Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: x0847Marine on May 15, 2006, 09:10:31 AM
-
Mexico is worried, politicians are quick to poo poo the idea... usual stuff.
Google news (http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory%3Fid%3D1962441)
I love the idea and think he should also use the near by Marines at CP or the Stumps... but ill take any military force for operation "Tampon", its about freak'n time.
-
To little too d*** late. Now we just have to shoot first and send 'em back later.
-
Moderators delete this thread for violating rule #3 please.
And delete my post for violating rule #6.
ASAP. Chop chop!
-
Silly americans have fallen for the decoy. While you are deploying troops along the mexican border, take a look at a population map of Canada. They are massed along the border, just waiting their chance to invade!
Only thing that can save you now is a nookular strike!
-
To keep canadians away, ban hockey as a sport
-
We are at war with stateless terrorists; this is not the time to have "porous borders". We should militarize ALL our borders - shoot first & ask questions later or we are inviting more terrorist attacks.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
To keep canadians away, ban hockey as a sport
Hockey is a sport?
:p
-
Maybe we should do like this country....
A little immigration quiz...
1. If you migrate to this county, you must speak the native
language.
2. You have to be a professional or an investor. No unskilled
workers allowed.
3. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no
special ballots for elections, all government business will be
conducted in our language.
4. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long
they are here.
5. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.
6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare,
no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance
programs. (In short, you cant be a burden on the system)
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount
equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
8. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay,
BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed waterfront
property. That is reserved for citizens naturally born into this
country.
9. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a
foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president
or his policies, if you do you will be sent home.
10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted
down and sent straight to jail.
Harsh, you say? The above laws happen to be the immigration laws
of Mexico!
-
pffft... This is just a political move and he's gonna get burned for it. Why should the States pay to protect our borders? BS!
He's talking about what 10k troops maybe? On 24 hour watch we'll have maybe 2500 on the border .. maybe. Too little is right.
-
This is a deeper problem than just of protecting boarders. We need to preemptive strike the location of illegals which is Mexico. Why fight the by-product of the problem, and not the problem itself. After the invasion….err liberation, then we can setup proper none corrupt democratic government. Freedom for everyone!
-
placing national guard troops on the border will not stop the problem but it will help and is a step in the right direction
of course it is wrong for some as Bush is doing thus it is wrong, right dems?
as for the nation guard, I'd think they'd jump at the chance to go to some border town in TX vs walking a beat in Iraq ...
-
this political issue has been out there for so long, since before i lived in tucson ('95 - '99).
i wonder why its gotten so 'hot' now?
i'd bet y'all are being 'played'
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Maybe we should do like this country....
Harsh, you say? The above laws happen to be the immigration laws
of Mexico!
Let's adopt theirs.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
pffft... This is just a political move and he's gonna get burned for it. Why should the States pay to protect our borders? BS!
He's talking about what 10k troops maybe? On 24 hour watch we'll have maybe 2500 on the border .. maybe. Too little is right.
My understanding is that the Feds will pay for the troops not the states.
It's a start in the right direction if nothing else.
-
It sounds like a step in the right direction... not the step I would have most liked to see (ICE and BP set loose like attack dogs), but at least it's the right direction. Unfortunately, I have a feeling this is a bone thrown to the conservative base, and it will be undermined through funding cuts , hand-tying orders in the future, or the BS guest worker amnesty program.
-
As I mentioned in a previous thread give Mexico Arizona and California and force them to repay relocated people from those states within 60 days or face invasion and take over from the United States. Then we can claim Mexico as a territory and give the people citizenship...which is what they all want anyway...and NAFTA (another Clinton administration screwup) goes away because now we own the cheap labor and they can come and go as they please without having to cross a border. Not to mention now we have a smaller border area to guard in southern Mexico and a thiriving tourist business with the longest coastline of any nation in the world....well maybe a toss up between the revamped USA and Austratlia then.
-
Those boots are going to cost money that could be saved by just enforcing the laws already 'existing'.
Why aren't the laws just enforced?
-
moot... politicians are not interested in solving any problem. Problems grow their power base. They are scum. A solved problem takes away power from them.
lazs
-
Bush is using this to sell his amnesty.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
...and NAFTA (another Clinton administration screwup)
Be fair.
November 13, 1979
While officially declaring his candidacy for President, Ronald Reagan proposes a “North American Agreement” which will produce “a North American continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.”
January 1981
President Ronald Reagan proposes a North American common market.
November 6, 1987
Signing of a framework agreement between the US and Mexico.
June 10, 1990
Presidents Bush and Salinas announce that they will begin discussions aimed at liberalizing trade between their countries.
August 21, 1990
President Salinas officially proposes to the US president the negotiation of a free trade agreement between Mexico and the US.
February 5, 1991
Negotiations between the US and Mexico aimed at liberalizing trade between the two countries officially become trilateral at the request of the Canadian government.
April 7 to 10, 1991
Cooperation agreements are signed between Mexico and Canada covering taxation, cultural production and exports.
May 24, 1991
The American Senate endorses the extension of fast track authority in order to facilitate the negotiation of free trade with Mexico.
June 12, 1991
Start of trade negotiations between Canada, the US and Mexico.
Clinton signed it but he didn't start it.
-
I beleive clinton had troops on the border as well IIRC. I remember troops helping out the DEA and a young kid got shot for taking a pop shot at them allegedly (anyone remember this or the year?)
-
In 1997, Ezekiel Hernandez was shot and killed by a Marine sniper on “anti-drug” patrol.
-
Originally posted by Toad
In 1997, Ezekiel Hernandez was shot and killed by a Marine sniper on “anti-drug” patrol.
Thanks Toad,
SO this is yet another thing that I don't like about some democrats. They are all fine with a democrat president doing things but as soon as Bush does it they have to oppose him on it like it's their civic duty.
-
Guns... Which democrats, exactly, are you speaking of? Are you referring to human beings or politicians?
-
Originally posted by SOB
Guns... Which democrats, exactly, are you speaking of? Are you referring to human beings or politicians?
Good point but a little of both. Many on here have criticised this decision and it seems like if Hary Reid was the one who proposed this it would be a different story for him.
Either way don't call me a fan here, I've been wanting this for almost 5 years now.
-
I just haven't seen any opinions on Clinton putting troops at the border either way from anyone here. Maybe I missed it.
As for Bush doing it, this decision drags him up a couple of notches in my book. Still pretty worthless, but I like the gesture. It'd be nice if he would just do something real, and seal that sucker up.
-
Dune over at AGW said that they wouldn't actually have any enforcement abilities, is this true?
-
Originally posted by Toad
In 1997, Ezekiel Hernandez was shot and killed by a Marine sniper on “anti-drug” patrol.
Well said... more Marine Snipers on the border...*Hombre, How fast can YOU run Jefe?"
That or infest the Rio Grande with Phirana's... just a thought. would be narly.
:D
-
Originally posted by Toad
In 1997, Ezekiel Hernandez was shot and killed by a Marine sniper on “anti-drug” patrol.
Any numbers of Border patrol Agents killed in the line of duty by criminals attempting illegal entry?
Any numbers of American citizens robbed or murdered by illegal immigrants?
???
The death of Ezekiel Hernandez was a tragedy.. certainly. Every death related to the trafficking of humans and drugs across the border is a tragedy. Including the hundreds (probably thousands) of illegals who have perished in the desert, of the thousands more who perished BEFORE they reached the border while crossing mexico illegaly..
Surely, you are not holding this single tragedy up as a reason to not deploy NG units for logistical, reconnisance and tactical support of the Border Patrol?
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Well said... more Marine Snipers on the border...*Hombre, How fast can YOU run Jefe?"
That or infest the Rio Grande with Phirana's... just a thought. would be narly.
:D
Ezekiel Hernandez was a US citizen, chum.
It was a terrible mistake but it's going to be the reason NG troops don't do any "enforcing".
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Surely, you are not holding this single tragedy up as a reason to not deploy NG units for logistical, reconnisance and tactical support of the Border Patrol?
I'm not holding anything up at all.
Just sayin'.
When the ROE get written, you can bet your sweet bippy Hernandez will be mentioned and will result in non-enforcement by military.
It'll be observe and report...bet on it.
-
Ahh. My mistake. thanks Toad.
re: observe & report... That's how i'd rather have it. the BP is the agency tasked for the job.. they are under funded and under staffed. according to the sellout in the oval office, the BP will be getting the funding and additional staffing; but it takes 'time'.. (WTF has he been doing since 9/11? tiddlywinks?)
... into the breach; send the NG to man the aircraft; deploy the RPV's, drive the trucks, staff the holding and deportation centers. there shouldn't be ONE freaking BP agent with his wide fat hams in an office chair. Get 'em on the job, detaining and patrolling. I want THEIR boots on the ground.. not the NG's.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm not holding anything up at all.
Just sayin'.
When the ROE get written, you can bet your sweet bippy Hernandez will be mentioned and will result in non-enforcement by military.
It'll be observe and report...bet on it.
You guys must not watch the news much, they have been reporting since this all came out that the guard would be used in a strictly supporting role & would have no "law enforcement" duties. They are simply going to run surveillance, comms, drive, basic gopher duties to free up the BP agents they have doing those tasks now.
-
If the Guard is going to be used to help secure the border they cannot participate in direct law enforcement activities, IE arrests. Posse Commitatus prohibits that activity. Since they will be working the US border, Bush cannot require the use of the Guard UNLESS he federalizes them. That means the individual states will not be footing the bill the Federal Government will. Anytime the President orders a Guard unit activation they switch from the state chain of command and into the Ferderal chain.
-
Where will the troop look at , inside or outside ?
-
i don't think securing the border falls under civil law, it's more of a federal jurisdiction, i'm not sure capturing foreign invaders is prevented by Posse Comitatus.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Where will the troop look at , inside or outside ?
Correct answer is, yes. Now what does that have to do with the situation?
John9000, define what you mean by "invaders". Second point, Posse Commitatus prohibits law enforcement of civilians by military personell. Immigration violations are a law infraction and hardly constitute a military action like "invasion".
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Correct answer is, yes. Now what does that have to do with the situation?
John9000, define what you mean by "invaders". Second point, Posse Commitatus prohibits law enforcement of civilians by military personell. Immigration violations are a law infraction and hardly constitute a military action like "invasion".
Second point, Posse Commitatus prohibits law enforcement of U.S. civilians by military personell. Immigration violations are a federal law infraction and constitute an "invasion" when done in the numbers we are seeing & during a time of war.
That would be a more accurate read. And besides; Maverick laid out the Posse Commitatus issue quite well. The only part he didn't mention was the possibility of the federal govt. skirting posse commitatus & allowing the natl. guardsmen to legally perform law enforcement duties.
If President Bush, asks the state governers to deploy the Guard, they retain their status as a "state militia". He gets to toot his horn & take responsibility for the deployment & skirt posse commitatus, thus allowing them to take an active police roll. There is no indication they plan to do this,but they could. And if the governers refused, the President can threaten to hold up federal money the states desperately need.
There are other loopholes but that is the easiest one to explain.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Second point, Posse Commitatus prohibits law enforcement of U.S. civilians by military personell. Immigration violations are a federal law infraction and constitute an "invasion" when done in the numbers we are seeing & during a time of war.
That would be a more accurate read. And besides; Maverick laid out the Posse Commitatus issue quite well. The only part he didn't mention was the possibility of the federal govt. skirting posse commitatus & allowing the natl. guardsmen to legally perform law enforcement duties.
If President Bush, asks the state governers to deploy the Guard, they retain their status as a "state militia". He gets to toot his horn & take responsibility for the deployment & skirt posse commitatus, thus allowing them to take an active police roll. There is no indication they plan to do this,but they could. And if the governers refused, the President can threaten to hold up federal money the states desperately need.
There are other loopholes but that is the easiest one to explain.
From what I've read and seen on the news is that the bill for the guard will be paid for by the federal govt but the guard will still be under a state run command.
This probably allows for the guard to perform policing duties in the future but from what I've read that's not what they are there to do. The administration is smart IMHO and are probably leaving this option open in case it's needed.
NOW......
If military like Hmvees with mounted .50 cals start crossing the border escorting SUV that are surrounded by armed men, it is no longer a law enforcement issue......I just hope the ROE on the ground allows for this distiction.