Border politics and racism


PDA






Fletchette
November 15, 2004, 11:29 PM
I just watched The Factor on Fox; O'Reilly and Pat Buchanan talked about our porous borders. O'Reilly told Buchanan that he didn't think the Bush administration would put the National Guard on the border because it would infuriate the Hispanic vote. All this got me thinking...

The reason many people/businesses don't want stricter border control is because they want cheap labor. But an illegal alien is not protected by labor laws, OSHA, protection from employer abuse, etc. Given the despiration of these workers, they have no choice. In essence, the use of illegal aliens as workers is tantamount to semi-slavery.

It would seem to me that the Hispanic vote would rather want easier *legal* immigration laws rather than a hypocritical policy of enforcing some laws and ignoring others.

If there is a demand for cheaper labor, then the Government should lower the minimum wage (or abolish it) and let market forces take it's course. Why should *some* Americans have their wages artificially raised while others (immigrants) work for less?

The current situation appears untenable and cannot go on forever.

Are there any Congress representatives sponsoring bills to fix this, or are we just going to merrily go along until someone slips a nuke into Texas?

:confused:

If you enjoyed reading about "Border politics and racism" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
November 15, 2004, 11:53 PM
...are we just going to merrily go along until someone slips a nuke into Texas?

According to my old pal Jim, lessons are repeated until they're mastered. We obviously haven't learned a great deal from the attacks by Islamic terrorist savages on September 11, 2001.

Hawkmoon
November 16, 2004, 12:19 AM
Are there any Congress representatives sponsoring bills to fix this, or are we just going to merrily go along until someone slips a nuke into Texas?
The latter.

Don't forget, much of the Hispanic vote is comprised of illegals, and many of the legals have friends or relatives who are illegal. Sure they would rather be able to come here legally, but the botom line is that they want to come here.

Fletchette
November 16, 2004, 12:37 AM
The latter.

Don't forget, much of the Hispanic vote is comprised of illegals, and many of the legals have friends or relatives who are illegal. Sure they would rather be able to come here legally, but the botom line is that they want to come here.


I have no problem with them coming here. If I were born in another country I'd do anything to get here too! But I would think it would be better to come here and be a full-fledged citizen rather than a semi-slave. Why doesn't the Hispanic vote lobby to make *legal* immigration easier? Instead, they seem to be supporting policy that makes them second-class citizens.
:confused:

hkOrion
November 16, 2004, 12:40 AM
Tom Tancredo from Colorado is spearheading some border control policies (VERY large fence and national guard troops). Then there's always the ranchers along the border. This should be a hot button issue coming up.

hkOrion

Atticus
November 16, 2004, 12:59 AM
We need to create jobs for them....border guard jobs. Create a new wave of US citizen "haves" who are paid well to keep out the "have- nots".

Fletchette
November 16, 2004, 01:02 AM
How much of the border land is private property? Even if the feds refuse to enforce the border I would think that property owners should still be able to deter trespassers.

Or would defending one's Property Rights be "taking the Law into our own hands"?

El Tejon
November 16, 2004, 08:41 AM
Fletch, I would anticipate several pieces of legislation being introduced in the new Congress.

Without immigration, our economy suffers terribly. Without security, our fellow citizens may be hurt terribly. Always a balance.

Langenator
November 16, 2004, 08:53 AM
Part of President Bush's proposed immigration plan includes temporary worker visas. (Not sure of the duration, how renewable they would be, whether the time would count toward establishing citizenship, etc.) That's the good part of the plan (assuming, of course, that even folks applying for one of these would be security screened at the local US consulate/embassy.)

The bad part is the proposed amnesty for illegals already in the country who have jobs.

I'm sorry, but they broke the law. They want a temp visa they can go back and stand in line like everyone else.

cuchulainn
November 16, 2004, 09:29 AM
Given the despiration of these workers, they have no choice. In essence, the use of illegal aliens as workers is tantamount to semi-slavery.They have a choice, and from their perspective, it's not a bad choice. They can stay at home and remain impoverished or they can come to America and make more in a month than their entire village does in a year -- and I doubt they give a rodent's posterior about how they are being "persecuted" by poor application of OSHA regulations or lack of insurance that they wouldn't have at home anyway.

When you're well fed and plump, a stale crust of bread seems an insult. When you're starving, that same crust of bread is a God-send. Working illegally in the U.S. is more than that crust of bread for them.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
November 16, 2004, 09:55 AM
Are there any Congress representatives sponsoring bills to fix this, or are we just going to merrily go along until someone slips a nuke into Texas?


No, legislation will not be passed to fix this problem, and Yes, we will do exactly that: go merrily along untill several US cities are nuked.

Al Queda is most likely waiting untill they have at least 3 nuclear bombs in place.

Waitone
November 16, 2004, 10:19 AM
IIRC 5 bills have been filed in congress to fix the immigration problems. Bush in December 2003 made his come hither speech which immediately raised the number of border crossers.

There is no issue in play in the US right now more divisive that criminal aliens and immigration policy. The great divide is between the ruling class (composed of politicians, bureaucrats, one-world blissninnies, and corporate weenies) and the taxpaying class (composed of those who actually pay governmental bills and those who should be paying those bills). Surveys I've seen show as much as 80% of of the taxpaying class wants something done while something llike only 20% of the ruling class sees a problem.

Bush and democrats both suck up to the so-called hispanic vote and neither side is worried about niceties like legal voting. Meanwhile, intel informs us islamofascist goons want to move WMD over the borders.

States are now beginning to fight back over the unfunded mandates congress has created to provide welfare benefits to criminal aliens. Arizona pass a Prop 200 which IIRC basically cuts off welfare benefits to criminal aliens.

I predict a robust debate over immigration reform which will expose the the divide. I think the reason Bush hasn't shut down the debate over Specter is because he wants to see how big the insurrection is. He does not want to pitch criminal alien reform only to have it blown away by popular resistance.

DRZinn
November 16, 2004, 01:31 PM
Are there any Congress representatives sponsoring bills to fix this, or are we just going to merrily go along until someone slips a nuke into Texas?

Or San Diego, closest major city to the border....

ahenry
November 16, 2004, 01:35 PM
Before everybody goes off on how Bush is sucking up to the Hispanic vote by getting into bed with illegal aliens, have you heard of the Expedited Removal program Bush instituted?

Dave R
November 16, 2004, 01:41 PM
In essence, the use of illegal aliens as workers is tantamount to semi-slavery.

Not nearly the same. The thing that defines slavery is compulsion, or lack of choice. Except for a tragic few, illegals work where they work by choice.

And, as pointed out by cuchalain, its not a bad choice.

And to answer the original question, yes, we're apparently going to go blindly along until another terrorist event hits us. I pray its not nuke(s).

If I were a landowner along the border, I'd be very happy to have the Gov't put up a big fence.

And I'll re-ask the question--can landowners on the border enforce their property rights, that is, prevent tresspassing, or would they run into PC trouble if they do?

Deavis
November 16, 2004, 01:54 PM
I went to school with someone who has a ranch on the border. At no time are they ever without a rifle within quick reach while out on the ranch. There have been ranchers shot at and killed by people crossing the border but it isn't your PC stereotypical "hard-working just want a job" alien. It is the guys who are leading the drug mules, read human pack animals, across and they are not afraid to pop a few ranchers to get their product over here. According to her this is a serious issue for ranchers, much more serious than people trying to simply sneak in for work and not be caught.

HankB
November 16, 2004, 02:42 PM
Even if the feds refuse to enforce the border I would think that property owners should still be able to deter trespassers. Some ranchers have tried that. They have gotten in hot water for some BS charges related to "violating the illegal aliens' civil rights." :cuss:

ahenry
November 16, 2004, 02:56 PM
And to answer the original question, yes, we're apparently going to go blindly along until another terrorist event hits us. I pray its not nuke(s).
I’ll ask again; Do you even know anything about the Expedited Removal program Bush instituted?

Fletchette
November 16, 2004, 03:07 PM
I went to school with someone who has a ranch on the border. At no time are they ever without a rifle within quick reach while out on the ranch. There have been ranchers shot at and killed by people crossing the border but it isn't your PC stereotypical "hard-working just want a job" alien. It is the guys who are leading the drug mules, read human pack animals, across and they are not afraid to pop a few ranchers to get their product over here. According to her this is a serious issue for ranchers, much more serious than people trying to simply sneak in for work and not be caught.

So, what about forming a Citizens' group to enforce Property Rights? No open/concealed law problem with the consent of the property owner. It would be hard for the Feds to prosecute a clearly legal private action, especially if it is "anti-drug" smuggling. The Guardian Angels do it, albeit without weapons (but they are on public property).

At the very least when the media got ahold of it then the whole issue of unsecure borders would have to be addressed.

Fletchette
November 16, 2004, 03:13 PM
I’ll ask again; Do you even know anything about the Expedited Removal program Bush instituted?

All I know is that Border Guards can venture farther north to arrest illegals. I don't know if there is adequate funding for more Border Guards to patrol their increased jurisdiction (but I have a guess). I do not think it is wise to send Border Guards from the border to northern destinations, thereby opening up still more hole in the porous border. We need MORE Border Guards, or a Citizen's group, or a big fence, or all three, but unfunded laws are simply pieces of paper.

fjolnirsson
November 16, 2004, 03:28 PM
So, what about forming a Citizens' group to enforce Property Rights? No open/concealed law problem with the consent of the property owner. It would be hard for the Feds to prosecute a clearly legal private action, especially if it is "anti-drug" smuggling. The Guardian Angels do it, albeit without weapons (but they are on public property).

I don't know a lot about them, but I have heard of a group called ranch rescue doing exactly that. From what I understand, they've been harrassed pretty heavily by government officials for" violating civil rights" of illegals caught trespassing. I learned of them on a website which suddenly ceased to exist several months ago. I would post a link to the ranch rescue site, but it too, has ceased to exist.

Coincidence? You decide......

flatrock
November 16, 2004, 03:31 PM
I'm sorry, but they broke the law. They want a temp visa they can go back and stand in line like everyone else.

I understand and somewhat agree with the principle behind this.

However, in this perticular situation I disagree.

Yes, they have broken immigration law. They've broken a law that is consistently ignored, and which the enforcement of is aggressively blocked by local governments in many areas.

If we don't respect our own laws, why should they?

These people have come to our country with the understanding that while the law is on the books, it's not really enforced. By not enforcing the laws we've put ourselves in a position where enforcing it strictly now will tear appart families and severely punish people who's only crime is breaking a law that our own government hasn't taken seriously.

Yes they broke the law. But enforcing the law now will create a huge mess. Not only that, but in reality, we don't have the resources to enforce the law effectively.

With millions of illegal immigrants currently in our country, how can we reasonably expect that we can track the majority of them down and deport them?

We can't, and any reform that isn't implementable isn't going to fix the problem.

As a country, we need to face reality on the illegal immigrant issue. If we want to reduce the problem down to a managable level, we need to make it so those who are willing and able to work, and are not criminals other than their immigrations violations, come forward on their own.

If they come forward to get documented that allows the people who enforce immigrations laws the ability to concentrate on the real problems.

Bush's plans aren't going to make everyone happy. But they're the only plans I've seen that are practical and implementable.

As long as people insist that we have to deport every immigrant that entered the country illegally under current laws, the system will not be reformed. The scope of that task is simply too large after all the years of ignoring the immigration laws.

Penforhire
November 16, 2004, 03:59 PM
Unfortunately I think the problem can continue indefinitely. It has been "tenable" for decades. Aside from the terrorist threat what makes anyone think circumstances have changed?

My personal opinion is we're entitled to control our borders and we should do so with an iron grip (or wall). It is not closing the gate after the horse is gone because there are millions more horses in that barn continuing to cross over.

And enforcement of labor laws to is not so hard to do but I understand the business-owner resistance. You don't need to track down illegals if you can deny them most employment avenues. The great urge to come live in America will subside.

Ironbarr
November 16, 2004, 04:44 PM
Across the years I've wondered from time to time if annexing Mexico might be the thing to do, and - after cleaning up the politics, criminal and economic world (fifty years or so) - statehood...... maybe.

Strange, but I heard Boortz recently mention the same thing (primarily, tongue-in-cheek) - albeit done by Marines.

Ideas?

-Andy

wingman
November 16, 2004, 04:56 PM
Just from the view of numbers how many can we take in, can we as a nation
provide jobs, medical care for the world, as is illegals provide a work pool for
the wealth the taxpayer must pay higher taxes to build schools, hospitals, etc. I have read Texas would now need to build one school per day to stay
even with the numbers coming in. The illegals in turn send much of there money to Mexico. It is not the 1800's the world's population is growing very
fast we will need to in the very near future face the facts we need to slow
immigration, we cannot continue to sent our manufacturing jobs to other
countries while importing 3th world folks with perhaps a 6th grade education. :banghead:

DRZinn
November 16, 2004, 05:02 PM
Here's my viewpoint, as a closed-border libertarian. If we make them 100% ineligible for any and all government benefits, including education and police protection (not that the cops would always ask, but if it happens to come out, SOL), the rates would drop. And they'd be eligible for emergency-room care, but as soon as they were in stable condition they'd be processed for deportation.

A free state does not exist in a vacuum. And if the bordering states are like Mexico, the free state will not be free for long.

ahenry
November 16, 2004, 05:07 PM
Fletchette,
All I know is that Border Guards can venture farther north to arrest illegals. The arrest authority of a Border Patrol Agent has always extended throughout the entire United States. They have always had the authority to arrest illegal aliens anywhere within the United States.

Fjolnirsson,
From what I understand, they've been harrassed pretty heavily by government officials for" violating civil rights" of illegals caught trespassing. No they haven’t been harassed by the gov’t. :rolleyes: There have been instances of these organizations using people they should never have allowed to participate and those people have violated the law and been brought up on charges. Most of the civilian organizations have great working relationships with the Border Patrol. And as far as I know, all of these groups call the BP to actually come and get anybody they pick up and the BP always does.

Flatrock,
These people have come to our country with the understanding that while the law is on the books, it's not really enforced. How can you say its not really enforced when tens of thousands of illegal aliens are arrested each month and over a million in a year (http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/ENF03yrbk/2003ENF.pdf)?

With millions of illegal immigrants currently in our country, how can we reasonably expect that we can track the majority of them down and deport them? We can't, and any reform that isn't implementable isn't going to fix the problem. I agree. The one thing I will say for Bush’s plan is that it is feasible and I can’t come up with a better one to get rid of the 8-15 million illegal aliens here in the US.

Waitone
November 16, 2004, 05:20 PM
Across the years I've wondered from time to time if annexing Mexico might be the thing to do, and - after cleaning up the politics, criminal and economic world (fifty years or so) - statehood...... maybe.I've speculated the same thing. There is something one sided and unseemly about the relationship between V. Fox and Bush. Here we have the head of the only superpower on earth acting like a lap dog around the president of a corrupt, socialist paradise. I see Bush rolling on his back while Fox scratches his belly. I SEE NOTHING COMING BACK FROM FOX. I SEE A ONE SIDED RELATIONSHIP. Knowing countries don't have relationships, they have interests; I've wondered what the US is getting in return for basically releasing the steam building in the pressure cooker called Mexico.

I suspect it has something to do with oil. In exchange for effectively preventing a social revolution in Mexico we would get preferrential access to Mexican oil. . . .that's my thinkin.' In any case Bush stands no chance of passing anmesty without clearly stating what it is the US will gain.

fjolnirsson
November 16, 2004, 06:21 PM
ahenry,
No they haven’t been harassed by the gov’t. There have been instances of these organizations using people they should never have allowed to participate and those people have violated the law and been brought up on charges.

As I said," I don't know much about them, and what I did know was from a website that has now been shut down.
If these people were doing stupid crap, they deserve what they got.
Thanks for the info.

nemesis
November 16, 2004, 06:31 PM
I’ll ask again; Do you even know anything about the Expedited Removal program Bush instituted?

Yeah, I do. I live almost within sight of the border and the only thing being removed here is my patience.

I have personally talked with Border Patrol and Customs agents who estimate that, perhaps, 10% of the illegals are apprehended. Add to that, the only ones they apprehend are those actually in the act of illegally entering or travelling northward.

The last census established that at least 30% of this county is "foreign born" and we know they didn't accurately count all the many uncharted colonias nor the illegals that didn't want to be counted. Some estimates suggest that as much as 40% of the valley population may be here illegally.

Here's the good news. Our unemployment is the highest in the state, we don't have enough schools and can't build them fast enough nor fund them all, our hospitals are in crisis, wages are artificially low due to the vast numbers of illegals accepting wages less than minimum wage, our DUI rates are amongst the highest in the state, our insurance premiums are exorbitantly high as illegals don't purchase state tags, use Mexican tags (menos la estampilla), don't put their cars through the state safety inspection, don't purchase insurance, our criminal violence rate is unusually high as they resort to violence over menial details and....................

Nobody is Expediting the Removal of anyone!

That may look great on paper but it ain't happenin' here and here is where they come in.

wolf
November 16, 2004, 06:47 PM
Groups like "ranch rescue" have been "under the gun" lately..seems the local politicians have been catching hell from well organized "immigrant rights" groups..Immigrant rights groups consist of, religious, political, and of course..the mexican govt.

We dont see the workings of the mexican govt up close..but it seems to work like this..they fill their media & press with "news" that the US is "hunting" mexicans, carrying open weapons and willing to kill "undocumented workers"..this of course gets the phones ringing in the local border towns and the local politicians tell the local cops to put a stop to "unauthorized" patrols...so they arrest several of the "vigilante" group members..and this becomes great news to the immigrant groups..and not much really changes

We are not going to stop illegal immigration...there is little political will to do so and even less economic will...those of us that are angry and frustrated will just have to endour..new forms of amnesty will rise and millions of illegals will now be US citizens...not that they want to be...but now they can legally receive SS and Medicare..and VOTE...to think this is not part of both major parties agenda is to be blind..if we wanted we could stop illegal immigration and have 100% employment in the US...

Now a new generation of Americans is growing up hearing "..jobs that Americans WONT do.." like construction and other manual labor jobs. Seems that alot of Americans WOULD do those jobs and were paid well for building every city from Maine to California. Now suddenly the rate of pay is less than 1/4 of what it was for these jobs, and they are mostly non-union and "tailor made" for the illegal alien.

Its slavery..only this time we pay the slaves.

wolf

flatrock
November 16, 2004, 06:49 PM
Ahenry,

How can you say its not really enforced when tens of thousands of illegal aliens are arrested each month and over a million in a year?

Recently there has been a considerably greater effort to enforce the immigration laws than there was under the clinton administration. However, even now, the numbers that get through are noticably greater than the ones that get deported.

Even when illegal aliens are arrested, in the past they were often released pending deportation, and they surprisingly wouldn't show up to be deported.

What the idea of making it possible for many of these people to become legal aliens is that it shrinks the task of enforcemnt. It doesn't help close our borders so much as reduce the number of illegal aliens that the immigrations officers must deal with allowing them to concentrate on the ones that pose the greatest danger.

It also gives those legal aliens the recourse of reporting abusive employeers without fear of deportation. This makes it harder for those who hire and abuse illegal immigrants to continue to do so.

That should make it easier for immigration to crack down on those who hire illegal immigrants, and reduce their numbers. When the jobs for illegal immigrants become harder to find, less immigrants will choose to come here illegally.

Once we have a workable immigration system in place, I'm all for deporting any illegal aliens. I agree with the idea of not denying them emergency medical care, but deporting them as soon as the care is completed.

Illegal immigrants should not have access to welfare or medical benefits other than any benefits they might receive in the short time they are awaiting deportation.

However, I still believe that part of making those efforts possible is making it possible for more immigrants to legally enter the country who are willing to contribute to our society.

If our population grows to much, maybe we should consider exiling some of the extreme liberals that are trying to tear our society appart. :evil:

Wildalaska
November 16, 2004, 07:09 PM
Just from the view of numbers how many can we take in, can we as a nation
provide jobs, medical care for the world, as is illegals provide a work pool for
the wealth the taxpayer must pay higher taxes to build schools, hospitals, etc. I have read Texas would now need to build one school per day to stay
even with the numbers coming in. The illegals in turn send much of there money to Mexico. It is not the 1800's the world's population is growing very
fast we will need to in the very near future face the facts we need to slow
immigration, we cannot continue to sent our manufacturing jobs to other
countries while importing 3th world folks with perhaps a 6th grade education. :banghead:


In the 1840s they were saying that about the Irish, in the 1890s about Jews and Italians.

I agree however that we need to close the borders for at least 10 years, exccept for immediate (husban, wife, kid) of US citizen.

WildswmboisanimmigrantAlaska

ahenry
November 16, 2004, 07:54 PM
Nemesis,
Check your PM…


Yeah, I do [know something about Expedited Removals]. I live almost within sight of the border and the only thing being removed here is my patience. If I remember correctly, you live in the Valley. Only two Border Patrol stations are currently utilizing the ER program neither one of which is in the Valley. Expedited Removal is a huge amount of authority to grant a law enforcement agency, and the potential for screw-ups is pretty large. Like many other systems the INS/BP/DHS/CBP/etc have used, testing on a small scale is done prior to moving nation wide. Rest assured Expedited Removal is coming your way…

That may look great on paper but it ain't happenin' here and here is where they come in. Actually “here” is the thousands of miles of the southern border.

pax
November 16, 2004, 08:23 PM
If I were a landowner along the border, I'd be very happy to have the Gov't put up a big fence.
Sealing the borders sounds like a good plan.

Keeping the border sealed was one of the things that bankrupted the old Soviet Union.

pax

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat its errors; those who do will find new ways to err. -- unknown

Tag
November 16, 2004, 08:41 PM
Fletch, Ranch Rescue has tried and is trying to protect private landowners by offering to patrol their land... it is not a big hit with the powers that be.

As far as the Bush Expedited Removal plan... What possible good can it do so long as the border is a sieve? They will just come back, again and again.

In the 1840s they were saying that about the Irish, in the 1890s about Jews and Italians.

I think there is a big difference between people comeing here legally and those slipping accross the border in the night.

ed2010
November 16, 2004, 08:55 PM
Across the years I've wondered from time to time if annexing Mexico might be the thing to do, and - after cleaning up the politics, criminal and economic world (fifty years or so) - statehood...... maybe.

Strange, but I heard Boortz recently mention the same thing (primarily, tongue-in-cheek) - albeit done by Marines.

Ideas?

-Andy



It seems as if we are the ones being annexed.

And its not just border states that are seeing this, but all over
the country.

there is a group that is trying to do something at a website
called NumbersUSA
http://www.numbersusa.com

Penforhire
November 16, 2004, 08:58 PM
Well I know the laws are NOT enforced around me (Los Angeles area). Border patrol sweeps raised such a ruckus they were stopped. Among the complaints, "we don't have the jails to hold them all." Well my answer to that is you don't need to hold 'em for long if you deport them immediately.

To WildAlaska, comparing today's Mexican illegals to the waves of European immigrants in the late 1800's to early 1900's is a poor match. They came through immigration control, usually Ellis Island, as my grandparents did, and were often fleeing persecution (one reason I cut Central American refugees more slack). Mexicans are just tired of their country's economic situation. Though I'll agree the residents in the 1900's must have complained bitterly about the same issues (loss of jobs, etcetera).

Sindawe
November 16, 2004, 09:27 PM
Another difference between the earlier waves of immigration into this country and that which we are experiencing now is that in years past, immigrants wanted to become part of America, to assimilate into the culture and contribute to it. They wanted their kids to learn to read, write and speak English fluently, get good jobs and become part of our culture and in the process add to it.

Too many of the immigrants today do not want to do this. We must adapt to them, so now we have 2nd and 3rd generation citizens who have become and underclass. Education is shunned as 'unmanly', even though its freaking 'free', and if one expects them to be able to converse in an understandable dialect, we are accused of 'racism'. :fire: Criminal aliens come here, work under the table, send $$$ home, drive down the wages, use the services paid for by those born here, those whom immigrated legally or those who've worked here for a time and then left 'cause they can't find a job in their field.

Close the freaking border. MINE all of it not in ports of entry. Fence it, and electrify the fence. Leave the corpses of those killed trying to enter illegally to rot and bleach in the sun as warning to those who follow. Crimminal aliens apprehended inside the borders are deported back to their native lands and forever barred from entry again. This applies to ALL of em. White, Black, Yellow or Brown.

Tag
November 16, 2004, 10:16 PM
Close the freaking border. MINE all of it not in ports of entry. Fence it, and electrify the fence. Leave the corpses of those killed trying to enter illegally to rot and bleach in the sun as warning to those who follow. Crimminal aliens apprehended inside the borders are deported back to their native lands and forever barred from entry again. This applies to ALL of em. White, Black, Yellow or Brown.

My thoughts exactly.

Fletchette
November 16, 2004, 10:53 PM
Sealing the borders sounds like a good plan.

Keeping the border sealed was one of the things that bankrupted the old Soviet Union.

pax

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat its errors; those who do will find new ways to err. -- unknown

Pax,

I'd have to respectfully disagree. Securing the borders of a nation is one of the essential functions of a sovereign government. The old Soviet Union did not crumble because of lax immigration (who wanted to immigrate INTO the Soviet Union?), it crumbled because Communism does not respect Individual Rights.

A closer historical analogy would be that of Rome. They did not secure their borders. Guess what happened?

We are facing a similar crisis. If illegals can easily smuggle TONS of drugs across the border, smuggling a nuke is trivial. Furthermore, they wouldn't even need nukes- they could smuggle a sick Chinese bird.

Something has to be done. Simply saying "it is too difficult" doesn't cut it.

rock jock
November 16, 2004, 11:43 PM
I suspect it has something to do with oil.
Dear Mr. Moore,

Looking for another Oscar?

Selfdfenz
November 17, 2004, 12:10 AM
While we focus on the most visible issue (illegals from Mexico) that's just part of the picture.

My son's first grade teacher happened to mention to me that in his school (K-2nd grade) and at the Independent School District level the taxpayers were supporting a pretty large number of foreign languages in their English As a Second Language Program (ESL).

Try 37 different foreign languages.

While we argue over what to do, or not to do, the World is pouring in. The argument that what worked in the 1800's is ok now or even desirable follows the same logic that would have us all go back to kerosene lamps.

S-

Fletchette
November 18, 2004, 12:20 AM
Found this FYI:

http://www.americanpatrol.com/ACTIVISTNEWS/MINUTEMAN-PROJECT/041115Update.html

I wonder if they will be stepped on by the Feds. Should be interesting.

DRZinn
November 18, 2004, 01:23 AM
Sindawe:
You mentioned sending money back to Mexico. So many of them do it, in fact, that money sent from Mexicans in the US is Mexico's second-largest source of income!

You mentioned earlier immigrants wanting to assimilate and that not being the case with this bunch. In fact, so many Mexican citizens who die in the US are being shipped back to Mexico for burial that the Mexican government has set aside twelve million dollars this year to help!

And as for your plan at the border - where do I sign up to lay the mines?

Wildalaska
November 18, 2004, 01:32 AM
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning the breathe free..
The wretched refuse of your teeming shores
I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door.....

Gaw darn how we have changed as a nation....

Wildmygreatgrammawneverspokeenglishuptoherdeathin1960onlyyiddishandrussianAlaska

Brian Dale
November 18, 2004, 01:51 AM
Yeah, Wild, we used to write poems like that when most immigrants came here legally.

ahenry, you corrected Fletchette withThe arrest authority of a Border Patrol Agent has always extended {etc.}When did they start calling them "Agents?" Spiffy FBI-style public relations term, if you ask me. Back when my Dad (and Jordan, and Askins, and ... ) were in the BP, they just called 'em PIs (Patrol Inspectors) or "officers." Seriously ... when?

Fletchette
November 18, 2004, 03:10 AM
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning the breathe free..
The wretched refuse of your teeming shores
I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door.....

Gaw darn how we have changed as a nation....

Wildmygreatgrammawneverspokeenglishuptoherdeathin1960onlyyiddishandrussianAlaska

Wild,

I am not against immigration. Please read my earlier posts - If I were born abroad I would do anything to come here too! In fact, some of my best friends are immigrants; my fiance is German. I have noticed that the immigrants I have met tend to be highly motivated and ambitious. They also tend to understand and value our Constitution better than most native-born Americans. Yet, when I ask my immigrant friends how they feel about the border situation they are, almost without exception, livid.

They are upset that they had to jump through years of bureaucratic hoops, be interviewed and interrogated, pay application fees, take exams etc., and that other immigrants simply walked across the border and are sponging off of wellfare, public schools, our medical system, etc.

The last straw, as it were, is the fact that manaical terrorists are hell bent on smuggling nukes into this country via our open border. They are, quite frankly, concerned that this country and the freedom they worked so hard for will be destroyed.

I think that we can fully honour the words on the Statue of Liberty AND secure the borders from foreign invasion as specified in the Constitution. Doing nothing dishonours both.

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 06:07 AM
technology gains means a 6th grade education is all your going to need to run production jobs
bush was a promoter of the temporary worker visa program in his first campaign
right now the illegals would all be legal if he and vincente fox didnt have a falling out over iraq and the u.n.
the way social security is right now and our low birth rate we need imigration to keep S.S. solvent but the influx of too many immigrants will drive down wages giving most americans less purchasing power
less purchasing power means less to spend which means companys need to reduce costs vis a vis sending jobs overseas which means less americans have jobs
were screwed!

DRZinn
November 18, 2004, 10:33 AM
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning the breathe free..
The wretched refuse of your teeming shores
I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door.....

Gaw darn how we have changed as a nation....
Though it's already been said, here's my piece:

I'm not anti-immigration. But we need to know who, exactly, is coming into our country. You can't draw a legitimate parallel between the immigrants that arrived on Ellis Island, were registered, examined, etc, etc, etc and the ones who sneak in and then try to change the laws to fit them. (bilingual education, amnesties, drivers licenses, etc).

Penforhire
November 18, 2004, 03:35 PM
I'm all for ESL (English as a 2nd language) in schools. That is the path to assimilation. But voter materials? That burns me up. English is our national language. Learn it or don't vote. Nothing racist about that. Perhaps bigoted against morons, but not racist.

ahenry
November 18, 2004, 08:05 PM
When did they start calling them "Agents?" Spiffy FBI-style public relations term, if you ask me. Back when my Dad (and Jordan, and Askins, and ... ) were in the BP, they just called 'em PIs (Patrol Inspectors) or "officers." Seriously ... when? Well back when my grandfather was in (same time as your dad, Jordan, Askins, Skelton, etc) they were called PI’s. Near as I can tell here is a short terminology history. Originally they went by the term(s) Mounted Guards, Mounted Inspectors and Mounted Watchmen, these terms were used even before the “Border Patrol” was created in 1924. The term “Patrol Inspector” (and for a short period of time, “Immigration Inspector”) was used up until about 1960. Round about in there President Kennedy ordered Border Patrol Agents to fly commercially do deal with hijackings; modern day air-marshals. After that seems to be when the term agent took over for PI.

Moparmike
November 18, 2004, 08:55 PM
Sealing the borders sounds like a good plan.

Keeping the border sealed was one of the things that bankrupted the old Soviet Union.

pax

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat its errors; those who do will find new ways to err. -- unknown
That's all well and good Pax, but do you have a better idea?


I dont see you as a open doors and unlocked car kinda gal at home, so why would you want our country to be ran that way? :confused: :scrutiny:

sigmaman
November 18, 2004, 08:57 PM
[QUOTE=DocZinn]Sindawe:
You mentioned sending money back to Mexico. So many of them do it, in fact, that money sent from Mexicans in the US is Mexico's second-largest source of income!
QUOTE]

i think that is true with every wave of immigrants sending money back home
my wife is an immigrant

one more thing to note i truly believe the immigration process was a hell of a lot easier 60-150 years ago

and just to clarify my position i wish they would stop illegal aliens cause there presence has a negative effect in my career path as far as wages are concerned (along with my dissappearing benefits)
compare this from 1870 ellis island to what the prcedure is now

Group One Immediate Arrival
The ferry landed in a slip next to the main Ellis Island building. A gangplank was put down and a man was at the bottom shouting that men should go one way and women and children the other. The immigration official would examine them for admission. The newcomers came off their ship with their baggage. Their outer garments were tagged with their manifest number from the steamship, a card often seen in photographs. After they walked into the building they went directly to the Baggage Room. where they were told to check their belongings. Many chose to carry their belongings with them because they were afraid of theft.

Group Two The Medical Inspection
It is their job to observe the immigrants as they walk single file up the grand staircase that led to the second floor Registry Room. As they made their way upstairs, medical officers observed their movements in what became known as the six second exam. They were looking for any obvious deformities or medical problems. Experienced inspectors were able to take in six details in one glance; namely, the scalp, face, hands, neck, gait and general condition. If anything unusual was noted, the immigrant would be stopped and a closer examination would be done. Next, came a more formal inspection. One of the most famous exams was for the eye disease known as trachoma. Examination was done with a buttonhook, a metal instrument used to button gloves. It was used to pull the eyelid back to exam for signs of this infection. Immigrants with medical problems were identified by marking their outer garments with white chalk. Abbreviations were used for the various problems, H for heart problems, Pg for pregnancy, E for eye problems, L for lameness . The intelligence of the immigrants was tested due to laws that had been passed excluding "idiots, imbeciles or morons and other mentally deficient persons." Students should be told that it was not always easy for medical examiners to test for mental deficiency. Students should be reminded that answers to questions asked by examiners might indicate just being stressed and nervous rather than from mental deficiency. It was often times very difficult to make the correct diagnosis. Immigrants who had obvious symptoms of mental or physical problems were sent to the examination room. Here, they would receive a more detailed examination. If they passed the examination they would be sent back to join the main group, If they did not pass, they would be held on the island in separate dormitories until they were cured so they could enter the United States. Immigrants not cleared for entry were deported back to their country of origin.

Group Three The Legal Inspection
After the medical inspection, the legal inspectors asked a series of questions already posed to the immigrants by the shipping companies. The inspectors asked the same kinds of questions to see if the answers matched.

The inspector would be assisted by interpreters when needed and a registry clerk recorded their responses. Immigrants were told that it was to their advantage to show letters from friends and relatives already living in the U.S. The questioning only lasted two to three minutes, but to those involved it probably seemed like forever. Immigrants who gave answers that were questionable were then sent to a special inquiry board. The boards of inquiry were independent tribunals. Their decisions were final and not subject to court review. Inconsistent responses might result in further examination. The objective was to exclude people who might become public charges, act immorally, or cause social unrest. The following questions are from Do People Grow on Trees by Ira Wolfman. These were typical questions asked by inspectors:


1. What is your name?
2. How old are you?
3. Are you married or single
4. What is your calling or occupation?
5. Are you able to read or write?
6. What is your nationality?
7. Where was your last residence?
8. Which U.S. seaport have you landed in?
9. What is your final destination in the U.S.?
10. Do you have a ticket to your final destination?
11. Did you pay for your passage over? If not, who did?
12. Do you have much money with you? More than $30.? How much less? More?
13. Are you going to join a relative? What relative? Name ?Address?
14. Have you ever been to the U.S. before?
15. Have you ever been in prison? in a poorhouse or supported by charity?
16. Are you a polygamist?
17. Are you under contract, expressed or implied to perform labor in the U.S.?
18. What is the condition of your health?
19. Are you deformed or crippled? .

fjolnirsson
November 20, 2004, 08:59 AM
Mara Salvatrucha .

Anybody heard of them?
They are an El Salvadoran street gang based in Los Angeles.
They smuggle a lot of drugs and illegals across our borders.
On the local Fox affiliate last night, there was a member who came forward to say that he had been contacted by Al Quaeda and offered large sums of money to smuggle in members.
The El Salvadorian government is meeting with Los Angeles LE to coordinate efforts against this problem.

Anybody remember a while back, hearing about Chechen terrorists trying to sneak across our border? Here's an article:http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=74269&Disp=All
And here's a little bit more about Mara Salvatrucha:http://www.knowgangs.com/gang_resources/ms/ms_001.htm

Sindawe is right.
Close the borders. Mine them.
Legal immigrants should be made welcome.
Illegals get no sympathy from me.

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 11:42 AM
that site is so far right they still believe in a flat earth
seriously
why would any terrorist group want to come thru the mexican border?
canada is way easier
this web site wants the ACLU gone
isnt rush limbaugh using the ACLU to keep his dope er i mean legal prescription records private?

fjolnirsson
November 20, 2004, 03:37 PM
Funny, I remember seeing that story all over the tv and newspapers, as well as the internet. It was around 2 months ago, IIRC. All I could find today as far as mainstream was this:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041013-121643-5028r.htm

Who cares what Rush does?
Not me.

sigmaman
November 20, 2004, 04:50 PM
never heard of the chechen terorists
looked it up
thats pretty scary havent heard nothing since october
maybe even scarier

Fletchette
November 21, 2004, 02:15 AM
isnt rush limbaugh using the ACLU to keep his dope er i mean legal prescription records private?

I've been additcted to drugs.

Thankfully, I was in the hospital because I was pretty banged up and therefore had a prescription for the drugs I was taking. But I was addicted.

It was really tough to get off of them.

Being addicted does not make you a "bad person" or a "threat to society", and should not make you criminal.

We have a really screwed up legal system.

sigmaman
November 21, 2004, 02:21 AM
so you had a radio show too
and to your millions of listeners you proclaimed drug addicts were scum also?

We're going to let you destroy your life. We're going to make it easy and then all of us who accept the responsibilities of life and don't destroy our lives on drugs, we'll pay for whatever messes you get into."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec. 9, 1993

"I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say people are going to do drugs anyway let's legalize it. It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea and those who are for it are purely 100 percent selfish."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"If (Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders) wants to legalize drugs, send the people who want to do drugs to London and Zurich, and let's be rid of them.
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec 9, 1993

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.

"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995

Fletchette
November 21, 2004, 02:34 AM
so you had a radio show too
and to your millions of listeners you proclaimed drug addicts were scum also?

We're going to let you destroy your life. We're going to make it easy and then all of us who accept the responsibilities of life and don't destroy our lives on drugs, we'll pay for whatever messes you get into."
-- Rush Limbaugh show, Dec. 9, 1993

Nope, no radio show.

I didn't say that Rush wasn't a hypocrite (your posts prove that), I said he shouldn't be a criminal. :)

I disagree with Rush on many things. That doesn't mean he should go to prison for his beliefs. Hopefully, Rush now has better insight as to being an addict.

Ironbarr
November 21, 2004, 02:36 AM
Let's see... 1993 and 1995 - 9 to 11 years ago. And when did he (Rush) start having the problem(s) - ears, etc?

Humans sometimes have to chew on their words due to circumstances not previously experienced.

ed2010
November 21, 2004, 02:45 AM
>never heard of the chechen terorists
>looked it up
>thats pretty scary havent heard nothing since october
>maybe even scarier


Yes, indeed. And what is scarier, is that it has been linked to a CD found on Iraq. And one of the towns mentioned on that CD is the town my child goes to school in. The Government was here and told us not to worry...

And further back in time ( 2002? in Afghanistan ) they found video tapes of terrorists training to take over schools, and they had been training in english.

My fear is that they are here to hurt our kids.

Here is some cheery news:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002095360_raids19m.html

This is my favorite part:
"In a related case in King County Superior Court, prosecutors in October filed assault and extortion charges against some individuals associated with an Islamic religious school run out of a South Seattle barbershop. The school was "training children ... in Anti American rhetoric," and "how to shoot and fight the Americans," according to court documents."

sigmaman
November 21, 2004, 03:07 AM
what i said was a dig at rush limbuagh
another extreme right wing lying hypocrite

in reply to iron barr
yeah thats about the time he was treated for his butt problem and became addicted to pills

<Material not related to thread commentary removed by Art>

Fletchette
November 21, 2004, 04:12 AM
Er, ok.

Now, back to the topic of this thread: Border Politics and Racism.

Yes, indeed. And what is scarier, is that it has been linked to a CD found on Iraq. And one of the towns mentioned on that CD is the town my child goes to school in. The Government was here and told us not to worry...

And further back in time ( 2002? in Afghanistan ) they found video tapes of terrorists training to take over schools, and they had been training in english.

Yes, I have heard of this too. It is things like this that makes me wonder why the hell the National Guard hasn't been called to seal the border. Considering what the nation went through after Columbine I think that trained terrorists attacking multiple schools would be on the top of Al Qaeda's list.

Also, why the hell can't teachers carry in school? The Liberal media has done it's absolute best in hiding the fact that at least one school shooting was foiled by an armed teacher.

Must be the same reason pilots still can't carry (except for a very few that have managed to jump through a million hoops).

Ironbarr
November 21, 2004, 11:23 AM
Also, why the hell can't teachers carry in school? The Liberal media has done it's absolute best in hiding the fact that at least one school shooting was foiled by an armed teacher.I am in firm belief that we will experience the ugliest of events - attacks on schools. Of all heart-wrenching events this would be cataclysmic - personal to us all. I believe that gov't at every level should be sympathetic and helpful in allowing local volunteer armed patrols to provide school property and event security & defense. This is a mission the unorganized militia can - and should - be doing. And now - not after an incident.

-Andy

sigmaman
November 21, 2004, 11:26 AM
seriously scary i hope it is a bogus info
i think i know why they attacked a school (beslan)
remember when they attacked a concert hall
russian commandos gassed them with some kind a of aerosolised valium
some people od'ed and died cause of it
by taking over a school you have people of different body mass
so you cant gas them cause what you would need to subdue an adult would kill a child

Don Gwinn
November 21, 2004, 12:03 PM
No, they attacked the school because raping and killing children is the most inhuman action they could think of and therefore had the greatest shock value. The ability to hide behind children and use them as human shields in various ways was a bonus.

And yes, it can happen here, particularly now that they've seen that it "works."

sigmaman
November 21, 2004, 12:10 PM
they were always going to kill the children but i think they wanted it prolonged so they could get there "message" out
that is why they chose a school . shock value and they wre immunised against another gas attack that would knock them out

Waitone
November 21, 2004, 12:15 PM
AQ has specifically claimed the right to murder 2 million US children because of our atrocities around the world.

AQ has trained in Afghanistan on hitting a school. We have video tapes and instruction manuals.

AQ surrogates did the Russian school.

An Iraqi was picked up in country with a CD consisting of files pulled from the DoE website detailing security plans for 6 school districts (IIRC) around the US.

The FBI is quite concerned over the insertion as a unit of armed combat teams over the southern border.

Yea, we will get hit. American education factories are big juicy undefended targets of huge terror value. And when it happens (not if it happens) I hope the president on duty who has absolutely refused to do anything to hinder border crossers has the moral courage to 'fess up and resign. The joker has has 3 years of warnings and has yet to make any meaningful attempts to control the southern border.

Ironbarr
November 21, 2004, 01:53 PM
Is this a potential replay of the Roosevelt/Pearl Harbor thing - to gird us for a greater war effort?

If so, it'll probably fail since we've already been hit.

Wonder what the next ten years'll be like?!

Selfdfenz
November 21, 2004, 02:43 PM
" And when it happens (not if it happens) I hope the president on duty who has absolutely refused to do anything to hinder border crossers has the moral courage to 'fess up and resign. The joker has has 3 years of warnings and has yet to make any meaningful attempts to control the southern border."

x ring my friend

S-

Hawkmoon
November 21, 2004, 03:27 PM
I have no problem with them coming here. If I were born in another country I'd do anything to get here too! But I would think it would be better to come here and be a full-fledged citizen rather than a semi-slave. Why doesn't the Hispanic vote lobby to make *legal* immigration easier? Instead, they seem to be supporting policy that makes them second-class citizens.
Sorry, I've been away from this thread for a couple of days.

The reason they don't lobby is that the people who should be doing the lobbying -- their elected representatives -- don't want to. It's not the Anglos who want to keep them in a state of semi-slavery, it's Hispanic politicians and power brokers. These are the same people who push hard for Spanish language documents in every area of life. They don't want their constituents to become fluent in English because then they (the power brokers) can't control the information they feed their constituents. If your constituents speak (and read) only Spanish, and there's only one Spanish-language newspaper they can get that covers your jusrisdiction, it becomes easy to control the information that gets to your constituents. Once you let them learn to read English so they can understand the other newspapers, magazines, and television stations in the area, they are no longer a captive audience.

fjolnirsson
November 21, 2004, 03:37 PM
Ahhhhhhh....
So nice to talk with people who "get it", for a change. So very few in this communist hell hole understand.......I can't wait to leave CA.

I'm so tired of being painted as racist for saying illegals are felons, and should be deported.

Hawkmoon
November 21, 2004, 03:44 PM
Yes, I have heard of this too. It is things like this that makes me wonder why the hell the National Guard hasn't been called to seal the border. Considering what the nation went through after Columbine I think that trained terrorists attacking multiple schools would be on the top of Al Qaeda's list.
Substitute "Army" for "National Guard" and I'll be on board. The problem with using the National Guard is that the Guard is supposed to be primarily a state defense force, available to the national government in time of war or national emergency.

Yes, you can argue that being infiltrated by terrorists is a type of emergency, but I submit that in the context of the National Guard, the use of the term "emergency" has a connotation of a finite time frame. The Guard is made up of ordinary people, with ordinary jobs and responsibilities. It wasn't intended that Guardsmen (and women) become full-time professional soldiers. But that's what is needed to seal the borders. Gotta do both. If we seal the Mexican border they'll come in from the north. Canada won't be as easy as Mexico, but if we deprive them of Mexico they'll use Canada. So we have to do both, and we can't do it for a week or for a month -- we have to do it for the foreseeable future.

That's not the mission of the National Guard. That's the mission of the regular armed forces -- or should be. Unfortunately, we have too few of those, and those we have are all busily engaged in other places. I could go along with using rotating Guard units to close the border on an interim basis, but only with a definite end stipulated and a commitment to staff up the regular forces to take over within 6 months to a year.

Fletchette
November 21, 2004, 09:59 PM
That's not the mission of the National Guard. That's the mission of the regular armed forces -- or should be. Unfortunately, we have too few of those, and those we have are all busily engaged in other places. I could go along with using rotating Guard units to close the border on an interim basis, but only with a definite end stipulated and a commitment to staff up the regular forces to take over within 6 months to a year.

Ok by me. I would think that a National Guard call up, specifically to secure the borders, with one-month rotations, would be greeted extremely well by the American public. Do it for six months while recruiting more volunteer U.S. Army troops to take over.

I would think a well-publicized ad campaign would have no problem getting fresh recruits to defend the borders.

DRZinn
November 22, 2004, 04:00 PM
I agree in principle, but I say leave the military as they are and make the Border Patrol a military force, so we have specialists in that job doing that job. The military already has too many tasks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Border politics and racism" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!