It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I just got back from a FEMA Detainment Camp

page: 24
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 11:39 PM
Just found this on the net and let you be the first to know:

"Halliburton Detention Camps For Political Subversives
"Discussions of federal concentration camps is no longer the rhetoric of paranoid Internet conspiracy theorists, it is mainstream news."

There is a link there that leads to Yahoo, published 24 Jan. 2006

Sorry to put this up for you, just reading it gives me a bad feeling. If it keeps going on like this ATS might soon be running out of "theories". One thing for sure is that Halliburton isn't a theory unless they get $385 million for doing nothing.
Peter Paul

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 09:59 AM
Why must this be called a "FEMA Detainment Camp". Isn't that sensationalist?

It's a private area that was commissioned by the Federal Government to alleviate overcrowing of refugees. And if you call Detainment the process whereby they refuse to allow in/out privilege to people when they clearly shouldn't be abusing that, I guess you're wrong too. It's called refusing re-entry.

And weren't people free to leave? Thus, again, I refute the detainment aspect. Tsk, tsk. Such glamorous wording.

posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 10:09 AM

Originally posted by NextLevel
And weren't people free to leave? Thus, again, I refute the detainment aspect. Tsk, tsk. Such glamorous wording.

If you read this entire thread, you might see how that point was not entirely clear. Literary license???? Perhaps. But for a while there, it looked like it was pretty close to the truth.

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 08:09 AM
Are there any updates to this, Valhall? Are there people residing there now, do you know?

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 08:55 AM
As far as I know there were never any evacuees residing at the camp. Shortly after the camp was prepared, for some unclear reason, the plan to move evacuees there was delayed several times and over a week after my visit there, Governor Henry announced the camp would not be used.

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 09:08 AM

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by NextLevel
And weren't people free to leave? Thus, again, I refute the detainment aspect. Tsk, tsk. Such glamorous wording.

If you read this entire thread, you might see how that point was not entirely clear. Literary license???? Perhaps. But for a while there, it looked like it was pretty close to the truth.

I would like to also comment on this. Because I'm personally sick and tired of the repeated comments on the title of this thread. Especially when the poster has nothing of value to add (like NextLevel) and simply thinks they know what the correct title should have been (please note they never offer what that correct title would be). The point of this DISCUSSION thread (and I emphasize that because this wasn't a "news article") was to share and discuss what was said to me that day and what I saw that caused me concern.

There were two issues that caused me the most concern..

1. An extremely inappropriate attitude toward the people allegedly headed to the camp.

2. The fact the people who would reside in the camp would not have the freedom to come and go. They would have the choice of either staying 24/7 in the camp, or leave with no chance to come back.

Now, I could have called it

"I just got back from a FEMA humiliation camp"


"I just got back from a FEMA concentration camp"


"I just got back from a FEMA detention camp"


"I just got back from a FEMA holding camp"

I was NOT going to title it

"I just got back from a FEMA refugee camp"


"I just got back from a FEMA evacuee camp"

because neither of the bottom two reflect the concerns and why I was starting the discussion thread in the first place. To me, when I headed to the camp, I was headed to a refugee camp or evacuee camp. When I left, I was not leaving what those words represented to me, but something totally different. Because in my mind, in America, if there was an evacuee or refugee camp for U.S. citizens, it would be a location provided to them for temporary housing after a catastrophe, but that still afforded their full citizen's rights.

The point of this thread is that they were not going to be given their full citizen's rights while staying at this camp.

It was my own personal opinion that to use "concentration camp" or "holding camp" or "detention camp" would not reflect what I was trying to say. Concentration camp has far to severe a connotation (thanks to a lot of bad history connected with it). Holding camp may have been okay, but still didn't denote what I was trying to say. Detention camp would have been WRONG and, in fact, sensationalist because a detention camp is basically a prison (i.e. Guantanamo), you can't leave AT ALL.

I chose "detainment" because it voiced that the people were detained in their rights to free movement without denoting a full restriction to ALL movement (i.e. they could leave - but couldn't come back). The reason I chose this word was because it was the only thing I could think of that accurately voiced my concern and there was several minutes of considering what to title this thread.

"I'm sorry for being late...I was detained."

Based on the repeated drivel of several people who think they could have done a better job of naming this thread, the next time some one offers the above sentence when arriving late I guess I should call them a sensationalist.

[edit on 2-18-2006 by Valhall]

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 03:19 AM

Originally posted by Valhall

The point of this thread is that they were not going to be given their full citizen's rights while staying at this camp.

Valhall, can you please specify which citizen's rights the occupants (detainees, whatever) of this camp were going to be denied?

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 08:40 AM

Article 12 - Freedom of movement

203. As reported in the Initial Report, in the United States, the right to travel - both domestically and internationally - is constitutionally protected. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is "a part of the 'liberty' of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment". See Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965). As a consequence, governmental actions affecting travel are subject to the mechanisms for judicial review of constitutional questions described elsewhere in this report. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has emphasized that it "will construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute citizens' ability to travel". See Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 129 (1958).

Examples of civil rights and liberties include the right to get redress if injured by another, the right to privacy, the right of peaceful protest, the right to a fair investigation and trial if suspected of a crime, and more generally-based constitutional rights such as the right to vote, the right to personal freedom, the right to life, the right to freedom of movement and anti-discrimination laws. As civilisations emerged and formalised through written constitutions, some of the more important civil rights were granted to citizens. When those grants were later found inadequate, civil rights movements emerged as the vehicle for claiming more equal protection for all citizens and advocating new laws to limit the effect of current discriminations.

Article 13

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution.

And so as to the right to contract. The liberty, of which the deprivation without due process of law is forbidden, 'means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned; . . . although it may be conceded that this right to contract in relation to persons or property or to do business within the jurisdiction of the state may be regulated and sometimes prohibited when the contracts or business conflict with the policy of the state as contained in its statutes.' Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 589, 591, 41 S. L. ed. 835, 836, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 42 L. ed. 780, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383.

Due Process
Johnson v. City of Cincinnati, No. 00-4477 (6th Cir. Sept. 26, 2002). A city ordinance banning persons arrested for or convicted of drug offenses from “drug exclusion zones” violated due process by infringing on the right to intrastate travel because the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest in enhancing the quality of life in drugplagued neighborhoods and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of citizens in those areas because the ordinance broadly excluded individuals from such neighborhoods without regard to their reason for traveling there, and without any particularized finding that they were likely to engage in recidivist drug activity.

Justice Douglas stood on loftier ground than the Interstate Commerce Clause: "The right of free movement is a right of national citizenship." To except the poor and destitute from this right would contravene every conception of national unity. "It would prevent a citizen because he was poor from seeking new horizons in other States." On the contrary, "Mobility is basic to any question of freedom of opportunity."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.

The right to assemble allows people to gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this right is the right to association and belief. The Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This implicit right is limited to the right to associate for First Amendment purposes. The right to associate also prohibits the government from requiring a group to register or disclose its members or from denying government benefits on the based on an individuals current or past membership in a particular group.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Section I-2: Religious liberty - Polygamous or plural marriages.
Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and
no inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or
property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; and no
religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
political rights.
Polygamous or plural marriages are forever

Section II-2: Inherent rights.
All persons have the inherent right to life, liberty, the
pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own

Section II-3: Right of assembly and petition.
The people have the right peaceably to assemble for their own
good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of
government for redress of grievances by petition, address, or

Section II-7: Due process of law.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law.

Section II-13: Imprisonment for debt.
Imprisonment for debt is prohibited, except for the non-payment
of fines and penalties imposed for the violation of law.

[edit on 2-19-2006 by Valhall]

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 01:41 AM
Any of the rights concerning freedom of movement you sited are not applicable, because freedom of movement has never applied to entering or leaving private property.

The right to enter or leave private property is controlled by the owner or authorized representative of the property. Private property rights extend to government owned and operated facilities (although I don't understand why they should, since the government is really supposed to be "the people".)

I don't understand your references to freedom of religion, imprisonment for debts, deprivation of life, liberty and property, and freedom of assembly; I would appreciate some clarification on these points.

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 05:12 AM
I don't believe that argument would hold. FEMA/OEMA leased it "lock and stock and barrel", that made it a government operated and leased site paid for with taxpayers' money. There's plenty of federal offices and facilities that are leased - they have to operate under the same guidelines as a fully-owned.

They were going to be restricted from leaving to look for work, to find a home elsewhere, to attend the church of their choosing, etc. (with etc. being everything short of leaving for good.)

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:08 AM

Originally posted by craig732
Any of the rights concerning freedom of movement you sited are not applicable, because freedom of movement has never applied to entering or leaving private property.

For private property that only aplies to allowing people onto the property not leaving. You prevent someone leaving your property and that is called unlawful detainment. (Kidnapping)

[edit on 20-2-2006 by sardion2000]

posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 11:59 AM

1. Don't ever volunteer. It costs you all rights to oversight. Make them take it so that /because of that outrage/ you can retain some rights as an 'interested citizen'.

2. Don't assume that because we are collectively j'accused of being suit-happy that there is not a secondary motive inherent to the brainwashing. i.e. "Don't want to be labelled, let the government handle /evvvvverything/...." It's subtle but it does work because while you might laugh off the alien-outsider mouthpieces, as soon as your peers discusss it, it becomes oppressive on the basis of getting them to stop.

3. OTOH, public disclosure is the hallmark of social identity _as a safety net_ by which we trust ourselves to hear the worst and work through our own minds 'what it all means.
In this case, a responsible Fed would be leasing airtime on every PBS station they could find with the intent of "We will pick no sides but since we are a /non profit sponsor/ of these institutions...." showing how good and how bad things are.

4. I don't trust charity systems which are not directly by-for-and-of the people. Not least because it violates Rule #1 of disaster politics which states "If ever in doubt, make them feel guilty for NOT participating sooner." So that you don't have to shoulder the blame alone but can be seen in a Churchillian light. Indeed, when I think of 'charity goods' sitting in some warehouse eventually intended for someone, I think more of Somalia than here. It being all too easy for nefarious groups either 'hired' as microindustrial concerns or operating as for-profit funded means to black ops to take advantage of this.
It may be a case where 'teaching to fish' is NOT as good as handing the meal in question over yourself.

5. One reason it is dangerous to initiate this kind of sytem is in fact simply the danger of dependency. While I won't go so far as to say it is a different kind of wellfare. Nor even a Stockholm complex in the making, there are elements of both. Cheery, open minded, but /driven/ charity groups directly participating in supporting the disaster-indigent have a FAR more 'gratitude PLUS embarrassment' healthy effect because they will not let the victims remain so, forever and their giving will itself be an open insult to the proud who do no want a handout so much as a handup. The question then being whether said charities are in a position to help make the jobs and self sufficiency happen through a combined weaning process and 'my compassion is for all but my respect will only be for those who will come outside this gilded cage with me...' Hard as nails morality.

6. In approximately 2 years, we will get another shot at this. Congress will declare our surrender in Iraq much as it did in SEA and while there will be a massive war debt to ammortize, so too will there be an equally great opportunity to downsize the military by half or one third for having failed to capture the ONE MAN who is behind all this. Forget Saddam. And rebuild NOLA.

THAT is the key to limiting our governments power over us. By denying the external threat paranoia which dictates a lock-down state at home. And forcing them to secure locally what they refused to manage internationally.

One such 'security' being the rebuilding of one of our great cities.

Myself, I am not at all sure that NOLA needs to fight flood waters when it's very existence inhibits the deposition of silt and lowers the barriers.

BUT. Somewhere, there should be a city for these people. And whether it is right where it's at. Or someplace upriver. _That_ ladies and gents, is where we should do a MASSIVE habitat for humanity project. Because there will be noone there to be raped. Or stolen from. Or forceably 'detained' under a strict set of rules (lest there be riots!).

It will be a void of existence where people who can lift a shovel or swing a hammer can rebuild, free of charge, something that is free to own.

Such an effort to establish lawful residency and provide equal replacement of same being what my principal goal would be in camps such as these.

I will judge these people by what natural level they let themselves find. But I will salve my conscience in the belief that we /could/ rebuild what was destroyed, with organized Christian labor. Vastly more assuredly and 'from scratch' than we could micromanage the care and feeding of human animals.

TIME is the enemy here. The faster we create a replacement environment for these folks to live in, the less guilt, outrage and uncertainty over how we should be treating them vs. how we let our government stand in our place in doing so will matter.

The solution is not in High Creek or whatever the heck it is. It is in creating what comes after. And as far as I can tell, there is not the same kind of even tract-house (Post WWII, given _honorably_ as 1,200sq ft cottages to vets with minimum mortgages) attempts at a Post Katrina Marshal Plan as there is, even to this day, in Iraq on a corporate level.

Don't let your government discourage or shut off the channels by which you can help. Use the internet to create the kinds of unified voice in Congress that forces a PWA type system into existence and then _contribute_, directly, to that. Even as you replace the President whose system of systems so scares you with it's efficiency of rendering humans into cattle.


Think About It.

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 08:27 PM

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by craig732
Any of the rights concerning freedom of movement you sited are not applicable, because freedom of movement has never applied to entering or leaving private property.

For private property that only aplies to allowing people onto the property not leaving. You prevent someone leaving your property and that is called unlawful detainment. (Kidnapping)

[edit on 20-2-2006 by sardion2000]

Yeah you are right, sorry I posted it the way I did.

Anyway the people who were going to go there were free to leave.

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:34 PM
i just got finished digesting the entire thread that grew out of your most inspiring journey to the "camp". I have been a conspiracy watcher for the better part of 2 decades now, on a computer a little longer and was born and raised in Metairie ( a VERY large suburb, right up against New Orleans to the West). I live in Canada now (for the last 10 yrs). Let me start by saying your original post was an inspiration. In all the years I have been following these stories that we all follow, I have remained a "lurker",not feeling compelled to say anything, just using the boards as a way of getting info and forming my own opinion.

The "Situation" that has come to light since Katrina is an ugly one. The Feds seem to realize that "we" are out their and they better be on best behavior. Thats why i think the powers that be chose not to send any victims to the "camp" in Oklahoma.

I feel in my heart and from what my Brother in metairie is saying, the levees were blown to take the City and make it white. He says that there are significantly fewer Afro-Americans in N.O. now and we are 5 months from the catastrophe. i dont get it, i mean, i get it , but it makes me sick.
when do they plan on moving these ppl back home. Even if they dont have a house they are from there.

I don't even want to visit.

Thanks for doing what you do, that goes to all the ppl that contribute to the threads in a positive way. I know that sometimes some ppl can get too bitchy like its a H.S. club or something but forget them and keep on keepin on.

Prairie Tsunami

posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:38 AM
It seems that everything old is new again.

The Halliburton subsidiary KBR (formerly Brown and Root) announced on Jan.
24 that it had been awarded a $385 million contingency contract by the
Department of Homeland Security to build detention camps. Two weeks later,
on Feb. 6, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that the
Fiscal Year 2007 federal budget would allocate over $400 million to add
6,700 additional detention beds (an increase of 32 percent over 2006).
This $400 million allocation is more than a four-fold increase over the FY
2006 budget, which provided only $90 million for the same purpose.

Both the contract and the budget allocation are in partial fulfillment of
an ambitious 10-year Homeland Security strategic plan, code-named ENDGAME,
authorized in 2003. According to a 49-page Homeland Security document on
the plan, ENDGAME expands "a mission first articulated in the Alien and
Sedition Acts of 1798." Its goal is the capability to "remove all
removable aliens," including "illegal economic migrants, aliens who have
committed criminal acts, asylum-seekers (required to be retained by law)
or potential terrorists."

There is no question that the Bush administration is under considerable
political pressure to increase the detentions of illegal immigrants,
especially from across the Mexican border. Confrontations along the border
are increasingly violent, often involving the drug traffic.

But the problem of illegal immigration cannot be separated from other Bush
administration policies: principally the retreat from traditional American
programs designed to combat poverty in Latin America. In Florida last
week, Democratic Party leader Howard Dean attacked the new federal budget
for its almost 30 percent cut in development aid to Latin America and the

In truth, both parties have virtually abandoned the John F. Kennedy vision
of an Alliance for Progress in Latin America. Kennedy's hope was that, by
raising the standard of living of Latin America's poor, there would be
less pressure on them to emigrate to the United States.

That vision foundered when successive administrations, both Democratic and
Republican, contributed to the overthrow of democratically elected
governments in Brazil, Chile and elsewhere, replacing them with oppressive

Since about 1970, the policies of the U.S.-dominated International
Monetary Fund have also aggravated the problem of poverty in the rest of
the world, especially Latin America. U.S. programs abroad, like programs
at home, are now designed principally around the concept of security --
above all for oil installations and pipelines.

In consequence, the United States is being redefined as a vast gated
community, hoping to isolate itself by force from its poverty-stricken
neighbors. Inside the U.S. fortress sit 2.1 million prisoners, a greater
percentage of the population than in any other nation. ENDGAME's crash
program is designed to house additional detainees who have not been
convicted of crimes.

Significantly, both the KBR contract and the ENDGAME plan are open-ended.
The contract calls for a response to "an emergency influx of immigrants,
or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other
emergencies, such as "a natural disaster." "New programs" is of course a
term with no precise limitation. So, in the current administration, is
ENDGAME's goal of removing "potential terrorists."

It is relevant that in 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced his
desire to see camps for U.S. citizens deemed to be "enemy combatants." On
Feb. 17 of this year, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations,
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of the harm being done to the
country's security, not just by the enemy, but also by what he called
"news informers" who needed to be combated in "a contest of wills." Two
days earlier, citing speeches critical of Bush by Al Gore, John Kerry, and
Howard Dean, conservative columnist Ben Shapiro called for "legislation to
prosecute such sedition."

Since 9/11 the Bush administration has implemented a number of
inter-related programs, which had been planned for secretly in the 1980s
under President Reagan. These so-called "Continuity of Government" or COG
proposals included vastly expanded detention capabilities, warrantless
eavesdropping and detention, and preparations for greater use of martial

Prominent among the secret planners of this program in the 1980s were
then-Congressman Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who at the time was in
private business as CEO of the drug company G.D. Searle.

The principal desk officer for the program was Oliver North, until he was
forced to resign in 1986 over Iran-Contra.

When planes crashed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, Vice
President Cheney's response, after consulting President Bush, was to
implement a classified "Continuity of Government" plan for the first time,
according to the 9/11 Commission report. As the Washington Post later
explained, the order "dispatched a shadow government of about 100 senior
civilian managers to live and work secretly outside Washington, activating
for the first time long-standing plans."

What these managers in this shadow government worked on has never been
reported. But it is significant that the group that prepared ENDGAME was,
as the Homeland Security document puts it, "chartered in September 2001."
For ENDGAME's goal of a capacious detention capability is remarkably
similar to Oliver North's controversial Rex-84 "readiness exercise" for
COG in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary "refugees," in the context
of "uncontrolled population movements" over the Mexican border into the
United States.

North's exercise, which reportedly contemplated possible suspension of the
United States Constitution, led to questions being asked during the
Iran-Contra Hearings. One concern then was that North's plans for expanded
internment and detention facilities would not be confined to "refugees"

Oliver North represented a minority element in the Reagan administration,
which soon distanced itself from both the man and his proposals. But that
minority associated with COG planning, which included Dick Cheney, appear
to be in control of the U.S. government today.

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 01:05 AM

Originally posted by resistor
The Halliburton subsidiary KBR (formerly Brown and Root) announced on Jan.
24 that it had been awarded a $385 million contingency contract by the
Department of Homeland Security to build detention camps.

Please state your source and provide links if possible.

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 07:31 PM
It's true.

Halliburton Press Release Jan. 24, 2006

KBR announced today that its Government and Infrastructure division has been awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency. KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton (NYSE:HAL).

The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs. The contingency support contract provides for planning and, if required, initiation of specific engineering, construction and logistics support tasks to establish, operate and maintain one or more expansion facilities.

The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. In the event of a natural disaster, the contractor could be tasked with providing housing for ICE personnel performing law enforcement functions in support of relief efforts.

I know it's easy to center in on the KBR connection on this, but the more important questions to ask (because KBR is one of the larger construction companies in the U.S. so there isn't much question on that one) are...

what the heck is an "immigration emergency" and how does it even happen and why the heck are we spending almost $400 million on such a wild supposition?

It's bizarre - even to me.

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Valhall
what the heck is an "immigration emergency" and how does it even happen and why the heck are we spending almost $400 million on such a wild supposition?

It's bizarre - even to me.

OK, this is something I hesitate doing, because the possibility is NOT something I want some nut thinking about.....but here goes....

What if there were a series of terrorist attacks not in the US, but in Mexico?

Think about this.... It seems like such an obvious vulnerability... If we can't get our act together with security, what do you think Mexico is doing?

If there were a compelling enough reason for people to flee north to the US, you'd see the "immigration emergency" you're looking for....

EDIT: This subject would be an interesting SKUNK WORKS thread.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by loam]

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 08:01 PM
This is off-topic, but I think congratulations are in order. This thread has more than 350k views! That's insane...

Great work Valhall!

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Valhall
what the heck is an "immigration emergency" and how does it even happen and why the heck are we spending almost $400 million on such a wild supposition?

It's bizarre - even to me.

Hmmm.... I keep thinking about this, because I agree with you. What the heck would justify this, and what do they know that we don't?

My previous post speculated on some massive attack in Mexico that would drive people north, but I think we can all agree that is still rather highly speculative....

Then, I ran into this:

VIOLENCE IN MEXICO CITY: Riots surround a global summit seeking answers to a problem that's getting more acute

Violence broke out Thursday as experts and conservationists from around the world gathered to search for ways to safeguard one of the world's most precious commodities.

A gang of youths, many of them in ski masks, attacked a patrol car with sticks and rocks, and riot police fired tear gas into the crowd, local media reported. At least a dozen protesters armed with knives, pipes and Molotov cocktails were arrested in a separate incident on the first day of the fourth World Water Forum in Mexico City.


In the Mexican capital, tomorrow's crisis is already here.

Parts of the metropolis are sinking by as much as a foot a year because of over-exploitation of aquifers. More than 1 million residents lack water in their homes. And fights about water are getting increasingly violent, with some experts warning of a future "water war."

Now, if there is anything that could drive people north, I would think a lack of drinking water could do the trick...

top topics

<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in