item veto?

chatterus, but if a program he 'liked' only got majority support because it was linked with a part he 'didn't like' he could pull out just the one part. For example, I would not go with amnesty of any sort without border security and employer enforcement. He wants cheap labor, and if amnesty is passed the legalized people won't be cheap any more, so if he doesn't get guest workers he might prefer illegals to continue to crowd our schools etc. So he gets a bill with amnesty and border security but no guest worker program and pulls out border security. No thanks.

He might do the same thing if he got a bill that was guest worker program and border security but no amnesty. The point is a 'comprehensive' bill of any kind passed only to get all parts could be changed entirely in nature. Immigration is not the only place this arises.

Answer 1

I don't want it. And Americans are talking back to these ridiculous bills.

Answer 2

Personally I would love to see a President get the Line item veto. This way it could implement good programs from either side without all the pork and BS that is put in there. Border security should be done in any way that makes sense except for the putting our American Military there. They are not designed for that, so I will always be against it.

Answer 3

If Bush did something like that' I'd be out marching in the streets, complete with picket sign and bull-horn...illegal immigration's a biggie, if he botches it, this country stands a superlative chance of going in the crapper...voters have to do the job 'that government won't do' and get busy with the bumper-stickers and call-ins....let your city council, your county, your state, your representatives know you don't want liberalization or effective nullifcation of our immigration laws, that you'd rather take out your own garbage etc. Promote fining the hell out of employers of illegal aliens no matter where they're from, and let's get this over with. Look at texas, now that Bush is no longer their governor....
texans are taking concrete actions to stem the flow of people rolling into their state, lobbying for anti-illegal-immigrant legislation, they're doing it, arizona's doing it, new mexico and california are doing it, and the Senate's just kind of sitting there, watching their re-election chances go down the drain...this is a National Megatrend, and the bone-heads that have helped pave a path for everybody and their dog to roll north out of Mexico or in from points beyond have set the rest of the country up for failure, deliberately, it seems, and it's time to squash this whole mess.
Mexico needs to call their people home, and our Border Patrol needs to be on the job, and the ICE needs to be doing theirs, too.
Let this go long enough, and it'll be a moot point, because Mexicans will ultimately have lobbied themselves the right to vote in our elections, and that's the last you'll see of our independence from Mexico...wanna learn spanish? If not, make sure you make it to the polls, and don't wait 'til then, write your paper today, make your views on the issue known. Legal immigration, controlled legal immigration, is good, whatever drug-dream these guys have in mind is NOT ok....this administration's already put the country 3 trillion further in the hole, and these are the 'responsible' republicans, or so we were led to believe...november's house-cleaning time, mark voting day on your calendar...

Answer 4

It has proven useful and successful in other presidencies, but I fear GW would use it to the disadvantage of the majority of Americans. He clearly does not see what is happening to the middle class and lower. I don't believe he should have that power. If it were some other pres. who would use it to save the USA taxpayers billions in taxes, it would be great. He would use it to benefit himself and huge corporations.

DAR You know what I'm talking about, too. If he gets the line item veto before WE get the immigration problem solved, HE could have items deleted that WE feel is extremely important to the citizens, us. I hope he doesn't get that power, not right now at least. It might work later, though.

Answer 5

The president would only get the ability to require congress to vote on each item he chooses under what he is pressing for. This is actually a good idea.

Under these rules congress would have to get 50% or more.

Answer 6

i live in Argentina but i know about the laws cause i am studying the American Constitution theres alot of flaws on it read on, the bill of rights and how entrapment works

Answer 7

i dont