ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson, in a news brief on Tuesday’s "World News," spun the Bush administration’s decision to fast-track the construction of a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border, focusing almost entirely on the "more than 30 laws and regulations to be bypassed," as the graphic accompanying the brief put it. "The Bush administration today announced plans to speed up construction of the fence along the Mexican border by sidestepping more than 30 laws that now stand in the way. The administration says it will use its authority to bypass those laws in an attempt to finish 670 miles of fence along the southwest border by the end of the year."
What Gibson left out is the fact that, as the Washington Post pointed out, the plan is "permitted under an exemption granted by Congress."
Katie Couric on CBS’s "Evening News," on the other hand, didn’t leave out that detail, but seemed to bemoan the potential for environmental damage with the construction. "The Bush Administration announced plans today to sidestep more than 30 environmental laws and regulations so it can finish a huge fence along the Mexican border. Congress gave Homeland Security the power to do that, and the department intends to build hundreds of miles of fence in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, including one section along the Rio Grande that environmentalists contend would hurt wildlife."
Neither Gibson nor Couric seem to care about the "sidestepping" of laws by illegal immigrants. On the contrary, during the June 8, 2007 "World News, Gibson lamented that Congress rejected the proposed "comprehensive immigration reform" bill at the time. In 2006, Couric devoted two of her "Free Speech" segments in the course of two weeks to promote amnesty for illegal immigrants.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I have a question. If
April 2, 2008 - 16:49 ET by buddycI have a question. If congress gave the President the power to do those things, what is he "sidestepping"?
But, really can it hurt Bush? I am sure there are millions of people who would not care if he "sidestepped" or even broke the law as long as he did something to stop the wave of the undocumented immigration.
Well that's gone and done
April 2, 2008 - 16:54 ET by Jack BauerWell that's gone and done it.
By clearly flouting the will of the elites and the Media, Bush stands NO CHANCE of being re-elected in November.
Bah humbug.
Great point, Jackson. I
April 2, 2008 - 17:05 ET by Roger the ShrubberGreat point, Jackson. I sure am not voting for him come November.
But I guess it's "OK" for
April 2, 2008 - 17:04 ET by rbosqueBut I guess it's "OK" for sanctuary cities to sidestep Federal law and harbor criminals, and by defying the feds, it's "OK" for them to thumb their nose at the Constitution in the process.
Well Kudos To President Bush
April 2, 2008 - 17:04 ET by well99Glad to see they are finally build the fence.As far as ABC,Gibson and Couric the only illegals that should be given amnesty are ones that are tv anchors.Gibson and Courec can give up their jobs.It would be a job Americans arent doing.Cant stand these bias twits.
Its not enough that Bush has
April 2, 2008 - 17:06 ET by SnappyIts not enough that Bush has destroyed his chances for re-election this year by his policy decisions, now he is stepping in and through a flagrant use of powers clearly given to the sitting president he is now makeing an effort to disrupt the migration patterns of the downtrodden undocumented worker!! The Nerve of this man!!
Interesting, why now after
April 2, 2008 - 17:08 ET by dscottInteresting, why now after taking all those hits on immigration? I think someone is doing McCain a favor here to appease the conservatives. Ok, I'll take that bone if McCain makes a big deal out of building it and finishing it this year. But I'm not holding my breathe.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
It could be that Bush,
April 2, 2008 - 17:15 ET by bassndudeIt could be that Bush, looking at the crew running for President today, is concerned that none of them would build the fence. If it is going to be built, it will have to be build now. While he is in office. Other wise, this bunch of wanna be's will never get it done. Of course, if Obama or Hillary get in, nobody will be wanting to come here in 2 years. As a matter of fact, we may all be trying to go south. Where we can afford to pay taxes!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Rent a 1400 mile long strip of land 10 feet wide, for 99 years.
April 2, 2008 - 17:16 ET by upcountrywaterfrom Mexico.. No issues with enviro, building codes, noise etc.
It would be way cheaper in the long run.
<gaia/love>SAVVVE The Whales N' Earth; conserve N' recycle !
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
But part of the deal...
May 2, 2008 - 01:01 ET by MightyMouth...is that the Mexican Government makes sure no one crosses it! Problem solved at 1/10th the cost!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM i was thinking of all the American built homes in mexico.
May 2, 2008 - 01:32 ET by upcountrywaterwhen i came up with this idea. code free zone yea 1/10 th. the cost
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
"...in an attempt to finish
April 2, 2008 - 17:18 ET by Chris Norman"...in an attempt to finish 670 miles of fence along the southwest border by the end of the year."
If the fence is actually built, I bet the Democratic congress will pass a law to put 1,340 gates in it...
...or impose a height limitation
April 2, 2008 - 20:51 ET by Jer...or impose a height limitation of eighteen inches so as not to unduly impede the mobility of southwestern wildlife.
Jer
....including one section
April 2, 2008 - 17:33 ET by MidAmerica....including one section along the Rio Grande that environmentalists contend would hurt wildlife."
So what. Who cares... We have to secure our border.
It's that time of year here in the corn belt where farmers are getting ready to plant on millions of acres that used to be devoted to 'nature'. We and the environment have survived. I'm sure the environment will manage to adjust to a fence through the desert.
How much damage is being
April 2, 2008 - 17:48 ET by Chris NormanHow much damage is being done to the environment by having thousands upon thousands of illegal immigrants trampling across the desert - camping, dumping, etc.? They don't want US citizens to "overuse" the wilderness, but you never hear a peep about the damage being done by illegals. What a surprise...
^^ Besides, unlike
April 2, 2008 - 20:15 ET by ckc1227^^ Besides, unlike environmentalists, wildlife is actually smart anough to adapt and overcome, if it becomes necessary.
Unfortunately for you guys,
April 2, 2008 - 23:45 ET by cleverpigUnfortunately for you guys, humans are pretty good at adapting and overcoming too. I predict that the immigrants will get ladders and go over the wall. The ocelots will be out of luck... unless maybe someone leaves some ladders behind.
→ You're right CP
April 2, 2008 - 23:51 ET by Cool ArrowIngenuity is no stranger to interlopers, tresspassers, thieves, drug dealers, and hungry people.
Perhaps we could all leave our doors and windows unlocked just in case a few of them need a place to party.
♣ a seal
cleverpig,
April 3, 2008 - 02:44 ET by R D Helm...humans are pretty good at adapting and overcoming too. I predict that the immigrants will get ladders and go over the wall.
Which is one of a myriad of reasons we humans invented the sniper rifle and the night scope. Problem solved.
You see, every problem has a solution. Most of the time, these solutions are quite simple, really. The only thing often missing from the equation is the will to apply said solution. :-^)
Of course, I am being somewhat sarcastic here, as I am attempting to illustrate a point, but I know more than a few people who would go along with my solution without so much as a second thought.
Our country is, after all, being illegally invaded. Many Americans are being victimized by these criminals. Some are losing their jobs to them, and others are losing their lives to them.
At some point, there is going to be a backlash. Count on it.
BTW-Have fun living in Mexifornia. We here are taking action to cause the illegal invaders to voluntarily leave our state, as our wonderful federal government seems to be lacking the stones to do it themselves.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Here is a idea
May 2, 2008 - 14:23 ET by well99All those that want illegals given amnesty donate their SS no.,job, and pay for their heath care and foot the bill for their kids education.
No one else will build it.
April 2, 2008 - 20:42 ET by yruymiIf the wall doesn't get built before he leaves office, it won't get built at all. Not one of the three viable contenders for the office (if one considers Hillary still viable) has the will to do what the vast majority of Americans have so demonstratively stated they want. Plus, as the left demonstrates daily, it gives them another hammer to continue the bashing. That a congressional seal of approval is clearly stamped upon the project is of no consequence if omitted from the reporting.
From what I have been
April 2, 2008 - 21:33 ET by R D HelmFrom what I have been reading, most of the laws that are going to be "sidestepped" are environmental in nature, which to me means they should be ignored altogether in the interest of securing our southern border.
The sad part of all this is that, in the 6+ years since 9/11, the most powerful nation on Earth hasn't even completed 670 miles of fence, which is but a small percentage of what is actually needed.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
The government really is
April 2, 2008 - 21:44 ET by ckc1227The government really is getting serious about building a fence. If you don't believe it, check out this story:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3521849,00.html
"Environmentalists contend"
April 3, 2008 - 14:05 ET by CobraMan“Environmentalists” always seem to forget that Mankind is a part of the natural wildlife on this planet and, therefore, anything we do is, by definition, natural. It's funny how so many "environmentalists" keep forgetting that nature itself creates and destroys natural barriers all the time. What is a mountain range, for example, other than a natural barrier?
Throughout the history of life on Earth, an untold number of species have become extinct or “endangered” due to natural barriers like beaver dams, glaciers, rivers, lakes, streams, mudflows, earthquakes, forests, etc., yet I have never heard a single "environmentalist" complaining about that little fact. It's only when Mankind is involved that they seem to complain. The only conclusion I can draw is that the “environmentalists” actually suffer from self-loathing and remorse at living.