What security?
I have a question I wish someone could answer.
We hear about fighting terrorists and about homeland security over and over and over. What we hear is that we must fight terrorism abroad — Iraq/Afghanistan.
We want to keep our country safe and the killing elsewhere.
Here is my burning question: If we are so concerned about homeland security, why are we leaving our southern border wide open? If I were al-Qaida, I would have operatives going to Mexico and coming across that border in numbers. We seem to have lost all common sense in this country.
Charla Colson, Centennial
They do have operatives coming across...
Posted by on May 16, 2007 08:52 AMCharla,
First of all, "terrorism" serves a government purpose: it provides an enemy for all of the corporations supplying military hardware. What would our government do without an enemy? Answer: Create one.
Second, the open border. Big business runs on cheap labor. Legal or not. They are not interested in cutting off the source. End of answer.
1. The southern border is not "wide open". We have fences and we spend billions to keep people out.
I have some burning questions in return:
2. Why are we leaving our northern border "wide open", or, if not, why aren't operatives taking the easy route?
3. What do we do about those who overstay their visas, rather than enter illegally (the 9-11 hijackers for example)?
Posted by anderson on May 16, 2007 09:26 AMBig difference between the northern and southern borders Anderson. Mexicans enter illegally at the rate of 4,000+ per day; Canadians do not.
Posted by QBT on May 16, 2007 09:37 AMThe letter writer talks about her concern with terrorists, and Al Quida, not Mexicans or Candians or their respective numbers. Unless, of course the purpose of her question is to equate a specific ethnicity or nationality (e.g. Mexican) with terrorism. Tancredo and Schulteis do this all the time, so it must be legit, eh?
My question still stands, why would the southern border be more attractive than the northern border to a terrorist? For that matter, why would he attempt to cross the border illegally at all if other means could be found?
Posted by anderson on May 16, 2007 09:51 AMYes the southern border is open, that is why border patrol and other groups down on the Southern border are watching and detaining illegal aliens crossing in the night. Congress did enact to secure the Southern Border, however, with no money. The Minuteman are building a fence sponsored by Ranchers and other American Donations, but they have a long way to go. If you buy anyone telling you the borders now in California, AZ, NM, and Texas are secured look them straight in the eyes and tell Bullcrap!!!!!! We need stronger background checks in ensuring that our country is safe from people of coming into our country legally. We need our goverment to start enforcing our immigration laws, instead of being concerned on how many young men and how much money that the government feels is expendable in IRAQ.
Get a clue Anderson...if I were a raghead terrorist, I would find it easier to enter the USA via Mexico since the US government looks the other way regarding illegal entry on the southern frontier. Plus a brown raghead terrorist is more likely to blend in with brown Mexicans than with white Canadians.
Besides crossing the Sonora desert would be a cakewalk compared to the Sahara or the sands of the Saudi peninsula.
Posted by QBT on May 16, 2007 10:37 AMPam doesn't answer my questions but she is familiar with the minutemen's propaganda about their herculean efforts on the border.
Help! Help! They're coming to get us!
QBT, who doesn't know a Mexican he doesn't dislike, gets creative with arguments and falsely characterizes the US. govt's efforts on the border (Look the other way? Right. Why even have a border patrol if we're looking the other way?) . Anything goes, so long as it points to the brown skins as the bad guys.
Anderson,
When faced with the truth, you would rather slam someone's beliefs, that has been your MO since I start reading and posting to letters. Same broken record comes out of your keyboard post after post. I don't care what border they crossed, it still needs tighter laws protecting us, I just responded to your statement
Anderson's Statement posted 9:26 am
1. The southern border is not "wide open". We have fences and we spend billions to keep people out.
The Southern Border is "wide open",and "we are not spending billions", the american public and the ranchers are donating money for a southern border to be built. The government enacted the secure borders, but read more, there was no MONEY put in to build the fence.
There is no propaganda going on, except in people's minds like yours that don't want to except reality... the reality is that our country is under seige and it does not matter what border it is, it is the fact that we are facing a war within our own country. I just simply responded to your comment about how Secure the Southern Border is. Please don't ever run for office, you are the kind of person that all Americans should fear, we already have enough people selling this country down the river, we don't need anymore help from people like you.
Pam, you know what the minutemen are up to but you evidently are uninformed about what our govt is doing, or spending, on the issue of border enforcement. Fine. If you want to tell me the southern border is "wide open" (presumably because we don't have a 3000 mile fence), then I figure you must think I'm some sort of friggin' idiot, and unlike your purported "open" border (southern, but not northern), the lines of communication have closed.
Anderson,
Reducing yourself to name calling when someone uses your own words against you? Well that seems to be your MO lately. The bill last year that was signed by Pres. Bush did order that the border be secured, however he failed to put funds into the project. The fence that is being built now, is not with government funds, not being built by our government employees, military, etc. It is being built by Americans giving their spare time to go down and help. You show me one receipt where the government spent money on the fence that is going up now, you show me one pay stub from an employee that is down there building that so called billion dollar fence. The fence they had down there before Americans started donating their own money and a contractor donated supplies, is pathetic, I have seen it. If that cost billions, I wish I was the contractor who built it, I would be in the Bahamas right now drinking foo-foo drinks and laughing at the government for the ridiculous amount I charged. The only propaganda that is going on, is the government is lying to Americans any chance they have. As for you, not in any posts of mine have I called you any names, so the conclusion I get is that you can't handle any opinion but yours and people like you. Thank God, America is free for everyone to express their beliefs, which you can't seem to handle. I read post after Post of yours and it says the same rhetoric, I get it, you want amensty, you want the NAFTA Superhighway, but not all Americans do. I will in the future ignore your posts, because your not worth debating, I would appreciate if you did the same.
Posted by Pam on May 16, 2007 12:54 PMOne thing to set the record straight: I have consistently made remarks critical of NAFTA (specifically in relation to immigration) on these pages. But I'm not surprised you haven't noticed.
Posted by anderson on May 16, 2007 01:03 PMAnderson,
Whatever
Posted by Pam on May 16, 2007 01:05 PMAnderson who likes every Mexican he meets, even the violent criminal types obviously chooses to ignore the government's "Catch & Release" program for the allegedly non-violent illegal alien criminals.
If the government spent anywhere near what Anderson thinks they do on border security and law enforcement, then I'd say the USA wouldn't be infested with illegal aliens.
Anderson, be sure to say "HI" to your buddy Raul Gomez-Garcia on your next visit to him. Remember, he just came here to work hard committing crimes Americans don't want to do. I know, whitey treated Raul badly, and he isn't to blame for his anti-social behavior according to Anderson's way of warped thinking.
Posted by QBT on May 16, 2007 01:07 PMGood rebutal QBT..I suspect a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Posted by on May 16, 2007 01:16 PMSince the letter writer asserted that we are threatened by terrorists by way of our "southern" border, I'm still waiting for someone to answer my questions: #2 and #3.
The only response was QBT's claim (to #2) that terrorists have brown-skin and that thus could cross easier on the southern border.
The answer to me seems clear: the letter writer (and some responders here) are actually more interested in demonizing Mexicans (or brown-skinned people) than they are in security.
Posted by anderson on May 16, 2007 01:23 PMAm I the only one who has noticed that when the GOP was in control of the U.S. Congress, Alberto Gonzales's skin color was a dark shade of white, but now that the Democrats are in control, the color is a light shade of brown?
Posted by on May 16, 2007 01:37 PMI say we all stop commenting on these immigration issues because Anderson has it all figured out and it is futile to argue with him and his crony "Old Grouch" since they think all Americans opposed to criminal invasion of our country are racists and inhumane. Right, mi amigo?
Posted by -J- on May 16, 2007 01:45 PM-J-
You are right, never thought about it that way. LOL
Posted by Pam on May 16, 2007 01:49 PMSo you see (and this happens all the time) QBT and J cease arguing (or make no arguments at all) and resort to character attacks, complete with smears of association and strawmen (mischaracterizing the opinons of others so they are more easily knocked down).
So much for reason. So much for dialogue.
Still waiting for an answer to my questions.
Posted by anderson on May 16, 2007 02:00 PMAnderson,
You won't get any thoughtful response from QBT, Pam, KW, any of these right wing apologists. They will never answer your question regarding the northern border because, based on their arguments, they aren't concerned about the "security and safety" of the United States from "terrorists." These individuals are more about demonizing Mexicans, Hispanics or any other "brown skinned" individuals.
My guess is that if these illegals were white, they'd have no issue with them, regardless if they "assimilated" or not. Fight and argue as they may, the words of these individuals ring loud and clear. Their credibility will be restored once they actually start concerning themselves with ALL illegals, coming in through EVERY border. Until then, their true motivations are clear.
Oh, yes, and my last name is Gallegos, I'm not the brown skinned devil you imagine me to be, Pam and QBT, in fact, I grew up in Aurora and was born at Homestead AFB, but then, you wouldn't care about that, all you see is your blind hatred for anyone different than yourself.
It's a pity, folks like you have hijacked what should be a civil discourse on security of the U.S. from all illegals and securing every border, instead of a treatise on how "evil" Mexicans are.
Anderson. Answers to your questions???????
What about dialogue. You only deal with questions when they are yours.
NOT RIGHT WING NOT BROWN HATER. Damn Libertarian that gets whacked by both sides...Oh Well
Just tired of you putting forth the rhetoric. You refused to engage in civil dialogue in another thread but now you and Chris harp on people not answering your questions? BS to both of you
So the mexicans are in need of work and are doing well in this country. What about the others that are worse off than our southern neighbors? Darfur and China come to mind.
What about the need for more tech people? India, China, Pakistan come to mind.
So why are you so worried about the plight of those south of us and not of other countries.
How many do we let in then? At what point does it become critical mass here?
I have asked for your opinions but you would rather rag on others. True colors
The U.S. needs to control BOTH borders much better.
Remember the knee-jerk known as the
Patriot Act?
Suppose the next terrorist attack on our soil occurs because someone was able to SNEAK into the U.S. over a border. Now imagine THAT knee-jerk. I don't think the
open-border lovers will like it.
Oh, and don't bother to tell me none of the terrorist attacks here came over an uncontrolled border, as if that makes it
impossible for it to happen in the future.
That would be like saying you don't need to wear a seatbelt because you've never been in an accident.
Posted by RickyLee on May 16, 2007 03:10 PMBwr. My instinct was right. Your careful protestations otherwise, you don't seem all that interested in a dialogue. I've seen this game before. You've been around long enough, and I've made enough comments that you should know just what I think, or if you don't, to ask specific questions. But no. You ask me bs questions about "open borders" (which I've commented on specifically and recently--did you miss it?). And now, like the others, you're all too ready to attack my character and say I don't engage in civil dialogue. Par for the course.
Here you go:
"What about the need for more tech people? India, China, Pakistan come to mind."
What about it?
"So why are you so worried about the plight of those south of us and not of other countries?"
Who says I'm not concerned about other countries? I sure haven't. The people south of us, of course, are closer to home and given more attention all over, and like I said on a recent thread, I'm here to talk about bigotry. Cause I'm fed up with it. And that's who it concerns mainly.
"How many do we let in then?"
I don't know. I don't have all the answers contrary to the statement of my "opponents". I say we let in enough people to keep our economy and our country healthy. There's a demand for unskilled, uneducated labor that is not met by the native population. We also have an aging population, and the demand on services on funding for older people (baby boomers!) will be critical in years to come. As you may know, that is a serious problem in Europe now.
"At what point does it become critical mass here?"
I'm not a demographer or a social scientist. But there are people who do this sort of thing for a living. According to a National Reserch Council study in 1997, if we restricted immigration to zero as of then, our population would start to decline in 2035.
The oft unspoken corollary to the "too many people" argument is of course "how do we use our resources?". Cause if we continue to have continued urban sprawl complete with AC cooled, lawn watered tract developments, and ever growing commutes in large vehicles, then "critical mass" comes a lot sooner.
Anderson:
I asked you a number of questions in a previous post concerning your undying love for a illegal aliens. A couple you answered with glittering generalities that essentially answered nothing. The rest you ignored oh mighty enlightened one.
Posted by QBT on May 16, 2007 03:44 PMYea Anderson you have it all right You are the King. I bow down to you. Sheesh
You put things into small buckets to please your beliefs. I understand this is not an easy issue and a lot of complexities involved, but dont choose the only complexities you choose to deal with.
So are you calling me a bigot???? Are you??
What basis?? That I want fair rules for all? That I want us to look at our financial issues as Old Grouch has mentioned? Why. Please tell me
Posted by bwr on May 16, 2007 04:08 PMAnderson
I blew up and I apologize......Just damn tired of the Bigot comment or the racist comment. I look what the situation is and how to make it a better solution. You make assumptions of some of us without understanding what we are trying to present and I suppose I can be guilty also.
You dont even know where I stand on this issue. I have a feeling we are not far off in the end. I just want fairness across the board, not just our southern neighbor to get benefits of what we have. But of course the more technical people may be upset there
I have not put forth my beliefs on the subject and I will do so.
Posted by bwr on May 16, 2007 04:14 PMAnderson, the answer to question #2 is our Northern border is NOT wide open because Canada ENFORCES who comes and goes. Ever hear of a Visa? It is required to go to and fro from Canada to the States. They are more serious about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION than the U.S. is. Question number 3 should be answered with they shall be deported immediatly, if not sooner, Illegals are not coming through Canada, they come through Mexico because the Mexican government is so corrupt and will not stop ANYONE who wants to, to cross to the U.S without hinderance. I am a Minuteman and have been to the Mexican border, and I know for a fact, that our Southern border is extremely porous. There are not enough Border Patrol agents to deal with the influx of illegal entrants into this country. There are an estimated 4,00 illegals that gain entry into this country EVERY DAY. Within 20 years if this amnesty is passed, we will add an additional 100 MILLION people into this country. These are 3rd world people, uneducated, unemployed, and we are going to have to support them. Are you willing to give up your Social Security to support these people? I, for one am not. Hopefully, your questions are answered. If not, you dont know what you want to hear
Posted by Willy on May 16, 2007 04:43 PMChris,
Apparently you are reading what you want and assuming that I hate Mexicans,making these assumptions they will make an ass out of you! I don't care if the illegal aliens are purple, poka-dotted, if they come here illegally, they are breaking the law, and don't belong here. The Southern border is not secured, I know that, I have been down in AZ border and watched night after night, illegal aliens sneaking into this country. I didn't care what color of skin, religion they were, only that they were breaking every Federal Immigration law in the book. If you come here legally (I don't give a crap about the color of skin, religion, etc), I will be the first to welcome them. I think every culture that lives here, has something beautiful to teach and show everyone.
Posted by Pam on May 16, 2007 05:50 PMbwr, I'm sorry if I have you mistaken with someone else. I'm under frequent attack here for having the "wrong" point of view so sometimes I get a little testy. I did not call you a bigot or intend to give that impression. I said I'm here commenting (generally) because of bigotry. That was another speech I made recently.
Willy, your answer is honest, even if I disagree with most of your conclusions.
The letter writer above, suggests that our country is insecure because of our southern border. As for #2, I still don't understand why it isn't just as easy for someone up north to cross the border as it is down south. You suggest that Canada somehow has an enforcement action that prevents people from crossing into the U.S.? I don't understand that at all. It's a huge border. As for #3, I dont' have any problem with your solution but my point is that 40% of undocuments come into this country legally but overstay their visas while the letter writer suggests that the Southern border is the only problem--again making the focus of the problem Mexicans, rather than dealing with actual security issues.
Posted by anderson on May 16, 2007 05:56 PManderson - can't believe you can actually state that the Southern Border is not a crossing ground for illegals, terrorists, drug dealers, etc. etc. etc. Just watch the news, they show the invasion happening right before the tv cameras. Bush might as well roll out the red carpet for them. I still think your real name is Jose Ramos or Manuel Ortega. You are too pro-illegal to be an American citizen.
Posted by mi on May 16, 2007 07:52 PMmi, the difference between you and me is I stopped believing in scary boo boo stories when I was a child. I hope you are managing to keep your drawers clean.
Posted by anderson on May 16, 2007 08:49 PMEverything is a scary boogieman story to Anderson. He/she wouldn't know the reality of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens even if his/her good buddy Raul Gomez-Garcia shot him/her in the back.
Posted by QBT on May 16, 2007 10:39 PMThis argument certainly devolves into alot of name-calling. The fact remains we do have a big problem in this country with lack of security on our borders and we aren't doing anything about it. My suggestion is a tall fence and a wide gate. There is no job being done by an illegal alien that can't be done by a legal immigrant. If we photograph, fingerprint, and issue a secure form of ID to anyone entering, at least we can make a reasonable effort to keep track of the problem children and filter out the potential terrorists. That's true for both borders, but the Southern border should have priority because that's where the flood is occurring and it's easier for a terrorist hide in a flood than in a trickle.
The unspoken truth is that Democrats can't allow the wide-gate concept because the Unions are against allowing cheap labor into the U.S.
I'm all for implanting RFID (Radio Frequency I.D.) chips with GPS reporting capability in illegal aliens when they are deported.
Cross the border again illegally and your position is immediately forwarded to the nearest law enforcement agency to pick up your sorry butt.
Posted by QBT on May 16, 2007 11:57 PMAnderson,
Did you not happen to notice the 12-20 million illegal aliens? It's the reason behind the whole illegal immigration debate. You are an idiot if you truely think the borders are secure.
Hey mi amigo, nunca tengo traer a cualquier terrorista con mí cuando cruzo la frontera.
Posted by Jose on May 17, 2007 06:19 PMJose, vaya usted a demonios.
Posted by Bi-lingual on May 17, 2007 08:46 PMHah! Good one Bi-lingual. Ditto to that one!
Posted by on May 18, 2007 12:05 AMCharla: Common sense will never be lost: It is a collection of your bias and prejudice; which, is why they call it common. Take notice that every commenter in this forum has common sense. It appears that Keith for his common sense has been ostracized. Keep your common sense clean and civil. Me, your friendly deicide.
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen ape r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org) on May 19, 2007 03:30 PM