hispeed7721 Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 If you're still for open immigration and zero welfare (especially with money from the federal level) then I'd go ahead and add it your argument...and I would agree. EXACTLY. I'm all about immigration. But LEGALLY. Does the system where by people legally immigrate need to change? Yes. But in the interim it's not a free-for-all, swim, run, etc as fast as you can and get immunity race to the finish line. There still has to be legitimate laws held up for those wishing to immigrate. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Magnum Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 No what I'm saying is if you've ever gone over the speed limit on purpose you know why illegals come across illegally. Because the law was a hindrance and not a help to their goals. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! Why the hell should I care about an non-U.S. citizen's goals? I care about defending and protecting our country and citizens. Since when did we put Americans on the back burner? I would gladly increase the border patrol's budget to increase their capabilities to hold the line. There are only a few thing that the Federal Gov't is responsible for and border security is certainly one of them. I am not against immigration, just abusers who get here illegally, suck our resources and send them back home. Obama wants to spend so many billions on these immigrants, what about our own poor? What about our own unfortunate, out of work citizens. What about cleaning up our problems first before we build a resort complex for the citizens of other countries? I think anyone that is overly compassionate for these people need to look first at our own citizen who could use that same level of help. 2
Winchester Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 According to V if we simply change the LAW then they won't be illegal. Laughable man. Just change the law so I can murder my boss and take his position. Brilliant. 1 1
Vertigo Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 According to V if we simply change the LAW then they won't be illegal. Laughable man. Just change the law so I can murder my boss and take his position. Brilliant. Dumbest post ever. Thanks for sharing. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!
Winchester Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) Brilliant. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! Edited July 17, 2014 by Winchester
Buddy Spike Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Border patrol exists, yes. But are they doing the job to your satisfaction? If so, this thread needn't exist. If not, then further resources will be required. Thus increasing the federal government. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! They don't need further resources. They need a boss that actually enforces existing laws. 1
Clark Griswold Posted July 17, 2014 Author Posted July 17, 2014 They don't need further resources. They need a boss that actually enforces existing laws. Agree on needing an executive interested in enforcing the border and laws but have to part company on needing more resources. CBP is undermanned and under resourced and especially ICE. A physical border security system is also necessary in strategic areas, basically the adjoining urban areas with the highways for the first 10 miles or so coming from the POE into the US being fenced to restrict bailouts of car loads of illegals when the CBP or HP stops a carry vehicle. Once the illegals actually make it on to US soil it is so easy to just starburst out and blend into the residential or agricultural areas that are right on or near the border making apprehension after arrival tough and never 100%, some of the group will get away. In another thread I used a highly accurate bar napkin calculation to guess that it would take 0.4% of the DoD budget to fund a sizeable NG mission to assist CBP. That is affordable and appropriate, we keep 28,500 guys in South Korea to defend the 15th largest economy in the world, we can afford 10,000 guys on our borders.
TreeA10 Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 I agree we need more on the border in the form on barriers and people. The situation was magnified, however, when our Organizer in Chief decided to not enforce deportations and give young illegals amnesty and an education under the DREAM act. A more forceful message of "You get nothing and we will send you home" might have a measurable effect, as well.
Vertigo Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) Why the hell should I care about an non-U.S. citizen's goals? I care about defending and protecting our country and citizens. Since when did we put Americans on the back burner? I would gladly increase the border patrol's budget to increase their capabilities to hold the line. There are only a few thing that the Federal Gov't is responsible for and border security is certainly one of them. I am not against immigration, just abusers who get here illegally, suck our resources and send them back home. Obama wants to spend so many billions on these immigrants, what about our own poor? What about our own unfortunate, out of work citizens. What about cleaning up our problems first before we build a resort complex for the citizens of other countries? I think anyone that is overly compassionate for these people need to look first at our own citizen who could use that same level of help. Just think, if we changed the immigration process so that those we would otherwise come in illegally could now come in legally we wouldn't HAVE to spend additional resources beefing up border security and could free up additional dollars to help our own. What a novel concept! But no, let's keep throwing more money at a process that is clearly and utterly broken. Edited July 17, 2014 by Vertigo 5
TreeA10 Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 What a novel concept! But no, let's keep throwing more money at a process that is clearly and utterly not enforced. FIFY
Vertigo Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 FIFY So were there no illegal immigrants prior to this administration or are you saying all administrations are guilty of this? 1 1
HeloDude Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Just think, if we changed the immigration process so that those we would otherwise come in illegally could now come in illegally we wouldn't HAVE to spend additional resources beefing up border security and could free up additional dollars to help our own. What a novel concept! But no, let's keep throwing more money at a process that is clearly and utterly broken. "Help our own"?? What does that mean? Here's my other question for you: If we were to have open immigration, ie anybody can come here (which I agree as long as there aren't excessive medical/criminal issues and we end all forms of welfare)...do you see that there should be any restrictions on medical screening? What about criminal screening (if it's even possible), or is it just come and go as you please, don't need to check in with anyone, etc? Also, with no fences/walls on the border, what keeps terrorists from walking across the border in the middle of nowhere with RPG's as easy as me walking through the woods and crossing the State line between Minnesota and North Dakota? Will a wall/security system stop all terrorists? No, but I'm sure it would help to a certain degree. In the past you enjoyed pointing out Israel as the example in terms of homosexuals openly serving and recently with the Bergdahl swap...but for some reason you stop using them as the example when it comes to border security? You've been all over the map lately. But as usual, I'm willing to somewhat give you the benefit of the doubt.
TreeA10 Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 What Mexico and Guatemala Just Did Could Make Our Border Crisis 10 Times Worse by Brian Hayes | Top Right News If good fences make good neighbors, it is most certainly true that NO fences can make very bad neighbors, as this week’s treacherous agreement by two of America’s neighbors has proven. A joint press conference was held yesterday by Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Guatemalan president Otto Perez Molina to announce their agreement to jointly cooperate in and facilitate the invasion of their northern neighbor, the United States. Labeled “The Southern Border Program to Improve Passage,” it is an official effort on the part of Mexico and the nations of Central America to invade the United States. You read that right. Check the masthead…this is NOT The Onion. The agreement provides a network of border checkpoints through which an internal Mexican travel document will be issued, which is valid for a period of 72 hours. That document, known as a Regional Visitor’s Card, will provide temporary legal status to those in Mexico illegally for the sole purpose of invading the United States – completely bypassing Mexico’s immigration laws, which as Michelle Malkin has detailed, are among the toughest in the world. The announcement, officially granting the “privileges” to illegals from Guatemala and Belize, applies to anyone who reaches the southern Mexican border with the intention of invading America. Almost unbelievably, the joint policy will also provide financial assistance to unaccompanied minors — in effect paying them to invade the United States. 50,000 illegal alien children have already crossed the border in just the past few month –being delivered to their destinations of choice by Obama. Mexico’s treachery will surely only provide further incentive for the illegal invasion, as Central Americans can rest assured their passage through Mexico will be an easy one — and in some cases a profitable one. How is this anything but a Mexican-sponsored hostile act of aggression upon the sovereignty of the United States? It is a planned invasion across our border — a virtual act of war by Mexico. And what responsibility does Barack Obama have to stop it? The U.S. Constitution’s Article IV Section 4 is clear and unambiguous: The United States shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. Yet Obama is refusing to do any such thing, by design. Far from repelling this invasion, he encouraged and is accelerating it. Does the “I-word” come to mind? Forget it. Speaker John Boehner has already said impeachment is off the table. So what can be done? It is up to the States, specifically Arizona and Texas, to sue Obama for violation of Article IV, Section 4, deploy their own forces to the border to halt and return all illegal alien invaders, and refuse to abide by any DOJ or Federal court commands to release illegal aliens until their Article IV lawsuits have been resolved. Will they do it? Rick Perry and Jan Brewer’s timid responses thus far doesn’t give on much hope. So were there no illegal immigrants prior to this administration or are you saying all administrations are guilty of this? I will agree prior administrations were also guilty of failing to stop the flood of illegals. Both sides are guilty. 1
Vertigo Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) "Help our own"?? What does that mean? Here's my other question for you: If we were to have open immigration, ie anybody can come here (which I agree as long as there aren't excessive medical/criminal issues and we end all forms of welfare)...do you see that there should be any restrictions on medical screening? What about criminal screening (if it's even possible), or is it just come and go as you please, don't need to check in with anyone, etc? Also, with no fences/walls on the border, what keeps terrorists from walking across the border in the middle of nowhere with RPG's as easy as me walking through the woods and crossing the State line between Minnesota and North Dakota? Will a wall/security system stop all terrorists? No, but I'm sure it would help to a certain degree. In the past you enjoyed pointing out Israel as the example in terms of homosexuals openly serving and recently with the Bergdahl swap...but for some reason you stop using them as the example when it comes to border security? You've been all over the map lately. But as usual, I'm willing to somewhat give you the benefit of the doubt. I agree with medical/criminal screenings. I've said in the past a managed program where everyone (with very few limitations) can be accounted for and brought into the fold. Why do I ignore Israel? Maybe because our length of land border is 12x the size of theirs. It's definitely a heck of a lot cheaper to carpet and maintain that carpet in a 500 sqft apartment than it is a 6000 sqft McMansion. Edited July 17, 2014 by Vertigo 1
HeloDude Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 I agree with medical/criminal screenings. I've said in the past a managed program where everyone (with very few limitations) can be accounted for and brought into the fold. Why do I ignore Israel? Maybe because our length of land border is 12x the size of theirs. It's definitely a heck of a lot cheaper to carpet and maintain that carpet in a 500 sqft apartment than it is a 6000 sqft McMansion. Well, the border length is what the border length is, sorry. Again, you can always mine it on our side and then have a chain link fence 100 feet past the mine field, and still have the typical border crossing points. The problem with your suggestion is that you can't effectively screen for criminals and infected people if those people do not have to use the border checkpoints. You still have to have a strong/reasonable system to funnel the people to the checkpoints, especially if they're concerned they may be denied entry due to medical/criminal issues.
Magnum Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Just think, if we changed the immigration process so that those we would otherwise come in illegally could now come in legally we wouldn't HAVE to spend additional resources beefing up border security and could free up additional dollars to help our own. What a novel concept! But no, let's keep throwing more money at a process that is clearly and utterly broken. So you are ok with terrorists, drug cartels, violent gangs, criminals, hosts of diseases, etc legally immigrating to our country? Because that's what is happening right now. The money would not be spent on the broken process if I were king...sorry, president. It would be spent on securing our borders which is totally different. Legislation is what takes care of the process and the only cost of that is what we pay for the clown show.
Vertigo Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 So you are ok with terrorists, drug cartels, violent gangs, criminals, hosts of diseases, etc legally immigrating to our country? Because that's what is happening right now. The money would not be spent on the broken process if I were king...sorry, president. It would be spent on securing our borders which is totally different. Legislation is what takes care of the process and the only cost of that is what we pay for the clown show. Yes that is exactly what I'm saying because apparently you can't read a whole two posts back. Hey genius, if we didn't have to worry about a horde of illegals coming in because the system was changed that would allow them legal entry, don't you think it would be easier to control the border and manage the illegal border crossings by those unwanted elements such as terrorists and criminals? Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! 5
hispeed7721 Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 So...you're saying by making it easier for people to gain access to the US, it will become harder to gain access to the US? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
SpecialOpsTankerPilot Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Why the hell should I care about an non-U.S. citizen's goals? I care about defending and protecting our country and citizens. Since when did we put Americans on the back burner? I would gladly increase the border patrol's budget to increase their capabilities to hold the line. There are only a few thing that the Federal Gov't is responsible for and border security is certainly one of them. I am not against immigration, just abusers who get here illegally, suck our resources and send them back home. Obama wants to spend so many billions on these immigrants, what about our own poor? What about our own unfortunate, out of work citizens. What about cleaning up our problems first before we build a resort complex for the citizens of other countries? I think anyone that is overly compassionate for these people need to look first at our own citizen who could use that same level of help. Agreed, Americans first. Disagree that we should increase the Border Patrol's budget one bit, at least not until they get their goons off the interior highways 100 miles from any border violating our Constitution regularly, and instead take their fannies to the border and get serious about actually defending the border. Our good friend PYB will be on Fox News this weekend to talk about just that on John Stossel's special, "Policing America: Security vs Liberty." 1
mp5g Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 I don't know why everyone is so upset. This is obviously the best choice for Immigration control. 1
MD Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Disagree that we should increase the Border Patrol's budget one bit, at least not until they get their goons off the interior highways 100 miles from any border violating our Constitution regularly, and instead take their fannies to the border and get serious about actually defending the border. Our good friend PYB will be on Fox News this weekend to talk about just that on John Stossel's special, "Policing America: Security vs Liberty." You might want to take that up with the SCOTUS, who has ruled that interior checkpoints are indeed legal under US vs Martinez-Fuerte. Border Patrol get serious about defending the border? How can they when neither political party is serious about it, nor is the D.C. as a whole. Don't hate the player, hate the game, because the game is indeed pretty screwed up.
Clark Griswold Posted July 21, 2014 Author Posted July 21, 2014 Interior checkpoints and specifically workplace enforcement have to happen if you're serious about enforcing immigration & employment but not just against the illegal aliens - you have to arrest and prosecute the employers and smugglers. At least one politician is starting to do something: Perry sending National Guard to borderhttps://www.cnn.com/2014/07/21/politics/perry-national-guard-border/index.html Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
fou Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 I don't know anything about examiner.com, but this is an interesting article here
SpecialOpsTankerPilot Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 Interior checkpoints and specifically workplace enforcement have to happen if you're serious about enforcing immigration & employment but not just against the illegal aliens - you have to arrest and prosecute the employers and smugglers. At least one politician is starting to do something: Perry sending National Guard to borderhttps://www.cnn.com/2014/07/21/politics/perry-national-guard-border/index.html Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Agreed, this problem has to be solved tactically. Not just by throwing money into unions and lobbies like the Border Patrol, to expand their presence throughout the country. Get them on the border. This article from Slate, which just came out yesterday, on "Arizona's Checkpoint Rebellion" discusses how former representative ® from Arizona, Jim Kolbe, blocked these checkpoints in Arizona because he thought it didn't make any tactical sense to have Border Patrol people and checkpoints 100 miles from the border. I think he was right. But when he left office, that changed in Arizona. Lots of pork and other agendas get stuffed down American throats in the name of _____________________ (fill in the blank). But as this article leads, "Liberals, libertarians, retirees, and activists protest against immigration patrols far from the border."
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now