When The President Won't Protect Our Borders


PDA






Biker
February 10, 2006, 03:57 PM
MS-13 and high ranking al Queda leaders meeting? Food for thought..

www.rense.com/general69/wws.htm

Biker

If you enjoyed reading about "When The President Won't Protect Our Borders" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
February 10, 2006, 04:07 PM
It sounds intriguing, but a search on Google doesn't show much on a company called "RL Services International Security". You'd think a company with the high end talent they claim would have some info on them.

Anyone know anything about these people?

agricola
February 10, 2006, 04:13 PM
Its very difficult to understand why MS-13, or any criminal organization for that matter, would knowingly meet with groups like Al-Qaeda.

For a start, you move yourself out of the bracket of being a LE problem into being one of National Security, which of course means that the gloves are off and they (instead of being worried about wiretaps and warrants) now have to consider drones dropping missiles on them. Its all very well being lawyered up but if the US has no interest in slapping cuffs on you as long as you end up dead legal advice is useless.

Secondly, its on rense.com. The fact that elsewhere on the site a mini-Rense thinks that the cartoons and the mobs protesting against the cartoons are all provocations by the West, specifically Prince Phillip and Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, should suggest that it may well be a big old pile of BS.

longeyes
February 10, 2006, 04:13 PM
Has anyone raised this question at a Presidential press conference?

Has anyone in Congress--other than perhaps Tom Tancredo and a couple of other mavericks--spoken out publicly in open forum, challenging the White House to take action?

It's clear we need to apply some heat. Bush's remarks after the SOTU address were the same old rehash of platitudes about hardworking Mexican moms and dads and border-breaching "family values." W. clearly needs to be called out on this and read the riot act.

longeyes
February 10, 2006, 04:16 PM
What isn't a pile of b.s. is that thousands of illegal aliens are entering the U.S. daily, that MS-13 is establishing a growing presence on this side of the border, that a lot of Middle Eastern people are getting into this country illegally. We don't need to conflate the threats to know we've got trouble.

Biker
February 10, 2006, 04:19 PM
Its very difficult to understand why MS-13, or any criminal organization for that matter, would knowingly meet with groups like Al-Qaeda.

For a start, you move yourself out of the bracket of being a LE problem into being one of National Security, which of course means that the gloves are off and they (instead of being worried about wiretaps and warrants) now have to consider drones dropping missiles on them. Its all very well being lawyered up but if the US has no interest in slapping cuffs on you as long as you end up dead legal advice is useless.

Secondly, its on rense.com. The fact that elsewhere on the site a mini-Rense thinks that the cartoons and the mobs protesting against the cartoons are all provocations by the West, specifically Prince Phillip and Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, should suggest that it may well be a big old pile of BS.
Rense has some 'out-there' stuff on the site, but Wooldridge is a credible source. Now, about that message?
Biker

fourays2
February 10, 2006, 04:31 PM
Its very difficult to understand why MS-13, or any criminal organization for that matter, would knowingly meet with groups like Al-Qaeda.

For a start, you move yourself out of the bracket of being a LE problem into being one of National Security, which of course means that the gloves are off and they (instead of being worried about wiretaps and warrants) now have to consider drones dropping missiles on them. Its all very well being lawyered up but if the US has no interest in slapping cuffs on you as long as you end up dead legal advice is useless.

Secondly, its on rense.com. The fact that elsewhere on the site a mini-Rense thinks that the cartoons and the mobs protesting against the cartoons are all provocations by the West, specifically Prince Phillip and Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, should suggest that it may well be a big old pile of BS.

MS13 are just business men, if moving terrorists pays better than moving illegals/drugs then they'll adjust their business model to suit. I mean it's not like they obey any of our laws is it?

Camp David
February 10, 2006, 04:36 PM
Food for thought..

Biker: I read the article by Frosty Wooldridge and I certainly agree that the border issue proves a nagging and very obvious hole in our domestic security. What I find lacking is the lack of answers and/or alternatives from those that criticize the current administration. Indeed, Mr. Wooldridge surfaces lots of blame but few new ideas for border security.

Before you get too defensive, though, let me say on the outset that I feel Bush's whole plan for border security is lacking as well. However, I have heard precious few new ideas from anyone.

Do we build a huge fence on the southern border? If so, who pays for it? State or Federal? Wouldn't the illegals simply tunnel underneath? (See related story on California tunnel.)

Do we stop all southern immigration? Do we stop all amnesty programs?

Do we move the National Guard to our southern border? (Contrary to liberal claims, border states have ample National Guard troops free to do this guard duty.)

Do we set up a mine field or similar passive defense on the border? (Some have suggested myriad ideas of border deterrence, including impassive barriers, animal guard defense, and even electric/shock barriers).

In short, what is lacking is new ideas or committment to old ideas backed with new finances from the federal and state level. This lack of support comes from both Republicans and Democrats, so I hardly think you can pin this on the current administration... illegal aliens have been a problem for decades and they cannot be only addressed at the federal level...State involvement is also necessary.

I agree that MS-13 gang members, Al Qaeda terrorists, and like dangers, are all a threat from both north and south borders.

What to do?

And if something is decided to be done quickly in regard to border security, will the opposition party be willing to pay for it, or will they add that to their criticism of deficit spending?

agricola
February 10, 2006, 04:39 PM
Rense has some 'out-there' stuff on the site, but Wooldridge is a credible source. Now, about that message?
Biker

message?

Also Woolridge is a one-issue ranter as a check of his previous articles suggests.

He ties Muslim terrorists to the Mexican border more to illustrate his antipathy towards illegal immigration of Hispanics than because of any verifiable problem with Muslim terrorists getting in that way. As the three main attacks since 2000 have shown (NY, Madrid and London) Al-Qaeda operatives have all been "legal" in the country concerned, either on visas or already resident in the countries concerned.

PCGS65
February 10, 2006, 04:39 PM
Hey Biker, how you doing? Illegals crossing the border has been a long old problem. I know you dislike Bush like the plague and this thread will just turn into another Bush bashing thread. OK enough said there.
Anyway I agree that illegals crossing the border is a serious problem. Maybe a good question to ask would be how to prevent this? Instead of just blaming one person for this problem that didn't start because of him. I know the obvious answer is lets just mass troops,tanks,artillery and B52 bombers along the border. Yes it does sound good but it's not that simple. For starters there are many good reasons for illegals to come here. Hence a demand. I know california passed a law that when someone registers to vote there is a question that says are you a US citizen. You simply check yes or no. Guess what, the law they passed makes it illegal to ask for proof of citizenship!!:fire: Here in Illinois we have a certain politician campaining on the promise to fight illegal aliens. Guess what he is publicly chastized and labeled a racist for wanting to enforce the law. Now how are we supposed to stop illegals from crossing the border when the government welcomes them with open arms and preferential treatment for being an illegal alien? Another good question is how can this be solely Bushs fault?
I believe in canada(those of you from canada correct me if I'm wrong)you can't get a job without citizenship. That sounds like a good start but not if you ask someone if their a citizen and it against the law to make them prove it!!!:fire: :cuss: :banghead: OK let the Bush bashing begin........:neener:

Biker
February 10, 2006, 05:12 PM
Camp David, you ol' SOB:) ,

A lot of your ideas a great. Fence? Good idea. It would pay for itself before long just as a consequence of not having to pay for the many programs that illegals are now eligable for in one form or another, not to mention the savings we *might* incur by preventing another terrorist attack. The feds apparantly don't mind spending money, so they could swing it judging from their recent fiscal performances. Tunnels? Maybe, but the flow would be greatly reduced and we could concentrate more of our efforts on that threat if the Wall was up.
Yes, we put a 10 year moratorium on immigration until we sort the present mess out.
The NG is a good idea, but nix the minefields, bombers and all that. The above measures should slow the flood to a trickle. 'Sides, minefields are messy and loud.;)
You're right, the problem is an old one, but *right now*, this POTUS can do something about it instead of encouraging it.
Biker

Maxwell
February 10, 2006, 05:40 PM
There are 3 kinds of terrorists so far as I know.

1) the true believers.
The grunts, the whackjobs who blow themselves up or run in front of a machine gun. People who honestly believe there are virgins on the other side waiting for them.

2) the mercinaries.
Gunmen, bomb makers, kidnappers, the kind who will do anything for a buck. You got poor countries with lots of capable men who need to eat. To feed themselves they will do anything from dig a weapons cash to make impromptu landmines out of household goods.

3) the money men.
Those who pay for the services of 1&2 out of their pockets, or coerce others into giving them the money for it. The preachers, the extremely wealthy and the knee breaking collection agent types who funnel cash from one side of the globe to the other.

Bear in mind that organized criminals (or street gangs for that matter) often dont have a patriotic bone in their body. They also dont have to believe in Islam to be hired or accept payment for their next job.

Would alqueda fall into ranks with ms-13?
Directly, I doubt they would keep an open alliance...but the deals wont be signed on alqueda letterhead.

A mexican gang could easily be performing logicstics jobs for an arab terrorist network without the other knowing, and it woud be damn hard to prove it.

I think the problems here are:
1) youve got a slow cooking war brewing on the border thats being ignored.
2) security has not been tightned, crime is on the rise in nearby towns.
3) there are terrorists out to hit you wherever your weakest.

Murphys law says somethings bound to happen there.

CAnnoneer
February 10, 2006, 09:35 PM
Eventually, we are going to get bushwhacked again, this time by land. They who traffic people over the border for a grand, would traffic a nuke or two for just a bit more green than that.

Then all the president's men would throw their girlie limbs into the air, scatter ashes over their dramatically unkempt hair, and sing the "Who'd've thunk" choir...

:barf: :barf: :barf:

Hawkmoon
February 10, 2006, 09:40 PM
It's clear we need to apply some heat. Bush's remarks after the SOTU address were the same old rehash of platitudes about hardworking Mexican moms and dads and border-breaching "family values." W. clearly needs to be called out on this and read the riot act.
Won't work. I've lost count of how many letters I have written to the White House on the subject. He's immune to heat.

Remember his predecessor, Ronald Reagan? Nicknamed "Teflon Ron" because nobody could make any dirt stick to him? If Reagan was "Teflon Ron," then I think GWB must be "Asbestos George" (or maybe "Nomex George," since asbestos has pretty much been regulated out of existence).

NukemJim
February 10, 2006, 09:52 PM
Many of the arguments made are valid. Many have been reported elsewhere.

I went to the website. The following is gut feeling only no hard facts, but my BS meter is ringing loud. Particularly the vaugeness of the type of equipment and the listing of accolades about the person associated with them that is a specalist in Radiation Physics.

Perhaps the frequent donate icons have something to do with it ?:rolleyes:

NukemJim

TamThompson
February 10, 2006, 10:27 PM
Story on Fox last night about our Texas Guv Rick Perry taking action on his own by creating some sort of special force to do something. He's gotten so much heat from out-gunned, out-manned south Texas deputies, and there's been so much press on firefights, he had to do something. Link: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3649256.html

Dammit, I KNEW we were gonna have to do this ourselves...

Sindawe
February 10, 2006, 10:40 PM
Its bad enough that those charged with defending this nations borders sit on their hands and do nothing, now an agent of the Dallas School Board wants the hire ILLEGAL ALIENS to teach bilingual classes! :fire: :fire: :fire: Illegal educators for hire?

Hurdle in using these bilingual teachers: U.S. law prohibits it


11:56 AM CST on Tuesday, February 7, 2006

By TAWNELL D. HOBBS / The Dallas Morning News

Dallas' school district has a shortage of bilingual teachers.

DISD trustee Joe May knows where he can find a lot of people who speak Spanish fluently and are already in the country. And he'd like to put them to work.

But there's at least one big hurdle: The school district cannot knowingly hire illegal immigrants because it's against federal law.

Mr. May wants to amend that so the district can hire illegal immigrants who are college-educated and can qualify for the district's emergency teaching certification program. The issue will be discussed at the school board's policy briefing today.

Mr. May believes that amending the law would help alleviate a shortage of bilingual teachers. DISD hopes to fill more than 400 bilingual teaching positions next school year.

"We're paying for DISD people to go over" to other countries to recruit bilingual teachers, Mr. May said. "It makes sense if we set up shop over here. We can build an employment base in our own market."

Some Dallas Independent School District trustees said they look forward to discussing the issue while others are treading cautiously. The district's attorneys will also participate in the discussion at today's meeting.

"I'm open to listening to the legal points they might make," trustee Hollis Brashear said. "But I don't know if we can discuss something that involves not complying with U.S. law."

Trustee Jerome Garza said it's an interesting topic that should be discussed.

"We as trustees can no longer solve problems like we did 10 years ago," Mr. Garza said. "We have to be innovative."

For Mr. May, no idea is too far-fetched. Last year, he successfully pushed a proposal, initially greeted with considerable skepticism, that requires some principals to become bilingual. The issue divided blacks and Hispanics and received nationwide attention.

DISD Superintendent Michael Hinojosa said Mr. May's kind of grass-roots effort is how laws are changed. He said the hiring proposal is something he could support as long as it's done legally.

Dr. Hinojosa said he empathizes with young children who enter the U.S. illegally with their parents and find their job prospects limited in adulthood.

"It wasn't their fault they were brought here," Dr. Hinojosa said. "Their parents brought them."

But the proposal may become, even briefly, a lightning rod for the national debate over illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants number in the millions. A temporary worker plan proposed by President Bush recently has come under fire. The plan would grant visas to many undocumented immigrants, in hopes that it would stem the tide of people entering the U.S. illegally to work. It would also allow law enforcement to focus more on homeland defense.

Federal officials responded Monday to questions about Mr. May's proposal by reciting the current law.

"It's illegal to knowingly hire or continue to employ illegal aliens," said Carl Rusnok, regional communications director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "Unless you're in this country legally, it's illegal for you to work."

Under federal law, employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers face criminal prosecution and substantial fines.

Some districts, including DISD, go abroad to recruit bilingual teachers and help applicants obtain their work visas.

But getting a work visa isn't an option for illegal immigrants already here, said Maria Elena Garcia-Upson, regional communications manager for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

"While we empathize and sympathize with these individuals, there is an orderly fashion in which one can immigrate to this country," Ms. Garcia-Upson said.

John Keeley, director of communications for the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonprofit group that seeks to have fewer immigrants in the U.S., said Mr. May's proposal sends the wrong message to students.

"Within the education community, you expect a higher degree for the rule of the law," he said.

But Joe Campos, executive manager of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said DISD should push to get the residency requirement waived.

"They can be good productive citizens," Mr. Campos said. "Why not give them the opportunity?"

Mr. May believes it's time to change laws to address illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for years.

"They're basically American people when you get down to it," he said.

E-mail tdhobbs@dallasnews.com

Source: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/020706dnmetillegalhire.e370b4.html

Registration required to view.

What a bunch of...<deep breath> NOPE, not goona violate the Art's Grandma rule, even in another language.

Biker
February 10, 2006, 10:45 PM
It's a real good thing that Art's Grandma can't read minds.:mad:
Biker

Standing Wolf
February 10, 2006, 11:17 PM
"We as trustees can no longer solve problems like we did 10 years ago," Mr. Garza said. "We have to be innovative."

Why solve problems when you can contribute to them? Seems like a perfectly sensible use of the tax payers' dollars.

taliv
February 10, 2006, 11:42 PM
i think we all know it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

ceetee
February 11, 2006, 12:43 AM
Mr. Wooldridge surfaces lots of blame but few new ideas for border security.



One quick note, C.D.

It's not our job to solve problems like that. We hire folks to do that for us. If we're real careful in our hiring practices, we hire folks that are smarter than we are, and everything works like it should. Lately is seems like we've been getting lax in our interview process.

Our job is to work, and produce, and pay taxes, so the folks we hire have ample cash with which to solve our problems. That cash isn't really supposed to be used to solve other nations' problems, but hey; whatcha gonna do?

cbsbyte
February 11, 2006, 12:52 AM
MS-13 and high ranking al Queda leaders meeting? Food for thought..

www.rense.com/general69/wws.htm

Biker
Sounds like more right wing propganda to me. I don't believe there is a boarder problem. Yes, there is an illegal problem but that can be controlled my giving them visas to stay in the country.

Waitone
February 11, 2006, 02:51 AM
We have a major problem with borders. We have an even larger problem with out elected officials not beholding to those who elected them. Instead our elected officials are beholding to those who fund them. Never in my active political life have I ever seen such a deep divide between the taxpaying class and the ruling class. We have politicans who thump their tubs about have a mandate when they get 4 percentage point ahead of the opposition. With illegal border crossing the numbers are like 60 percentage points difference. So if 4 points is a mandate what do you call 60 points? It is clear to me this is one area where the ruling class has decided to overrule the voters and the taxpaying class.

I would love to know the reason for selling out our country. I can postulate any number of theories but they are just that, theories. Someone on the inside will have to have a fit of conscious and 'fess up.

RealGun
February 11, 2006, 08:34 AM
Don't we have to confront that persistent threads about illegal immigration have no gun connection and would be related to civil liberties only by a deliberate abstraction, justifying a popular topic? I am weary of reading through threads that have nothing to do with guns or a reason for subscribing to THR. There are plenty of other venues for ragging on the administration on other issues.

wingman
February 11, 2006, 09:04 AM
I believe it does relate to our freedom which makes it as important as the gun issue. Not trying to be rude but when I see threads I have no interest
in I simply click and move.

PCGS65
February 11, 2006, 09:12 AM
But there's at least one big hurdle: The school district cannot knowingly hire illegal immigrants because it's against federal law.

Well just say we didn't know they were illegals!!!
Dr. Hinojosa said he empathizes with young children who enter the U.S. illegally with their parents and find their job prospects limited in adulthood.
"It wasn't their fault they were brought here," Dr. Hinojosa said. "Their parents brought them."
:barf: Send them all back!! End of problem!!
"It's illegal to knowingly hire or continue to employ illegal aliens," said Carl Rusnok, regional communications director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "Unless you're in this country legally, it's illegal for you to work." Under federal law, employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers face criminal prosecution and substantial fines.
We need to start enforcing the laws we already have. Instead of concentrating our efforts on how to get around the laws!! Then hold people responsible for not enforcing the law!! You know dereliction of duty!:barf:
"They can be good productive citizens," Mr. Campos said. "Why not give them the opportunity?"
Mr. May believes it's time to change laws to address illegal immigrants who have been in the U.S. for years.
"They're basically American people when you get down to it," he said. Charge them with one count of illegal immigration for every day they're in this country illegally instead of saying "the longer you break the law the better"?:barf: What is this reverse statute of limitations? If you break the law for 7 years your immune from prosecution?:barf:
This Mr. May guy seems to be an accessory to illegal immigration.
One simple solution, if you can't speak english go to mexico for your education. That's not illegal.:cuss:

Biker
February 11, 2006, 10:07 AM
Don't we have to confront that persistent threads about illegal immigration have no gun connection and would be related to civil liberties only by a deliberate abstraction, justifying a popular topic? I am weary of reading through threads that have nothing to do with guns or a reason for subscribing to THR. There are plenty of other venues for ragging on the administration on other issues.
This article is more about national security than illegal immigration, although the two issues are itnertwined. Remember? MS-13? Al Queada? Wmd? Open borders?
Biker

Manedwolf
February 11, 2006, 10:14 AM
Don't we have to confront that persistent threads about illegal immigration have no gun connection and would be related to civil liberties only by a deliberate abstraction, justifying a popular topic? I am weary of reading through threads that have nothing to do with guns or a reason for subscribing to THR. There are plenty of other venues for ragging on the administration on other issues.

Or perhaps it's just that this is an issue that it's very hard to swallow that the administration IS turning a blind eye to, (or worse, being permissive about) and you don't wanna see it? ;)

And I think it's relevant, being that ARMED incursions across the border have happened, and that some of the border-watcher groups might find themselves fired upon one of these days.

What happens if they have to return fire? Will they be charged with felonies? Will Jorge blame an "international incident" on the minutemen he calls "vigilantes" so as to appease those to the south? Serious questions.

RealGun
February 11, 2006, 11:04 AM
Will Jorge blame an "international incident" on the minutemen he calls "vigilantes" so as to appease those to the south? Serious questions.

And there you have it. It is fundamentally a Bush bashing topic, plowing the same ground over and over again. I am not raising the question to divert attention from criticizing the President's policies. I am holding mods to their word that the forum would get cleaned up. I then expect that threads in which I have to invest time in reading will be about guns or civil liberties and not by the thinnest of connections. By being good to their word, mods can justify summarily closing threads without appearing arbitrary.

Biker
February 11, 2006, 11:18 AM
Well Friend, you don't "have to invest time in reading" this or any other thread that you don't like. I don't get it. If a certain thread aggravates you, why keep going back to it?:scrutiny:

Anyway, this thread is relevant to civil liberties and gun issues on a number of levels. Sorry ya don't agree, but then again, you really don't have to just as you don't have to click on it.
Care to comment on the issue?
Biker;)

RealGun
February 11, 2006, 11:24 AM
Well Friend, you don't "have to invest time in reading" this or any other thread that you don't like. I don't get it. If a certain thread aggravates you, why keep going back to it?:scrutiny:

Anyway, this thread is relevant to civil liberties and gun issues on a number of levels. Sorry ya don't agree, but then again, you really don't have to just as you don't have to click on it.
Care to comment on the issue?
Biker;)

The flaming always ignores that reading through new threads should reveal some content relating to guns or civil liberties. I am going to read it at least once, and if commenting will be subscribed to the thread. I don't "keep coming back to it". I get email with copies of new posts.

Manedwolf
February 11, 2006, 11:30 AM
And there you have it. It is fundamentally a Bush bashing topic, plowing the same ground over and over again. I am not raising the question to divert attention from criticizing the President's policies. I am holding mods to their word that the forum would get cleaned up. I then expect that threads in which I have to invest time in reading will be about guns or civil liberties and not by the thinnest of connections. By being good to their word, mods can justify summarily closing threads without appearing arbitrary.

And what if those policies directly affect civil liberties and the possible use of firearms by armed civilians in defense of the nation, as this case entails?

How about an answer or an opinion, instead of just "la la la make this issue go under the rug I don't want to see it exists?"

The problem DOES exist, and it IS the administration's issue. We've had an armed incursion across our borders. Several. And besides calling the minutemen "vigilanties", this has been the response from the administration:

....
....
*sound of crickets*


So what happens when and if a firefight does happen between invading troops or whatever they are and some of the minutemen?

Biker
February 11, 2006, 11:31 AM
One of my biggest worries is that a WMD will make it into the country and be used, thereby setting us all up for possible martial law and/or, at the minimum, give the powers that be an excuse to strengthen the Patriot Act. How do you propose that we prevent WMD from making it across either of our borders?
Biker

NIGHTWATCH
February 11, 2006, 11:35 AM
If you keep voting the two party line, expect the interests of World Government to prevail. Not the interests, sovereignty and liberties of the American people.

Maybe not today but ten years from now, the cost of advancing the neo-conserative agenda and compromise will be evident , if not already....all in the name of prosperity and safety. Aka ~ Big Unconstitutional Government.

RealGun
February 11, 2006, 11:47 AM
How do you propose that we prevent WMD from making it across either of our borders?
Biker

I would stop making the argument about resenting little brown people who don't speak English. How many times do we have to say we don't like tax dollars being used to support them? Of course we don't. I would not subscribe to an attempt to make it about terrorism unless that was the only issue discussed. Even then, terrorism as we know it within our borders is not about guns either, at least not yet.

How many times do we have to say we don't like the Patriot Act or McCain-Feingold? I suggest we take it down a notch until evidence of abuse is actually identified. Take away all the venom spitting and there isn't much substance in these threads.

I am very much in favor of controlling our borders. I just don't need to talk about it on a gun board with topical guidelines. I don't need gun-toting peers to be empathetic with my point of view. I can find empathy for border control most anywhere.

Biker
February 11, 2006, 11:53 AM
Okay, I just had a Miss Cleo moment....I can sense your aggravation!
Seriously RealGun, can you answer my question? It's a valid one, I believe.
Biker:)

PCGS65
February 11, 2006, 12:04 PM
Biker,Manedwolf I would be more inclined to join in on constructive conversation about serious issues such as this. As I posted earlier in this thread and realgun mentioned, it too often turns into a Bush bashing conversation. I think we should concentrate on a cure and not opionated causes.
Now I think some type of fence. Though expensive, concrete would be good. Any type of wire could be breached too easily. We also have a river to help. Then we need manpower lots of manpower again very costly. This I doubt but help from the mexican government with patrols would help, but they are the cause.
The northern border? A different story because of densely wooded areas.
I think we all have to realize that it's impossible to prevent all "invasion" into this country. The east and west coasts are potential entry palces by water in sparsly populated areas.

Biker
February 11, 2006, 12:21 PM
Well, I can only speak for myself, but I'll certainly avoid Bush bashing, although he is certainly a part of the debate, on both sides.
What I fail to understand is, if the Pols as a whole are truly concerned about Homeland Security, why are they ignoring such a gaping hole in our defenses?
Using the sites in my sig, we can send free faxes to our local and national Pols, Dem and Repub, and flat out tell 'em - You'll lose my vote if you don't secure the borders.
I really don't want to wait until a dirty bomb goes off in Dallas, or a load of Sarin is released in a NYC subway.
By securing the borders, we get a handle on illegal immigration *and* make smuggling WMD into the US a more difficult proposition.
Build that wall. The cost will be largely offset by the savings we'll realize from not paying out govt benefits and we just might save a lot of American lives in the process.
Get ICE moving. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were here on expired visas. It's a daunting task to check on millions of visa holders, but to ignore it is to risk another 3000 American lives.
Deport violators regardless of nationality.
Get rid of the santuary laws in cities such as LA and NYC that prevents LE from shaking down gang members such as MS-13, even when they know that they're here illegaly.
This would be a good start.
Biker

longeyes
February 11, 2006, 12:31 PM
I would stop making the argument about resenting little brown people who don't speak English. How many times do we have to say we don't like tax dollars being used to support them? Of course we don't. I would not subscribe to an attempt to make it about terrorism unless that was the only issue discussed. Even then, terrorism as we know it within our borders is not about guns either, at least not yet.

How many times do we have to say we don't like the Patriot Act or McCain-Feingold? I suggest we take it down a notch until evidence of abuse is actually identified. Take away all the venom spitting and there isn't much substance in these threads.

I am very much in favor of controlling our borders. I just don't need to talk about it on a gun board with topical guidelines. I don't need gun-toting peers to be empathetic with my point of view. I can find empathy for border control most anywhere.


This sub-forum is called "Legal & Political." It's not about which caliber fells the goblin faster; you've got numerous other sub-forums to explore your strictly hobbyist interests.

"Guns" and RKBA are about values and culture. Those of us who frequent this forum understand that our liberties are indissolubly entwined with our ability as free people to defend ourselves and our nation and our essential rights.

If we rattle on about Mexico and illegal immigration it is because what is going on at the border is having a dramatic effect on the future of this society in many ways. It's not about whether we will end up having to "shoot back," it's about how the changes in our culture will affect the basic tenor of America and the rights we cherish, including, of course, RKBA. It is the view of many of us that illegal immigration is a wedge for a future socialist America and an integral part of the grand globalist scheme to transform the U.S.A. into just another FedEx shipping address.

RealGun
February 11, 2006, 12:33 PM
How about an answer or an opinion, instead of just "la la la make this issue go under the rug I don't want to see it exists?"

That is not High Road. I never said that. Your inference is your own.

Biker
February 11, 2006, 12:37 PM
Well RealGun, it's obvious that you're trying to get this one shut down. Really, if you don't care to participate, why don't you just un-subscribe?
Failing that, comment on some solutions to the problem?
Biker

longeyes
February 11, 2006, 12:40 PM
Those who don't like the topic should "change the channel" rather than trying to get threads closed down.

Just my opinion.

Biker
February 11, 2006, 12:42 PM
Couldn't agree more, longeyes.
Biker

RealGun
February 11, 2006, 12:54 PM
Okay, I just had a Miss Cleo moment....I can sense your aggravation!
Seriously RealGun, can you answer my question? It's a valid one, I believe.
Biker:)

It can't be done as a border issue, at least not with any political correctness or with a tax burden that anyone would want to finance. We don't shoot or otherwise kill men, women, and children caught in a no man's land, moving in either direction under a policy agreed to by both governments. A Berlin Wall, whether physical or technological is not going to happen, certainly not on that scale and not in an American environment. I do think satellite surveilance has a lot to offer, at least in daylight hours, but it confuses the issue of who it is you are trying to stop.

What we can do is make it very difficult to move WMD once in the country, the same as we would treat criminal citizens. We can also make it quite difficult to operate here without evidence of being here legally or of citizenship.

So, I don't think a concern for WMD justifies a continous discussion of border control. What people really care about is the tax burden and other economic consequences of allowing illegal immigration in great numbers. Some also are concerned about cultural consequences, whether out of bigotry or well founded reasoning. Those dimensions don't need to be discussed on a gun forum.

RealGun
February 11, 2006, 12:55 PM
Well RealGun, it's obvious that you're trying to get this one shut down. Really, if you don't care to participate, why don't you just un-subscribe?
Failing that, comment on some solutions to the problem?
Biker

I can't "unsubscribe" if I am going to honor your direct questions.

Biker
February 11, 2006, 01:09 PM
RealGun

a)It can be done as a border issue. PCness be damned. As I mentioned previously, the cost of the wall would be offset by the savings resulting from paying out various benefits to illegals that the taxpayer would normally incur.

b) I'm not advocating the shooting of women and children now, or ever.

c) There is no issue of who we're trying to stop. We're trying to stop *everyone* attempting to enter illegaly.

d) It would be much easier to prevent the WMD from entering the country rather than trying to restrict movement after, don't you think?

Biker

longeyes
February 11, 2006, 01:24 PM
So, I don't think a concern for WMD justifies a continous discussion of border control. What people really care about is the tax burden and other economic consequences of allowing illegal immigration in great numbers. Some also are concerned about cultural consequences, whether out of bigotry or well founded reasoning. Those dimensions don't need to be discussed on a gun forum.

Yeah, they can--read my last post. The connection between RKBA and core American values is total.

You see RKBA in Mexico?

Frankly, I resent your arrogating to yourself what needs to be discussed or not discussed within this sub-forum. Guns are an extension of the mind, of values, not a variety of fetishism.

CAnnoneer
February 11, 2006, 01:47 PM
It can't be done as a border issue, at least not with any political correctness or with a tax burden that anyone would want to finance. We don't shoot or otherwise kill men, women, and children caught in a no man's land, moving in either direction under a policy agreed to by both governments.

It does not need to involve shooting the illegals. If you arrest the coyotes and imprison them in their own countries with long long sentences, you will see a precipitous drop in the problem, because crossing through unknown desert without a guide would now be many times more perilous for Random Jorge. And this is just one of the simplest things that can be done at the border. Also consider the dramatic effect the San Diego wall has had on illegal crossing numbers. So, a physical wall works just fine.

People worrying about associated tax burden is a poor argument taking into account this admin's taxing policies and spending habits. Every year they spend 80+ billion in Iraq, arguing this is for our own security. It is a laughable argument then that they are too pressed financially to spend a few billion for a physical permanent wall with very simple monitoring system of buried microphones.

What is going on here is a disgraceful tacit treason by purposeful misgovernance and neglect. The admin's silence and inaction on the issue are deafening.

Finally, if that is what the ruling class does today, RKBA is not for long in this country. We are engaged in a power struggle with a most pernicious domestic enemy, whether you admit it or not.

PCGS65
February 11, 2006, 01:52 PM
RealGun,Biker,Longeyes I think no matter what we build along the border there will be shooting. Realgun says a berlin style wall will not be reasonable and I have to agree. Even though I suggested it earlier. I think it would be better than nothing. But what/how do we stop people willing to die to cross the border? Is life that bad over there? I can see terrorists doing what ever it takes to "get" us. Because that's what they do.
Well it's lunch time guys.

Biker
February 11, 2006, 01:58 PM
I agree, there will be shooting. Hell, there already has been and it will only get worse. However, I'm not suggesting, as RealGun intimated, that we start plugging women and children. The wall would help a lot, and if people die trying to cross the border, that is a personal choice, I think.
Although the Ts are resourceful, might as well make it as difficult for them as we can, yes? No need to put out a welcome mat.:)
Biker

Manedwolf
February 11, 2006, 03:57 PM
I agree, there will be shooting. Hell, there already has been and it will only get worse. However, I'm not suggesting, as RealGun intimated, that we start plugging women and children. The wall would help a lot, and if people die trying to cross the border, that is a personal choice, I think.
Although the Ts are resourceful, might as well make it as difficult for them as we can, yes? No need to put out a welcome mat.:)
Biker

And my two cents is that deterrence to illegal immigration HAS to come from the top, otherwise they'll keep on trying. Think about it. Of these two strategies, which would deter people from coming in?

1. If you manage to get in, you are IMMEDIATELY sent back, no chance at immigration, no greencard, no nothing. If you worked illegally here, your assets are forfeit. You'll just have wasted your money you spent on the coyote to sneak in with, you'll be sent back penniless and at the mercy of the federales.

2. Wellll...immigration is illegal, yeah, but if you manage to get in, we won't be too harsh on you, and even if you're here illegally, no questions asked, you might be able to get handout benefits or a green card.

The administration has chosen the latter. There IS NO DETERRENT. So they keep coming, and coming, and significant dangers could lurk among the sneaking-across crowds. This IS a problem the administration could do something about with a wave of a pen.

But they won't.

Why? Does cheap labor really override national security? And if so, why aren't people angry about it?

Biker
February 11, 2006, 04:05 PM
'Fraid ya won't get an argument from me. Lets start faxing these self serving bastids, eh?:)
*whispers*
In the sig....
Biker

PCGS65
February 11, 2006, 04:16 PM
byManedwolfThe administration has chosen the latter. There IS NO DETERRENT. So they keep coming, and coming, and significant dangers could lurk among the sneaking-across crowds. This IS a problem the administration could do something about with a wave of a pen.

There has been no deterrent for a very long time.
Wave of a pen? Not quite so easy. Congress has to pass legislation(a plan)along with funding. But they're not going to do that because they want their vote.
A serious problem, you bet cha!!!!!!!!:cuss:

Waitone
February 11, 2006, 04:26 PM
Sorry I'm late to the food fight. IMNSHO illegal border crossing and the 2nd amendment are closely related. I got into the SA fight because it was apparent to me strategies and tactics to limit my civil liberties were tested and improved in fighting against RKBA. The SA and illegal border crossing provides only one such example.

During Clinton's administration Reno and Clinton were forever on TV and in print bemoaning the lack of laws designed to curb "gun violence" (whatever that means). The duo was forever asking for new laws, new restrictions, new prosecutors. . .all designed to give the impression "gun violence" was out of control and needed drastic action. The whistle was eventually blown on Clinton by LaPierre when on national TV he said it is evident the President of the US was willing to accept a certain level of violence BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ENFORCING EXISTING LAWS while demanding the passage of additional laws. LaPierre's one visit on TV changed the dynamic of the whole gun debate in the US.

Shift attention for the moment to illegal border crossing and you will see precisely the same elements in play. The current duo or trio is asking for new laws, new restrictions, new prosecutors because IBC is out of control. It is clear the president of the US is willing to accept a certain level of illegal immigration BECAUSE HE IS NOT ENFORCING EXISTING LAWS while demanding passage of additional laws. The Minuteman's visit on the border April of last year change the dynamic of the whole IBC debate in the US.

I will postulate another tactic which I guaran-durn-tee you will show up in the 2nd amendment wars is being used quite successfully in IBC wars. The major tactic being employed is for the federales and state government to simply ignore law if either disagrees with for find inconvenient to enforce. Once government accepts it as legitimate policy to ignore laws with which it disagrees, it is just a small logical step to conclude government can begin to enforce laws that don't exist.

In other words government finally and in public says it knows what is best and to hell with constitutional restrictions, social contracts, etc. Just plain old raw power. Permit me to cast a different light on the recent wire surveillance flap. I will grant that I don't like the elements of the story which the media has presented to me. I will also state the FISA law may well be unconstitutional. I will furthermore add it is beginning to look like provisions of the FISA law are just not realistic expectations in our current war on islamofascist terrormongers, ignoring for the moment constitutional issues. And finally it is beginning to look more and more the current administration, when faced with the foregoing, simply said, "Screw it, just do it. We disagree with limitations on the president's war making authorities and it sure is inconvenient to waste resources going for FISA notification after the fact because the workload to so high."

What is to prevent the next president from applying precisely same logic to the next War on Gun Trafficing once the US signs on to the UN's agenda?

Biker
February 11, 2006, 04:29 PM
Well said, Waitone. An angle that is not readily apparant to many.
Biker

Moondoggie
February 11, 2006, 04:29 PM
I wrote letters to all three of my elected "Representatives" telling them that stopping illegal immigration was my number 1 issue.

I told them that I was paying attention to their positions/statements/votes and that MY vote would be cast accordingly.

I got a reply from one Senator, Ben Nelson, who said that he would be introducing a bill to YADA, Yada, yada......he hasn't done a thing in over 6 months.

I'd really like to know the real reason why TPTB won't put a stop to this...there's got to be more to it than not peeing in the Cheerio's of big campaign contributors or losing the Hispanic vote.

PCGS65
February 11, 2006, 04:50 PM
by Moondoggie I'd really like to know the real reason why TPTB won't put a stop to this...there's got to be more to it than not peeing in the Cheerio's of big campaign contributors or losing the Hispanic vote.

Well another scenario that's possible but not popular is with the baby boomers retiring now and SS on the verge of bankruptcy. The gov needs more "income" NOW not when the population evens out between people paying taxes and people collecting SS. So let young immigrants come to work and pay taxes to fill the gap.
Now they don't have to do anything about illegals, thus keeping the votes, saving money by not building a "fence". Keeping corporate america happy with cheap labor. Then bringing in more revenue all without doing nothing. That's the way they like to operate.:fire:

wolf
February 11, 2006, 04:51 PM
"they are just doing jobs Americans wont do"
"no one is illegal"

2016...the new democratic president of the United States has announced officially that the southern border has been erased completely! This will end the bloody border war that began to erupt in late 1990's..

the presidents of mexico and ALL central and south american countries have pledged an orderly..safe & legal exodus of millions of their citizens into the United States each year in exchange for cooperation in the southern border security agreement that fights against terrorism and the "remains" of the militant drug cartels that still have some major positions on both sides of the border..the administration sees the total elimination of such cartels as soon as major legislation is passed to decriminalize drug use of any kind.

protests by militant vigilante Americans have mostly ceased on border towns and at the white house & capital building since these activities have been classified as "hate activities" and many participants have been incarcerated for the minimum penalty of ten years and fines that could be in the millions.

the ACLU and civil rights groups applaud the current direction of the administration and remind the newly arriving immigrants..they are automatic citizens of the United States and have every right to be in this country

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

of course the above is just wolf going a bit on the deep end...aint it..?? it could never happen..

so there really is no need to discuss illegal immigration/border issues on a gun forum..is there...because no one here cares about such silly matters..

now...

is the 9mm better than the .45...

wolf

Waitone
February 11, 2006, 05:08 PM
16...the new democratic president of the United States has announced officially that the southern border has been erased completely! This will end the bloody border war that began to erupt in late 1990's..According to The North American Community published by the Council on Foreign Relations the start up date is 2010 should all go well in the US.

Biker
February 11, 2006, 05:10 PM
Well Wolf, the 9mm *is* better than a .45...if you don't have a .45...:neener:
Biker

PCGS65
February 11, 2006, 05:20 PM
Well Wolf, the 9mm *is* better than a .45...if you don't have a .45...:neener:
Biker
biker Your killing me!!!Einstein would be proud of you.:)
I was thinking the 9mm would be better if it were the .357. Then you could shoot .38 &.38spl and 9mm ;)

Biker
February 11, 2006, 05:25 PM
Me 'n Eensteen have a lot in common - we're both pretty much brain dead.:cool:
Biker

longeyes
February 11, 2006, 06:24 PM
I'm in agreement with Waitone: the Big Mo of increasing tolerance of lawlessness, starting AT THE TOP, is something we all need to be aware of and fearful of.

I don't see our Government doing anything substantive to stop the influx. I don't see the general voting citizenry of the U.S. doing anything to protest either--not unless there is serious upheaval, a dramatic uptick in criminality or social disruption caused by crushing taxes, community insolvency, etc.

Thinking that we are going to "save" America from its spending addiction and consumerism by importing millions of unskilled and largely uneducated Latin Americans who are heavy users of expensive social services qualifies, in spades, as VOODOO ECONOMICS.

Illegal alienism is just one more symptom of big problems that ultimately come back to restoring values and honorable policies.

Kodiaz
February 11, 2006, 08:38 PM
I'm Hispanic, close the border. If they won't do it, let volunteers do it. Close it, any terrorist can walk across the border and blow up whatever they want. The wiretaps won't stop that.

If you enjoyed reading about "When The President Won't Protect Our Borders" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!