| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
The scary thing is that not everyone believes the house is on fire. | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
you'r right about that..... BURN, Mother F'er BURN | ||
| Lightstick |
I've got a question: If the U.S. can secure the border along the 38th Parallel, and keep North Koreans from entering South Korea illegally; why can't the U.S. do the same between The U.S.A. and Mexico? | ||
| Sifo |
Simple will to do it. I don't believe for a second that it can't be done. | ||
| Lightstick |
O.K; Then who doesn't want to and why? | ||
| Sayitaintso |
I for one dont care to spend the money required to do it right..... and I'm sure there are many others who feel similarly. I'm not saying border security isnt an issue, just that until we we pull some dead weight off the camel's back we dont need to add any more straw. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
No one wants to be the party responsible for actively or passively deporting Mexicans. Democrats hope to slide them under the wire for votes. Republicans like the cheap labor. Second to oil, remunerations are the largest driver of the Mexican economy. The drug cartels profit from an open border. | ||
| Moxnix |
Let's all be green, lower our use of electricity, lower our use of fossil fuels, cut back on calories in our diets, recycle, use less of this, use less of that, abort 40 million since Roe v. Wade, but on the other hand, we shall allow anyone and everyone to come over our borders and use more electricity, more gasoline, eat from MalWart and birth lotsa' babies. Why aren't the greens protecting our resources? | ||
| Eaton_corners |
Anyone ever heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act? http://patriotpost.us/document/chinese-exclusion-a ct/ | ||
| Pwnzor |
Revolution. Civil war. Not necessarily in that order. Which of us will take up arms against the other and KILL those who oppose the ideals set forth by the founders of this country? | ||
| Aesquire |
No border can be completely secure. That doesn't mean that you don't make a reasonable effort. You can't stop all murders either, so we should just let people murder? My proposal is: Since most conflicts involving "insurgencies" require the "insurgents" to have supplies from across the border, and have a foreign country to retreat to,(1) we should train our troops to secure borders. The Mexican/U.S. border is much like a lot of the planet that has fundamentalist a--holes. Deserts, mountains, rolling hills. So certain units, Rangers, MP's, etc. should have a training program on the mexican border. Have Border patrol guys on hand to teach, and do the legal arrests if needed, (2) to maintain Posse Comitatus. The Army should not have law enforcement powers. That is generally a sign of Bad Times. Simple, effective 2 birds, one stone. (1) Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, etc. (2) armed incursions by Mexican army or ex-militart drug militias do not require arrest powers. Just backhoes. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Which of us will take up arms against the other and KILL those who oppose the ideals set forth by the founders of this country? Funny you should ask that. I have contemplated this very question many times. What would George Washington do? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
They have a plan for it. It is called Resilience, you wont like it; all of the research on it is from british academics.... and it is finding its way here in alarming and armed versions. It is not the smiling face of 'recovery' | ||
| Sifo |
Which of us will take up arms against the other and KILL those who oppose the ideals set forth by the founders of this country? Brings up the "Three Percenters". No the Buell kind. The group is based on the idea that during the Civil War only 3% of the population actually took up arms. Based on how busy the gun shops are recently I wonder if 3% might be on the low side.  (Message edited by SIFO on April 10, 2011) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I PRAY that it never comes to civil war, American killing American. It's happened before. We are probably over due for a governmental reset. The real problem is what the world will change to while the cat is away. | ||
| 2734 |
>>>>>The real question is does the majority of the population believe in and is willing to fight for the rule of law, the Constitution. I'm afraid that in general, the general population no longer believes in the Constitution. Therefore, whether he is a citizen or not really doesn't matter. No one will advocate enforcing the rule of law. This is a sad truth. The middle class and lower generaly dont give a S++++ what happens as long as they can live paycheck to paychek.It will take something drastic(like Obama running for Prez) to awake them and get them to the polls.Unfortunatley for ALL of us they voted on an uneducated, emotional,racial and desperate whim and this is what we got. The simplest and easiest way to make the U.S. unattractive to the Mexican horde is to stop the flow of money by hand and electronic transfers back over the border. If they cant get it back then the people they left behind in Mexico will be forced to change the people who are governng them.It's simpler to hop the border and live here in the U.S. and prosper than it is to try and change the government in their own country. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
It's easier to stop the flow of money INTO the hands of the horde than to stop the flow of remunerations to Mexico. Incarcerate business owners willfully hiring illegal immigrants, and the jobs dry up. No jobs means no money. No citizenship means no access to government benefits. No job and no government assistance means self deportation of $50M illegal immigrants. In order to accomplish this we ned only to adopt the immigration laws contained within the MEXICAN Constitution. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
if every retiring baby boomer relocated to mexico .... there would be a stable economic base for services, the illegals would dwindle, and their healthcare issues would be mexicos concern, ..... next, minute men with long rifles and scopes on the border; and a few drones in the air; armed of course - it is the perfect training ground for what the drone jockies will see in Afgh, Paki, Peshe, Uzbeki -kerblankistan hell, pay off the chinese with the realestate of the border, let them build a wall and run the tariffs and enforcement.... they know a thing or two about keeping miscreant hooligan criminal hordes out. | ||
| 2734 |
FT, I agree somewhat but that is easier said than done and a much bigger undertaking. I just dont see the Fed Gov arresting owners of both small business and large corparations.That would raise a very big stink. I can however see the fed gov seizing electronic transfers and money being carried over at border checkpoint before anything else. Thats easy money made right there. I mean whats an illeagal gonna do? Sue the Fed Gov to get his confiscated money back? Unfortunatly the money would then disapear to who knows where. City- I may be wrong but I think as a U.S. citzen you cannot purchase land in Mexico. You can rent it but I dint think you can buy it. (Message edited by 273-4 on April 10, 2011) | ||
| 46champ |
In Mexico a foreign national can buy the building but not the dirt. | ||
| Sifo |
It's easier to stop the flow of money INTO the hands of the horde than to stop the flow of remunerations to Mexico. Incarcerate business owners willfully hiring illegal immigrants, and the jobs dry up. No jobs means no money. No citizenship means no access to government benefits. No job and no government assistance means self deportation of $50M illegal immigrants. In order to accomplish this we ned only to adopt the immigration laws contained within the MEXICAN Constitution. The first step has to be having positive ID from the government proving you are eligible to work here. Only then can you come down hard on the employers. I fully agree with the self-deportation part. I really hate the false argument about "we can't deport X million illegals. There's no need to deport them if you take away their incentives to be here illegally. We also need to change the law about becoming a US citizen simply because you are born within out borders. That "right" has been stretched and abused far too much. No more anchor babies! | ||
| Moxnix |
I have a business account at Bank o' America. Lots of personal documentation, etc., proving I'm me, the business is registered and proof of a valid tax ID number just to get it. A few years back when BofA did a big advertising campaign push to grab as much of the remuneration transfers to Mexico as it could muster, it struck me odd that "my" bank essentially tossed out the rules for illegals. Yes, I could switch banks in protest, but BofA is ubiquitous and how would I know another bank with national presence wouldn't have the same income stream accommodating our brethren from South of the border . . . | ||
| Buellkowski |
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Do not raise arms against this country. You want it? Vote for it. Write about it. Donate to it. Pray for it. Work for it. But do not kill your brothers for it. Who in our government is preventing any of you from voting, writing, donating, praying, and working? | ||
| Buellkowski |
City, point us to the nefarious plans of "Resiliency." I'm curious. | ||
| Sifo |
When the government stops following the Constitution they no longer represent the government of the United States. The country is being changed more through judicial activism than the vote. Did we vote for slaughter of the unborn or was that done by the judicial system, falsely based on privacy rights? Yet euthanasia where you are taking your own life remains illegal. That makes perfect sense! | ||
| Buellkowski |
Then vote for it. Constitutional amendment. Case closed. Who in our government is stopping you? | ||
| Sifo |
Way to completely miss the point on judicial activism. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Absolutely not. If it's in the Constitution, it's constitutional. No judge can rule against it on constitutional grounds. Remember Prohibition? | ||
| Sifo |
I must have missed the part of the Constitution that allows for the taking of an innocent life. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Well, the SCOTUS didn't. Now, if there was a Constitutional amendment forbidding abortion in all forms within the U.S., guess how the SCOTUS would rule. So, yours is a good example, Sifo. You want it? Vote for it. Write about it. Donate to it. Pray for it. Work for it. But do not kill your brothers for it. No one in our government is stopping you. |
