Why is it that when it comes to illegal immigration people want the law to be enforced, but not an illegal war

Question

if you read HJ 114 EH Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/hjiraqres100902.html

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

Congress approved based on fraudulent information.Fraudulent information doesn't make it legal.

cvq3842- There are 2 conditions #1 is split in two option and the 2dn condition was never met. Even Bush said that Iraq has nothing to do with 911.

Answer 1

The war is not illegal. Also, these are two very different issues.

Answer 2

The war is not illegal.

But it is an interesting question. I am very disappointed in Bush for not enforcing the laws regarding the borders, deportation, etc.

So I guess a large portion of the population thinks he's breaking (or not enforcing) SOME law, one way or another.

*sigh*

PS You've GROSSLY mischaracterized the section you quote (read it carefully), but I do admire your citing the resolution and arguing from readily ascertainable facts.

I would find it hard to believe that the President never submitted the required finding, which does NOT require that Bush demonstrate either the existence of WMD or that Iraq was involved in 9/11 - such a determination sounds pretty "boilerplate" to me.

PPS Yes, I read it. I have read it many times. I wish more people would read the resolution.

The first clause does NOT state that Bush had to prove the existence of WMD - just that the threat from Iraq was not adequately dealt with or that the UN resolutions would not be enforced. And the second one mentions fighting any kind of terrorism; it does not state that the authority is to go after ONLY those involved in 9/11.

You may well argue with Bush's policy, or that the resolution was too broad, or that even mentioning 9/11 was somehow improper, but the resolution simply does not state what you say it does. Sorry.

I find it particularly galling when people who claim that Bush somehow "distorted" the intelligence resort to distortion themselves to make a point.

PPS THE SECOND CONDITION DOES NOT LIMIT THE RESOLUTION TO ONLY THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11. PLEASE READ IT!

Answer 3

It amazes me that those who moan the loudest are the ones who are the scared-est. The USA was invited to the war ~ like it or not. It's the arabs that are responsible for what our troops are doing now. Do you honestly think for one minute that our kids want to be there? My son in law doesn't ~ but he does his job. Why? To protect the rights we have grown to enjoy. BS to all those who say Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. Saddam was a threat to our way of life, and al-quida is a threat. We are there, support our troops until they are ALL home.
The only other alternative is to bring the troops home, let them patrol our borders ~ secure those borders with razor wire and electric fences and kick out all the foreigners. After all, we trained half the worlds terrorists at our colleges. Colleges OUR children can't afford to go to. Think about that one.

Answer 4

The reverse is also suspicious. If you're so hot to stop the 'illegal' presence of 150,000 Americans in Iraq, how come you're not bothered by the illegal presence of 12 million foreigners in America?

Of course, the war having been aproved by Congress blows the 'illegal' part away, but it's still a fair analogy.

Answer 5

there is no such thing as an illegal or legal war that is just liberal hogwash,only a nation and its people can decide to go to war if the people do not agree,they can voice their disagreement with the decision to go to war with mass protest all over the nation for days weeks months years(to the dismay of liberals there are none)if another nation or peoples believe a nation at war is wrong they can declare war against said nation and correct the error of said nation or end all trade with said nation(again to the dismay of liberals there are none) those that claim a nation at war are breaking some sort of law are idiots!

Answer 6

Excellent question; considering if a person of bad intentions wanted to really do harm; all they would have to do is walk over the border, as millions of illegal aliens do every year.

The illegal war in Iraq that you speak of, isn't actually illegal; because he with the power, makes the rules. Sadly enough; guess who has the power?

Answer 7

Ok, well for one, illegal immigration and the law that does need to be enforced to make it stop, has nothing to do with with Bush having to prove anything about weapons of mass destrunction to the UN. I think you need to figure what question you want to ask and ask it. You can't really combine the two. You are making not one ounce of sense.

Answer 8

Removing Saddam from power in Iraq was not illegal.. in fact it was entirely within the provisions set forth by congress when the authorized military use... as proven by your link.

Try harder.

Answer 9

because thats how bush is keeping his presidency. Telling his ignorant public that he is going to protect them from terrorist so they can keep him on his seat. Funny isn't it. With all the latest technology and high gear in Intelligence that bush and his forces cannot find one person on the enitire face of earth...And yet to find this person he has destroyed two countries..

Answer 10

I find it funny that war war can be illegal, even after a majority of congress on the left and the right approved it. Please explain how this works.