Vandals cut Minutemen's border fence


PDA






Desertdog
June 16, 2006, 03:33 PM
Vandals my butt. My reasons I say they weren't vandals is because the would have to go way out of their way to get to it.
To me, they are trying to sabotage the fence project.:cuss:

Vandals cut Minutemen's border fence
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=5039295

It's been less than a month since Minutemen volunteers began building a 10-mile border fence along the Arizona-Mexico border, but already it's been vandalized.
Carmen Mercer, with the Minutemen, says "I'm very upset. I'm really angry."

She goes on to say, "It took a lot of work from many volunteers and a lot of devotion and a lot of commitment over the Memorial Day weekend to get this far."

It's believed the fence was cut early Tuesday morning.

Since then, Minutemen volunteers have been standing watch, making sure nobody else crosses over and destroys any more of their fence.

Mercer says, "I'm assuming it's probably the illegal aliens who are trying to, probably, weaken us, but it's not going to work.

The Minutemen plan to fix the fence sometime next week.

If you enjoyed reading about "Vandals cut Minutemen's border fence" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Biker
June 16, 2006, 03:37 PM
Well, I guess that it's time for a 'Cut our fence we and shoot your water tank' program. Seems fair to me.

Biker

Charles S
June 16, 2006, 03:43 PM
Well, I guess that it's time for a 'Cut our fence we and shoot your water tank' program. Seems fair to me.

I agree.

Charles

AJAX22
June 16, 2006, 03:46 PM
Trespassing with intent to destroy private property is grounds for the use of deadly force in that neck of the country isn't it?

If they can't use force to prevent the destruction of property, what does it matter that they see the people doing it.

The fence could easily be torn down with a 4x4 and a chunk of heavy chain, the only real deterent is the guard who patrolls the line.

Shooting the barrels is a nicer solution than I would have done, Table salt is cheaper than most bullets.

GTSteve03
June 16, 2006, 03:48 PM
Well, I guess that it's time for a 'Cut our fence we and shoot your water tank' program. Seems fair to me.
This is a trap being orchestrated by someone higher up than a group of illegals.

They're planning on a violent response from the Minutemen and the second that happens they'll have the Minutemen carted off to one of those brand spankin' new "detention centers" just build by Halliburton from illegal labor profit. :barf:

Charles S
June 16, 2006, 03:52 PM
Shooting the barrels is a nicer solution than I would have done, Table salt is cheaper than most bullets.

Why gee....I was taking the water jugs home to refill them. We have got to keep clean water in the jugs.

Charles

Battler
June 16, 2006, 04:00 PM
Anyone involved with this border mess need to think really carefull about what he's doing.

Prevailing policy (note - not law - POLICY) of both countries is for people to keep crossing the border. The forces pushing it are doing it (at every level) for economic gain, minutemen types are not. Pros vs. amateurs.

And the amateurs' actions have legal repercussions against governments with whom they're unpopular. The "pros" can do their worst and flee back to friendly territory.

I heard tell of the anti-minutemen types in the US starting to stalk the minutemen's homes.

Everybody - be careful, stay legal and outta trouble.

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 04:05 PM
This is how wars start. With a few ugly little skirmishes that keep escalating.

If it's bogies "on our side" who are behind this and the ultimate agenda is to neutralize the troublesome Minutemen I advise them to think again. I hear seismic tremors in this Republic.

PinnedAndRecessed
June 16, 2006, 04:23 PM
Deleted in the interest of civility.

Cosmoline
June 16, 2006, 04:27 PM
No surprise there. A wall and minefield would be needed. Now that GW has announced amnesty plans, it's Katie bar the door. Everyone and their brother is trying to plant their behinds stateside so they can get in on the gravy. Our President is nothing less than a traitor.

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 04:31 PM
Anyone involved with this border mess need to think really carefull about what he's doing.

Prevailing policy (note - not law - POLICY) of both countries is for people to keep crossing the border. The forces pushing it are doing it (at every level) for economic gain, minutemen types are not. Pros vs. amateurs.

And the amateurs' actions have legal repercussions against governments with whom they're unpopular. The "pros" can do their worst and flee back to friendly territory.

I heard tell of the anti-minutemen types in the US starting to stalk the minutemen's homes.

Everybody - be careful, stay legal and outta trouble.


Let's be upfront about this: We're in the early stages of a civil war. The only real issue is whether the civil war is between illegal aliens and citizens or citizens and an illegal alien-enabling government.

The trespassers and squatters have decided they are "entitled." A lot of us say they aren't.

Sgt Stevo
June 16, 2006, 04:33 PM
This is already a war. If armed troops cross the DMZ in Korea, they are shot.

If they do it here, our gov denies it happened. there is also links between illegal smugglers and our enemys in the middle east.

The border patrol is constantly in danger. I have friend from the old days that is doing the mil side of the house down there.

He said it is as sketchy as the Stans. There cars have been trashed. And he hears shots from the other side of the border.

How do I join the Minutemen by the way?

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 04:42 PM
http://www.minutemanhq.com/

Cosmoline
June 16, 2006, 04:50 PM
The only real hope is that enough of the RINO scum who support these bills (esp in the Senate) are booted out in the primary elections to send a clear message.

crazed_ss
June 16, 2006, 04:53 PM
hahaha.. so much for the fence idea. All this crap is symbolic anyway.. The Minutemen build a fence to stop illegals. Someone destroys the fence to show how futile a fence is. Fences are easy to defeat.. you can go over them, around them, or straight through them.

Sindawe
June 16, 2006, 05:12 PM
Fences are easy to defeat.. you can go over them, around them, or straight through them. This true for fences that have no one manning watch points on them.... :fire:

wingnutx
June 16, 2006, 05:39 PM
Trespassing with intent to destroy private property is grounds for the use of deadly force in that neck of the country isn't it?

No. Burglary yes, but you cannot use deadly force for mere trespassing.

This is according to the CCW class that I took 2 weeks ago.

ball3006
June 16, 2006, 06:01 PM
cutting fences and crossing property at night in Texas..........chris3

bg
June 16, 2006, 06:02 PM
shoot your water tank' program. Seems fair to me.
I had read just a few days ago that that was
exactly what was happening regarding the water
tanks. Be interesting if there was a process to
electrify that fence in such a way so if there is
a break in the series at whatever breached point,
a small explosive would discharge leaving any
around it covered in bright florescent ink stains
mixed with skunk urine..

One way to find em, but I admit it's not The High
Road way. One must make sure though the ink
would be bio degradable. No sense in messing up
the pretty desert's high and low areas.

cavman
June 16, 2006, 06:24 PM
Chris Simcox , Minute man founder, is on Fox and stronly suggesting Border Agents cut the wire! as they had access to the land and the footprints are same/similar to Border Agents.

Trying to get my head around this one.

Mannlicher
June 16, 2006, 06:26 PM
The only people that are endangering the lives of illegal immigrants are those that encourage them. I just can't dredge up any sympathy for those that are breaking our immigration laws, and even less for those Americans that are aiding and abetting that criminal effort. This is not a human rights issue.

joab
June 16, 2006, 06:47 PM
Let me get this straight they put up a fence to keep illegals out and are surprised that someone illegally destroyed it?

Who in their wildest imagination would figure that people who would tunnel under ground or wade through sewer systems to invade to invade another country or those that support people who commit these illegal acts would resort to cutting a fence.
And such a mighty and massive fence too.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/images/photos/ypsclaxl.jpg

Valkman
June 16, 2006, 07:38 PM
hahaha.. so much for the fence idea. All this crap is symbolic anyway.. The Minutemen build a fence to stop illegals. Someone destroys the fence to show how futile a fence is. Fences are easy to defeat.. you can go over them, around them, or straight through them.

They weren't near done, and they screwed up leaving it like that. A Minuteman guy on TV (same guy cavman is talking about) all but accused the Border Patrol of cutting the fence, saying only the BP and land owners had access to it. He said it also could have been set up to look like the BP did it.

Anyway, they should have got the other stuff up too like vehicle barriers and cameras which they're going to do now.

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 09:24 PM
When your President and allied forces, both political and commercial, clearly want open borders, it is no longer implausible to suspect "interference." The Minutemen represent a popular front that poses a threat to the consolidated power emanating from On High. "D.C." understands that very well. The power boys want that cheap labor; if the Minutemen get too obstreperous they will be taught a lesson to discourage them.

Standing Wolf
June 16, 2006, 10:23 PM
Mexico needs a revolution.

Zedicus
June 16, 2006, 10:41 PM
Mexico needs a revolution.

so do we sadly....

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 11:03 PM
Socrates on illegal immigration

By Victor Davis Hanson

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | After Socrates was convicted by a court of questionable charges, his friends planned to break him out of his jail in Athens. But the philosopher refused to flee. Instead, he insisted that a citizen who lived in a consensual society should not pick and choose which laws he finds convenient to obey.

Selective compliance, Socrates warned, would undermine the moral integrity of the entire legal system, ensuring anarchy. And so, as Plato tells us, the philosopher accepted the court's death sentence and drank the deadly hemlock.

Socrates' final lesson about the sanctity of the law is instructive now in our current debate over illegal immigration.

There are, of course, many objections to illegal immigration besides that it is against the law: Unlawful workers undermine the wages of our own citizen entry-level workers. Employers who depend on imported labor find common ground with ethnic chauvinists; they both exploit a large, vulnerable and unassimilated constituency. And security analysts warn us that it is insane to allow a 2,000-mile open border at a time when terrorist infiltrators are planning to kill us.

Yet few have criticized illegal immigration solely because millions have, with impunity, flouted the law — aliens, their employers and the officials who look the other way.

But Socrates would do just that, and also point to our hypocrisy.

The alien from Mexico chooses which American laws he finds convenient. He wants our border police to leave him alone — until he becomes lost in the desert or is attacked by robbers.

The employer expects trespassing laws to be enforced to keep vagrants off his premises, but then assumes that the same vigilant police will ignore the illegal status of his cheap labor force.

And does the city council that orders its policemen not to turn over arrested illegal aliens to the border patrol similarly allow townspeople to ignore their municipal tax bills?

When thousands operate cars without state-mandated licenses and car insurance, why should other drivers bother to purchase them? If police pull over motorists and do not verify the legal status of aliens, why do they check for outstanding arrest warrants of citizens?



Ignoring the law is not only hypocritical and anarchical; it also creates cynicism. Recently, I listened to friends relate that the government had indicted some Indian immigrants on charges of arranging bogus marriages to gain citizenship. My friends half-jokingly wondered why the culprits hadn't simply flown to Mexico and tried to sneak across the border!

So, besides the money to be made on both sides of the border, why do we disregard the immigration laws?

Are the laws wrong and cruel, and even if they are, would it be moral to ignore them? The answers are no and no.

Employing illegal workers drives down the wages of the legal poor. Cutting ahead in the immigration line is unfair to immigrants who wait years to enter America legally. Mexico wants money from aliens to prop up its failures at home but cares little how such remittances burden poorer Mexican wage earners abroad. In other words, breaking the immigration law is not really civil disobedience but, typically, an expression of jaded self-interest by workers, employers and government officials.

Nevertheless, what distinguishes the U.S. from nations in the Middle East, Africa and, yes, Mexico is the sanctity of our legal system. The terrain of Mexico may be indistinguishable from the landscape across the border in the U.S. But when it comes to the law, there is a grand canyon between us.

Only on one side of the border is title to private property sacrosanct, are police held accountable and is banking conducted transparently. Public hiring in America is based on civil service law, and judges are autonomous. And the American public has a legal right to investigate and even sue its government. That maze of legality helps to explain everything from why the water is safer to drink in San Diego than in Tijuana to why a worker makes $12 an hour in Fresno but less than $1 in Oaxaca.

Yet once we as a nation choose to ignore our keystone laws of sovereignty and citizenship, the entire edifice of a once unimpeachable legal system will collapse. Ironically, we would then become no different from those nations whose citizens are now fleeing to our own shores to escape the wages of lawlessness.

That worry is why Socrates, 2,400 years ago, taught us that the deliberate violation of the rule of law would have been worse for ancient Athens even than losing its greatest philosopher.

mordechaianiliewicz
June 16, 2006, 11:23 PM
Although I think Socrates should have bolted, that's neither here nor there.

Look, minutemen are weekend warriors essentially. They cannot do what is necessary to defend the borders. It's simple as that. The fedgov has troops, divisions, men who can be payed to watch a field of sand all day and all night.

The government exists largely to defend the country. Defend the United States. Why, I would ask aren't troops on the border rfn?!

The answer is wealthy business interests. Companies that love the free market until they have a bad quarter.

Oh, wow, American workers want to be payed enough money to feed their children, and (shock and awe) actually buy the goods or services they make!

Can't have that.

Let's import cheap labor which can be dumped to their home countries if they decide they want the benefits of a higher paycheck, or another break during the day.

We'll sell it to actual Americans as "These are the jobs you won't do" and leave out the whole "for a slave wage." part.

Oh, and anyone that says to me, "Well, you are talking about socialism."

I will point out, the government and the corporations forming alliances to prop each other is not laissez faire. Business begging the government not to enforce it's own laws, or tighten laws already there with a view to cutting the cost of labor isn't the free market either.


P.S.

Oh, sorry for the rant

Biker
June 16, 2006, 11:31 PM
They are. Problem is, it's north of their border.

Biker

denfoote
June 16, 2006, 11:35 PM
Well, I guess that it's time for a 'Cut our fence we and shoot your water tank' program. Seems fair to me.


Here!! Here!!!

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 11:37 PM
Good one, Biker.

Capitalism in America: No better friend, no worse enemy. It ain't what it used to be.

It's not hard to imagine a future America where the CEOs of trans-national corporations become an endangered species.

joab
June 17, 2006, 12:14 AM
A Minuteman guy on TV (same guy cavman is talking about) all but accused the Border Patrol of cutting the fence, saying only the BP and land owners had access to it.I thought they were building fences in areas that illegals have access to.
Why would they build a fence to keep BP and landowners out?

Valkman
June 17, 2006, 02:34 AM
It's on private property that's being overrun by illegals. Since it's was cut in 19 places that kind of rules out illegals - they only need to cut it once!

Destructo6
June 17, 2006, 04:12 AM
They should have factored repairs into the expense of that border fence. It's going to be cut or damaged every day, if not multiple times per day. I'm a bit surprised it wasn't damaged earlier.

Saying that the fence being cut in multiple places rules out aliens is silly. An alien walking up to the fence will cut it wherever he encounters it, especially at night. He's not going to spend hours looking for a nice, existing hole. If you get 19 groups, you could easily have 19 cuts.

Zedicus
June 17, 2006, 04:45 AM
According to what I'm hearing through the grapevine the Minutemen are pretty certain it was BP but don't have anything Rock solid to prove it yet.

Old Fuff
June 17, 2006, 12:33 PM
Well this is one solution...

This would be funny if the situation wasn't so serious. We'll have to see if the folks in Washington sign on to the idea. :rolleyes:

Ranchers Add Ladders to Border Fences

FALFURRIAS, Texas - A few Texas ranchers tired of costly repairs to cattle fences damaged by illegal immigrants have installed an easier route over the U.S.-Mexican border - ladders.

"It's an attempt to get them to use the ladders instead of tearing the fences," said Scott Pattinson, who owns one of a group of ranches known as La Copa.

La Copa is just south of a U.S. Border Patrol highway checkpoint that went up 75 miles from the border several years ago, sending migrants through the brambly scrub of nearby ranches instead.

Some immigrants walk for hours or days to skirt the checkpoints in temperatures hovering around 100 degrees. Their feet have worn visible paths through a forest of cactus and mesquite otherwise thick enough to conceal them from Border Patrol helicopters overhead and agents only a few hundred yards away.

The paths lead from one ripped-down section of fencing to another. Texas ranches can be so large it could be days before owners notice the hole in the fence, long after the livestock possibly escapes.

Paul Johnson protects his 2,700-acre exotic game ranch of zebras, scimitar-horned oryx and wildebeests with about 10 miles of high wire fence, and joined his neighbors in placing ladders along the way.

But apparently some immigrants think the ladders are too good to be true.
"They ignore it a lot," Johnson said. "They're afraid that they're monitored by the Border Patrol."

Johnson plans to take the ladders down, worried about the message he's sending.

"I think what it does is give a signal that we are wanting them to cross there, don't mind the crossing, and that kind of magnifies the problem," he said.

Rancher Michael Vickers never liked the ladder idea and instead has ringed his fence with 220 volts of electricity.

"I've had a dose of it myself, it's not fun," he said. "That's just my attitude, why make it easier for them to trespass?"

http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20060617/44937e40_3421_13345200606171364854023

Biker
June 17, 2006, 12:35 PM
Vickers has the right attitude.

Biker

longeyes
June 17, 2006, 12:44 PM
Fences and walls have never been more than the first line of defense against assaults. Of course ramparts get breached. That's why you devise strategies to forcefully repel attackers and make the cost of invasion unpalatable. You don't temporarily detain people who scale your battlements, you eliminate them as a threat. What we are playing here is a child's game. When illegal immigration is viewed seriously and dealt with seriously, we will all know it.

Lambo
June 17, 2006, 12:47 PM
For anyone interested the MM now have Internet Forum http://forum.minutemanhq.com/phpBB2/index.php

Sgt Stevo
June 17, 2006, 09:29 PM
At least the MM are trying. I doubt the Border protrol cut the fence. Why? Is the Question.

The illegals can easily go around the fence. It is really wide open. When I was a kid, I got up on the northern Italy/commie yugo border.
the Yugo people would come into Italy to sell stuff at the flea markets. each one was checked in and out. They also had gun positions and lots of other stuff on both sides. It can be done.

Nehemiah Scudder
June 17, 2006, 09:33 PM
"News reporters cut the Minutemen fence so they would have something to write home about.


"If you don't get a good story by two hours from deadline, make one up.""

The same could be theoretically said of the Minutemen themselves. Haven't heard hardly anything about them lately, until this.

It's tough to say what happened.

Valkman
June 18, 2006, 04:35 AM
They should have factored repairs into the expense of that border fence. It's going to be cut or damaged every day, if not multiple times per day. I'm a bit surprised it wasn't damaged earlier.

Saying that the fence being cut in multiple places rules out aliens is silly. An alien walking up to the fence will cut it wherever he encounters it, especially at night. He's not going to spend hours looking for a nice, existing hole. If you get 19 groups, you could easily have 19 cuts.


Wow, if you say so. Of course you don't know it wasn't factored in since it isn't even done yet. They admitted (MM) they screwed up leaving the fence without cameras, vehicle barriers and the rest.

I guess you missed the part where the few that did it left bootprints "just like the Border Patrol wears". So unless those 19 groups all had the same boots on I'd say it wasn't so silly.

Desertdog
June 18, 2006, 12:01 PM
And of course there was no investigations by any law enforcement office, I presume.

joab
June 18, 2006, 12:12 PM
I guess you missed the part where the few that did it left bootprints "just like the Border Patrol wears"I did, could you post the link specifying the evidence against the BP

The Minutemen's vice president is blaming illegals.
The video showed no footprints around the cuts, seems like they would have if it added to the drama

cavman
June 18, 2006, 12:27 PM
I posted at #20, that I saw on the Fox News, Chris Cox, Minute man founder, who stated to the interviewer that the boot marks left around the fence were the same as those worn by the Border Patrol agents.

He also stated those who are aiding and abetting, came from our Side and that only BP agents and some ACLU types who are monitoring had access.

have a great day,
cavman

longeyes
June 18, 2006, 01:32 PM
If the BP's behind this, it will out; someone inside will spill the refried beans. And then we will be asking who Higher Up gave the orders.

Maybe it doesn't matter. I think most Americans who oppose illegal immigration already know that it's us versus the Feds on this issue and that our political leadership in D.C. has zero intention of doing anything constructive about this problem.

The border problem isn't at the border, it's on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Desertdog
June 18, 2006, 01:41 PM
Electrify, electrify, and electrify. :evil:

Edit: Use the electric fence apparatous, not the line voltage.

joab
June 19, 2006, 04:43 AM
Does BP issue footwear for their agents?

If so are these uncommon type shoes?

With all that wind blowing across sand could there really be discernable tread prints?

Why would the other news outlet, the one that actually filmed the cut fence, not show these one of a kind prints?

Is there some dissension in the ranks when the vice president blames illegals but some guy blames BP?

Is there a link to some type of credible evidence that these were BP specific boot prints, or is this merely speculation from someone surprised that four strands of wire will not keep anything but cows on their side of the fence?

wheelgunslinger
June 19, 2006, 09:23 AM
The fence is an expression of their desire to keep people out of that side of the fence.
The destruction of the fence is a statement of lack of respect for the rights of the people who put up the fence.

The fence, as ridiculous as it may be, add tangible malice and disregard to the actions of border crosser or whomever cut it.
So, the minutemen have an enemy. That's not exactly news.


But, I think that a lot of people are not getting that the minutemen aren't a bunch of bloodthirsty warmongers who want to snipe every brown person they see.
The fence is being put up to avoid loss of life, ill will, and maybe even a street level war between mexicans and Americans. And, when seen from that point of view, it becomes dumbfounding that someone would go and cut it, unless they were looking for a fight- which is the subtext of the erection of the fence. It's, almost literally, a line drawn in the sand.
But, borders are battle lines. They have always been thus. And, anyone who violates or disregards a nation's borders, or their attempt to secure it, can't say they don't have a long history on which to research the repurcussions of that action.

joab
June 19, 2006, 11:34 AM
it becomes dumbfounding that someone would go and cut it, unless they were looking for a fight- which is the subtext of the erection of the fence. It's, almost literally, a line drawn in the sand.And whenever you draw that line in the sand or dare the someone to knock that chip off your shoulder you'd better be prepared for the line to be crossed or the chip to be knocked off.
The fence was put up as a warning and it was cut as a response to that warning

Next step, the Triple Dog Dare

Biker
June 19, 2006, 11:37 AM
Is that before or after the Double D Dare?

Biker:)

Destructo6
June 19, 2006, 12:00 PM
I guess you missed the part where the few that did it left bootprints "just like the Border Patrol wears". So unless those 19 groups all had the same boots on I'd say it wasn't so silly.
The Border Patrol issues the Danner Acadia, using a pretty standard Vibram sole.

longeyes
June 19, 2006, 12:03 PM
Vandals, Visigoths, and Huns... These aren't petty thugs. Fences are not our future, folks.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15623
North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jun 19, 2006

The Bush Administration is pushing to create a North American Union out of the work on-going in the Department of Commerce under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in the NAFTA office headed by Geri Word. A key part of the plan is to expand the NAFTA tribunals into a North American Union court system that would have supremacy over all U.S. law, even over the U.S. Supreme Court, in any matter related to the trilateral political and economic integration of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Right now, Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement allows a private NAFTA foreign investor to sue the U.S. government if the investor believes a state or federal law damages the investor’s NAFTA business.

Under Chapter 11, NAFTA establishes a tribunal that conducts a behind closed-doors “trial” to decide the case according to the legal principals established by either the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes or the UN’s Commission for International Trade Law. If the decision is adverse to the U.S., the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer.

On Aug. 9, 2005, a three-member NAFTA tribunal dismissed a $970 million claim filed by Methanex Corp., a Canadian methanol producer challenging California laws that regulate against the gasoline additive MTBE. The additive MTBE was introduced into gasoline to reduce air pollution from motor vehicle emissions. California regulations restricted the use of MTBE after the additive was found to contaminate drinking water and produce a health hazard. Had the case been decided differently, California’s MTBE regulations would have been overturned and U.S. taxpayers forced to pay Methanex millions in damages.

While this case was decided favorably to U.S. laws, we can rest assured that sooner or later a U.S. law will be overruled by the NAFTA Chapter 11 adjudicative procedure, as long as the determinant law adjudicated by the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals continues to derive from World Court or UN law. Once a North American Union court structure is in place can almost certainly predict that a 2nd Amendment challenge to the right to bear arms is as inevitable under a North American Union court structure as is a challenge to our 1st Amendment free speech laws. Citizens of both Canada and Mexico cannot freely own firearms. Nor can Canadians or Mexicans speak out freely without worrying about “hate crimes” legislation or other political restrictions on what they may choose to say.

Like it or not, NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals already empower foreign NAFTA investors and corporations to challenge the sovereignty of U.S. law in the United States. Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been quoted as saying, “When we debated NAFTA, not a single word was uttered in discussing Chapter 11. Why? Because we didn’t know how this provision would play out. No one really knew just how high the stakes would get.” Again, we have abundant proof that Congress is unbelievably lax when it comes to something as fundamental as reading or understanding the complex laws our elected legislators typically pass.

Under the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) plan expressed in May 2005 for building NAFTA into a North American Union, the stakes are about to get even higher. A task force report titled “Building a North American Community” was written to provide a blueprint for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America agreement signed by President Bush in his meeting with President Fox and Canada’s then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005.

The CFR plan clearly calls for the establishment of a “permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution” as part of the new regional North American Union (NAU) governmental structure that is proposed to go into place in 2010. As the CFR report details on page 22:

The current NAFTA dispute-resolution process is founded on ad hoc panels that are not capable of building institutional memory or establishing precedent, may be subject to conflicts of interest, and are appointed by authorities who may have an incentive to delay a given proceeding. As demonstrated by the efficiency of the World Trade Organization (WTO) appeal process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage faster, more consistent and more predictable resolution of disputes. In addition, there is a need to review the workings of NAFTA’s dispute-settlement mechanism to make it more efficient, transparent, and effective.

Robert Pastor of American University, the vice chairman of the CFR task force report, provided much of the intellectual justification for the formation of the North American Union. He has repeatedly argued for the creation of a North American Union “Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment.” Pastor understands that a “permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” Notice, Pastor says nothing about U.S. business law or the U.S. Supreme Court. In the view of the globalists pushing toward the formation of the North American Union, the U.S. is a partisan nation-state whose limitations of economic protectionism and provincial self-interest are outdated and as such must be transcended, even if the price involves sacrificing U.S. national sovereignty.

When it comes to the question of illegal immigrants, Pastor’s solution is to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada so we can issue North American Union passports to all citizens. In his testimony to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 9, 2005, Pastor made this exact argument: “Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed though toll booths.”

Even Pastor worries about the potential for North American Unions to overturn U.S. laws that he likes. Regarding environmental laws, Pastor’s testimony to the Trilateral Commission in November 2002 was clear on this point: “Some narrowing or clarification of the scope of Chapter 11 panels on foreign investment is also needed to permit the erosion of environmental rules.” Evidently it did not occur to Pastor that the way to achieve the protection he sought was to leave the sovereignty of U.S. and the supremacy of the U.S. Supreme Court intact.

The executive branch under the Bush Administration is quietly putting in place a behind-the-scenes trilateral regulatory scheme, evidently without any direct congressional input, that should provide the rules by which any NAFTA or NAU court would examine when adjudicating NAU trade disputes. The June 2005 report by the SPP working groups organized in the U.S. Department of Commerce, clearly states the goal:

We will develop a trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework by 2007 to support and enhance existing, as well as encourage new cooperation among regulators, including at the outset of the regulatory process.

We wonder if the Bush Administration intends to present the Trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework now being constructed by SPP.gov to Congress for review in 2007, or will the administration simply continue along the path of knitting together the new NAU regional governmental structure behind closed doors by executive fiat? Ms. Word affirms that the membership of the various SPP working group committees has not been published. Nor have the many memorandums of understanding and other trilateral agreements created by these SPP working groups been published, not even on the Internet.

joab
June 20, 2006, 08:40 PM
Is that before or after the Double D Dare?OOPS I guess I deviated from protocol

vynx
June 20, 2006, 09:29 PM
Longeyes - I never heard of that chapter 11 stuff before - very dangerous if true. No other country or organization (NAFTA &/OR UN) should be above US Supreme Court.

But, couldn't we as Americans start a grassroots campaign and sue the Mexican Gov't? They must have a lot of stuff that we could sue over? Lets give the job to the lawyers that sued American Tobacco that should keep them busy for awhile.

longeyes
June 20, 2006, 09:38 PM
Our real problem is the U.S. Government, not the Mexican Government. If we had people protecting our interests here, they'd know how to handle "there."

longeyes
June 21, 2006, 02:06 PM
Newsmax, Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:50 p.m. EDT

Border Chief: Walls Not the Answer

Two weeks on the job, the new head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection said Tuesday he does not favor building a huge wall along the Mexican border.

"I don't support, I don't believe the administration supports a wall," Commissioner W. Ralph Basham said in Tucson, where he met with patrol officials and agents before embarking on a tour across the Arizona desert.

Asked about proposals in Senate- and House-approved immigration measures to build security walls 380 or 700 miles long, respectively, Basham said, "It doesn't make sense, it's not practical."

As Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano put it, "You build a 50-foot wall, somebody will find a 51-foot ladder," he said.

Fencing, including so-called smart fencing with imbedded sensors, vehicle barriers and lighting will be part of the infrastructure improvements needed, Basham said. But a layered approach that mixes technology and air operations for observation and responding to illegal crossings will be necessary to control the border, he said.

"There is not a silver bullet out there, there's not one answer," he said.

Basham is touring the Southwest border region for a firsthand look at the challenges the Border Patrol is facing as National Guard troops arrive to begin assisting efforts to control the border.

"You can sit in Washington, D.C., and you can get briefings and you can look at maps and hear from people what the challenges are out here," Basham said. "But until you get up there and you look and you see what kind of terrain you're dealing with and the difficulties of it, you really don't have a true appreciation."

© 2006 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Sgt Stevo
June 21, 2006, 03:52 PM
Mines filled with OC? That might help. ;)

1911Tuner
June 21, 2006, 04:46 PM
The solution to the Invasion at the Southern Border is actually very simple, and would require a relatively small cash outlay and investment of manpower.

Introduce Yellow Jackets along the border. They multiply rapidly. They make African Killer Bees look like a cub scout troop, and their nests don't stick out like a sore thumb the way that Fire Ants' nests do.

Contrary to popular belief, they will attack at night...and they hit the air ready to rock and roll. Ask me how I know that...:rolleyes:

Best of all, we can claim that nature has taken its course.

Linux&Gun Guy
June 21, 2006, 07:13 PM
It is compleatly impossible to keep out illegal people - the area is just too vast and the only real way would be to mine it - however mines would ruin us in front of the world. Watch tower guards would be killed and the towers firebombed by the illegals if it became needed. The best thing to do is change the economic conditions that make people want to come here.

However I am of the opinion that labor movement is a good thing and I have no problem with mexicans coming here to work. It's clear the world is changing - governments are becoming less important and companies are becoming more so.

And as soon as this becomes obvious the large companies CEOs will have Dynacorp type guys to provide security for them and inforce their interests.

Clearly if you want to be successful in this new(possible) future you should study economics(it shows how people really act) and start a company. The only alternative would be to become a warlord - but if you do this its harder to get funds.

Cosmoline
June 21, 2006, 07:52 PM
Here's another "immigrant" doing a job no Americans are willing to do:

http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/local_news/article/0,2545,TCP_16736_4788632,00.html

Trenta, a Mexican citizen working as a laborer, was charged with one count of felony sexual bestiality and one count of felony animal cruelty.

SuperNaut
June 21, 2006, 08:00 PM
Ya gotta admit, that's a really good lookin' dog.;)

But seriously, when I was younger and lived in NM, one of my fellow 4H members used to do the nasty with his Dad's pigs. He was also a white supremist, pigs are the other white meat after all.

Gordon
June 21, 2006, 08:14 PM
"Mines filled with OC"

This certainly would just flavor their tacos!:evil:

motorep
June 21, 2006, 08:28 PM
Linux- it is NOT completely impossible to secure the border. Any one of a number of Eastern European countries have done it,Israel does it, MEXICO DOES IT AT THEIR SOUTHERN BORDER -enforced with lethal force.
Study economics? We are importing poverty. We- you, actually, are welcoming people who are illiterate in two languages, and we- you again, I guess- are leaving our borders unsecured.

Biker
June 21, 2006, 08:33 PM
Some people seem to make the fence an either-or- situation as in if it can't stop *everyone*, it isn't worth it. Why? If instead of having a million people a year successfully cross we slow it down to 200,000, is the fence worthless because we only stopped 80% of the invaders?

Biker

longeyes
June 21, 2006, 08:41 PM
Linux & GunGuy,

You are the New American. According to you we can't defend the political integrity of our nation because it would ruin us in the eyes of the world. That's the kind of view that passes for sophisticated in K-12 these days. As for changing the conditions of Mexico, that would require more than a Marshall plan, it would take draconian overhaul of the Mexican culture. Nothing prevents Mexico from succeeding except Mexicans--it's about values. You're right that corporations are becoming more important than governments, and that's Not A Good Thing, because corporations tend to be hierachical and un-representative. Substituting corporate by-laws and political correctness for the Bill of Rights doesn't work for me, sorry.

I suggest more Gun and less Linux.

Sgt Stevo
June 21, 2006, 09:22 PM
Cosmoline, you are killing me? thats the funnyist thing I have heard in long time.

I have been too seventeen countrys. I have given examples of places that have secured there boarders.

It can be done. they just dont want to. 1911 TUNER. WE SHOULD BREED YELLOW JACKETS WITH KILLER BEES. then release them. Or bats with pit bulls. that would slow them down.

Cosmoline
June 22, 2006, 12:03 AM
Nothing prevents Mexico from succeeding except Mexicans

Are you a MexiCAN or a MexiCAN'T?

Actually, I think the Mexican government has done a fine job looking after the interests of its citizens. Mexico imposes strict immigration limits and forbids Americans from buying good property down there. The USA to them is one big pig ready for slaughter and cooking at the fiesta.

longeyes
June 22, 2006, 02:55 AM
Actually, I think the Mexican government has done a fine job looking after the interests of its citizens.

Five per cent? It's a long drop from there.

Linux&Gun Guy
June 22, 2006, 03:31 AM
I never said it was impossible to stop the mexicans - just that it would look bad. We don't have the will to do it. Sure many of you do but not leaders.

Anyway this is going to shock some of you but I don't think 2A or any other right is really a "natural right" - in reality it all comes down to what you can do about it. So of course we should fight for our rights but I don't think that you have any rights except what you carve out of the biomass.

Luckily the Revolutionary guys did a lot of work for us and quickly put in a legal system to keep these rights unmolested for a good long time. But ever so often we will have to do some "rights grabbing" if we want any.

Force(be it political, physical or anything else) is all that *really* lets you have rights or anything else. An organism that doesn't try to dominate will be dominated.

The idea of a Republic with Natural Rights is a wonderful idea but is as based in reality as Communism.(well it really works better then communism) but its not perfect and it goes against human nature and so it will fail sooner or later.

Now dont go trying to say I am anti freedom and anti gun - I am pro both but I try to be realistic(even when its painful)

motorep
June 22, 2006, 09:19 AM
Your words "it is compleatly (sic) impossible to keep out illegal people".
Then- "I never said it was impossible to stop the Mexicans..".
You're a politician, aren't you? C'mon, fess up.

longeyes
June 22, 2006, 11:50 AM
The notion that "we don't have the will" is unproven. It's been repeated way too many times. The American people have awakened, slowly but surely, to the realities of illegal immigration. The people know what they want; it's the politicos who are standing in the way. Whose will will prevail is the real issue here, not whether "we" have the will. You don't think most Americans want employer sanctions and suspension of public welfare benefits? I beg to differ.

We have, de facto, the political rights we are willing to fight forl, that's true. The good news is that there are still people willing to fight.

Sheldon J
June 22, 2006, 09:59 PM
And I'll say it again, the one sure way to end this is to suspend NFTA and close the boarders untill Mexico works to stop it's own from crossing over. Hit them in the $$$ cash box and it will stop. :evil:

longeyes
June 22, 2006, 10:06 PM
We're going to have to hit our own financially if we want to stop it.

mordechaianiliewicz
June 23, 2006, 07:24 AM
The only thing Bush has done that I respect, is that he has acted as if the rest of the world doesn't matter when it comes to U.S. security. His "you're either with us or against us" policy, I found enlightening. Not so much because of what he was saying it about as much as because I believe countries earn and lose trust, and attempting to gain the support of nations that hate the U.S. is bad foreign policy.

While I wouldn't care if the world liked our mining the Southern Border or not, I find it expenive and unnecessary. You put some employer sanctions out, and cut all social welfare to illegals, fences won't matter. (while I support barriers, I support them to defend against Al Quaida operatives, and military threats, economic ones cannot be stopped that easily).

Rights are natural. Just because they aren't acknowleged doesn't mean they are non-existent. It just means they are infringed. Where they come from is, admitedly a subject of debate, and matter of theory.

Oh, and if we closed our border, Mexico would experience a brutal civil war, guaranteed. As things currently stand, with a socialist who has ties to Hugo Chavez, things could get hairy. But we make this pressure cooker, and Mexico will explode. The U.S. governement wants to avoid what that civil war could cause and so does it's best to keep Mexico "stable" even if it destablizes us.

Frankly, I think it's alot like having a cavity. Yeah, it might hurt to get the cavity taken care of at the dentist's. But you are hurting right now. And it will only get worse, possibly causing your tooth to rot out. But if you fix it now, you'll probably not have this problem in the future.

slzy
June 23, 2006, 07:35 AM
excactly how is defending our own border gonna look any worse to the "world" than,say,bombing cambodia?

slzy
June 23, 2006, 03:18 PM
if my last post was ambigious let me put it another way in the venacular of our youths;"World,talk to the hand"

Davo
June 23, 2006, 04:37 PM
The fence is working, if not literally it is symbolically. Even if it had no effect at all, I still would build it if it continued to PO the Mexican and US federal govt, and those beacons of humanity-the coyotes.
Our representatives still keep a straight face when they talk about how important our security is, when anyone can WALK HERE at any time.
More of this will surely follow, and the WORLD is watching us, many intently wanting us to fail in the protection of our borders. We will keep it clean and give our critics no ammunition.
Not bad for a bunch of weekend warriors, eh mordecai?

longeyes
June 23, 2006, 07:55 PM
The U.S. governement wants to avoid what that civil war could cause and so does it's best to keep Mexico "stable" even if it destablizes us.

Stability means protecting American business interests in Mexico. Bush wants to evangelize when it comes to Iraq but is hands-off as regards Mexico. It will take a revolution in Mexico to stop the narco-economy there. Maybe our Government is afraid stopping the narco-economy there will shrivel up the narco-economy here?

If you enjoyed reading about "Vandals cut Minutemen's border fence" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!