When The President Won't Protect Our Borders

[PCGS65]

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."

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!

"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"? What is this reverse statute of limitations? If you break the law for 7 years your immune from prosecution?
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.

 

[Biker]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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]

RealGun...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Those who don't like the topic should "change the channel" rather than trying to get threads closed down.

Just my opinion.

 

[Biker]

Couldn't agree more, longeyes.
Biker

 

[RealGun]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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