It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

President Bush to Militarize Border?

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Bush fixes things the big Texas way!!!

Either he does nothing at all, (while he mulls it over with his sidekick, Vicente the Fox, or he goes to extreme measures (where's the surprise here) to guard our borders! But hey, in a few days he will be "The comeback kid" with approval ratings way up in the 30's again!!

If that isnt pathetic.




posted on May, 16 2006 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally quoted by XphilesPhan

The term "illegals" comes from wither a court ruling that describes people who gained entry into the country as ILLEGALS!!!

Stop turning this into a race issue....and if you were so concerned for these poor immigrants you wouldnt be advocating the continued exploitation of them by corporations, why do you think they prefer illegals?


Do you have proof about the true orgins of the word, "illegals"?


To everyone else:

It's an issue of seeing people's true feelings. That's what I'm curious about. Race is out of the equation. If people were truly fair in their pursuit of all "illegals" then they would be as equally mad about the European "illegals" as the undocumented workers from South of the Border.

And, they would have the courage and fortitude to say "illegals" in the same breath as "Europeans". And, they would form a chapter to "drive those European illegals" out. Wouldn't they?

After all, you would easily help the INS or ICE detain those "European illegals" as you would South American undocumented workers, would you?









[edit on 16-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Best incarnation of my same old idea yet:

Widen, deepen, and stretch the Rio Grand from the Gulf to the Pacific.
Line both banks of the river with rasor wire and fences.
Use illegal workers to build it.
Pay them good.
Start with the american bank then wire the mexican bank.

When they finish they are on their side of the boarder and are able to retire in mexico on the cash they made for working for the past 6 months at the american living wage of 10$ an hour!

*side note*
They really should utilize electric powered vehicles out there and set up solar pannel arrays for powering our outposts.
That way the over all initiative would cost less because they could fuel the vehicles for free via the sun!



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006

Originally quoted by XphilesPhan

The term "illegals" comes from wither a court ruling that describes people who gained entry into the country as ILLEGALS!!!

Stop turning this into a race issue....and if you were so concerned for these poor immigrants you wouldnt be advocating the continued exploitation of them by corporations, why do you think they prefer illegals?


Do you have proof about the true orgins of the word, "illegals"?


To everyone else:

It's an issue of seeing people's true feelings. That's what I'm curious about. Race is out of the equation. If people were truly fair in their pursuit of all "illegals" then they would be as equally mad about the European "illegals" as the undocumented workers from South of the Border.

And, they would have the courage and fortitude to say "illegals" in the same breath as "Europeans". And, they would form a chapter to "drive those European illegals" out. Wouldn't they?

After all, you would easily help the INS or ICE detain those "European illegals" as you would South American undocumented workers, would you?
[edit on 16-5-2006 by ceci2006]


Euro trash is a problem yes, but there's a pretty big body of water preventing massive "invasions" of the Euro's
However with mexico there is a waste deep river that seperates us from them.
hmmm, thousands of miles of water, thousands of feet deep or a few yards of water a few feet deep?
Which do you suppose is more likely to host the most illegals?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by valkeryie
Wonder which states these national guardspeople will come from.
But I wonder what the cost will really end up being.


They have to do a two week active duty anyways.

IF there is any 'extra' cost, it will be to transport them to the border
and 'living in the field' costs.

However, if you check the links I previously posted, you will see that
the illegals cost America billions upon billions upon billions. The little
cost that it is to put the National Guard on the border will save us
HUGE amounts of money on the other end when many of the illegals
can't get here.

Sometimes you have to spend a little money to save a whole bunch.
THIS is one of those times.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Be honest. You wouldn't even think of illegal immigration if it had a White face attached to it. But with a brown face....


You really need to get over yourself. All over this board you scream
the race card. If you had bothered to look at the links posted you would
see what illegals cost this country and why people need to stop it. If you
had bothered to look at the links posted you would see the BASIC
SOCIOLOGY behind allowing certain number of immigrants at a time
in regards to the economic health of a nation. If you had bothered to
read any of the posts you'd see that ILLEGAL means ILLEGAL .. it's
just that simple. That means ALL ILLEGALS.

You are a one trick pony. Racism.


[edit on 5/16/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
When you label someone 'illegal' you stigmatize them.
That's not opinion, that's fact.


WyrdeOne ... when someone is illegal then that's what they are ... illegal.
That's not stigmatizing ... that's stating a fact. If they don't want to be
called 'illegal' then they should use the proper channels to come into this
country ... the proper channels like my daughter did coming here from
Bolivia, or like my Fatherinlaw did coming here from Switzerland, or like
my husbands grandparent did coming here from Mexico.

A rapist is a rapist.
A murderer is a murderer.
An illegal is an illegal.

It's just that simple. That's not stigmatizing. That's fact.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I just wanted you to see something funny.

www.youtube.com...

CNN probably did it on purpose.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Bush fixes things the big Texas way!!!

Actually, I don't think this is a big fix. It's just throwing a little something
at it to shut people up. A BIG fix would be to build a nice big wall along
our borders and to have it patrolled by the military forever. A nice BIG
fix would also include a complete overhaul of the INS and much tighter
security of our ports and airlines. Putting NG on the border for a year
and increasing border patrol personnel by 6,000 is nice, but it's a drop
in the bucket.


The comeback kid" with approval ratings way up in the 30's again!!
If that isnt pathetic.


dg ... dg ... dg ... You are funny!


Frankly, I don't think this will help his ratings. It won't hurt them
but it won't help. Most folks see this as a political thing by him that
he's actually getting off his butt and doing it. He should have done
BIG THINGS 6 years ago. Heck ... Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, and
Carter should have been doing more for border security. None of
them did. It's been ignored for too long but now in the post 9/11
world it is something that HAS to be taken care of. Heck ... even
Hillary (who had her chance to do something when she was co-president
with Bill) finally said that things had to be done for our national
security on this.

[edit on 5/16/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
CNN probably did it on purpose.


GOOD FIND! You betchya CNN did it on purpose. They are the
altar at which the radical left worships. People yak it up about
FOX leaning to the right. Well .... CNN leans to the left ...
even further than FOX leans to the right IMHO.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally quoted by FlyersFan

You really need to get over yourself. All over this board you scream
the race card. If you had bothered to look at the links posted you would
see what illegals cost this country and why people need to stop it. If you
had bothered to look at the links posted you would see the BASIC
SOCIOLOGY behind allowing certain number of immigrants at a time
in regards to the economic health of a nation. If you had bothered to
read any of the posts you'd see that ILLEGAL means ILLEGAL .. it's
just that simple. That means ALL ILLEGALS.

You are a one trick pony. Racism.


Oh yes, I did read your links. And I have one of my own:


Associated Press identified VDARE.com as an "immigration-focused Web magazine" -- not noting that it publishes "white nationalists"
In an April 28 Associated Press article, Hispanic affairs writer Laura Wides-Munoz identified right-wing website VDARE.com only as an "immigration-focused Web magazine," even though the site publishes the work of "white nationalists," according to its editor. The AP also failed to note that VDARE writer Bryanna Bevens, whom the article quoted, has made disparaging remarks about Hispanics, in which she advocated the creation of "National Hispanic Crime Prevention Month," and warned of "Mexico's conquest of the United States."

Wides-Munoz included a quote from Bevens in her article, which described the negative reaction of some Americans to a recently released Spanish-language rendition of The Star-Spangled Banner:
Bryanna Bevens of Hanford, Calif., who writes for the immigration-focused Web magazine Vdare.com, said the remix particularly upset her."It's very whiny. If you want to say all those things, by all means, put them on your poster board, but don't put them on the national anthem," she said.

But as Media Matters for America noted, VDARE.com is more than an "immigration-focused Web magazine." Named for Virginia Dare, the first child of English descent born in the New World in the 16th century, the site publishes the work of "white nationalists," according to a statement by Peter Brimelow, who operates VDARE.com through his nonprofit organization, the Center for American Unity. In 2003, the Southern Poverty Law Center added VDARE.com to its list of hate websites. VDARE's FAQ page contains three links -- one that leads to an explanation of its name and two that offer instructions on how to report an illegal alien. A search for the word "white" on VDARE returns articles with headlines such as "Do White Men Need Their Own Political Party?," "Harvard Hates The White Race?," "White Americans: Second-Class Citizens," and "No Democracy For Whites In The New America."


I especially found this little nugget of wisdom that probably stirred your passion for social justice, not to mention SOCIOLOGY. I'm sure that others would like to know the inspiration for using such a site to quote your statistics.

Yet, the Southern Poverty Law Center is not playing the race card here. They have pointed out exactly what your brand of sociology is:


Keeping America White

Fast forward to 2003. Once a relatively mainstream anti-immigration page, VDARE has now become a meeting place for many on the radical right.

One essay complains about how the government encourages "the garbage of Africa" to come to the United States. The same writer says once the "Mexican invasion" engulfs the country, "high teenage birthrates, poverty, ignorance and disease will be what remains."

Another says that Hispanics have a "significantly higher level of social pathology than American whites. ... In other words, some immigrants are better than others." Yet another complains that a Jewish immigrant rights group is helping "African Muslim refugees" come to America.

Brimelow's site carries archives of columns from men like Sam Francis, who is the editor of the newspaper of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, a group whose Web page recently described blacks as "a retrograde species of humanity."

It has run articles by Jared Taylor, the editor of the white supremacist American Renaissance magazine, which specializes in dubious race and IQ studies and eugenics, the "science" of "race betterment" through selective breeding.



Well. I thought you'd mention Popper or Weber or perhaps, even Durkheim or James. But of course, you have the education. It's about time people see where you get it from.

I rather be a one trick pony than a person who can't even name the top sociologists off the top of her head except the ones cited from a particular web site sponsoring a particular type of "information".


Were you trying to explain conflict theory, perhaps?





[edit on 16-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
But the Minutemen have been shown to be racist and violent.


No they have been accused of being both, however no one has ever proven that accusation to be true. Now if you have proof please feel free to do so at anytime, but be forewarned I and others will not hold our breaths.



If they weren't, the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League would not be tracking them. They would not have legal observers if they were truly above the board.


Who are you trying to kid? The Southern Poverty Law Center et al are pro illegal immigration and they like the ACLU have done nothing but try to embarrass the efforts of the Minuteman only to end up embarrassing themselves by being caught smoking pot.



ACLU smoking dope at border



[edit on 5/16/2006 by shots]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   
it should be regular army guarding the Mexican borders. Regular army whose strength is being wasted overseas in pointless and unproductive wars.

They could be bolstered by the national guard during their weekend drills. That would be effective training and a good use of defense money.

Further more, they need to nail the employers of illegals HARD. heavy fines, prison sentances, ect. This includes individual citizens who employ illegal gardners and nannies as well. If you are too lazy to look after your own kids, you shouldnt have them. And if you are too lazy to care for your own yard, you dont deserve one.

Its not that illegals wont do jobs Americans wont. thats the most tired and flawed excuse for exploiting them. Its that Americans and legal immigrants and guest workers cant compete with people who will work for 50 cents an hour. There are loads of very poor American workers desperately looking for work. You ever sit in a Labor Ready office? Loads of former construction or general labor guys who want fulltime jobs, but cant get them because illegals cost less to employ.

Plus, we have a bunch of lazy, healthy bastards on welfare who could fill alot of these jobs. Kick em off the governement gravy train and get em to work.

America does NOT need illegal;s to survive. We are simply squandering our own resources in oursuit of greed, and at the cost of rising crime rates and public health problems.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Jeez skadi, thats a bit harsh. imprisoning parents because they hire people to watch their kids. How do you even know these parents even realize they are hiring an illegal. They could be hiring these people just because they are good speakers, kind people, and they charge an affordable and fair rate. Just because someone is here as an illegal immigrant does not make them any less human, or mean they are not a good peson. Private citizens are not worried about checking if they are hiring citizens or non citizens to do their home chores and duties because they just want a good rate. I can not remember the last time my neighbor even thought about asking the people who do his lawn whether or not they were citizens.

It is irrelevant, they are good people, they do a good job, and they charge a good rate. I am not going to question anyone on their legal status if I am looking to hire someone to do some home duties.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
flyers


WyrdeOne ... when someone is illegal then that's what they are ... illegal.
That's not stigmatizing ... that's stating a fact.


Yes, when someone is 'illegal' that's what they are. Not an astounding leap...

However, I suggest you look up some definitions of the relevant terms used in my argument. Start with stigma and go from there..



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
When you label someone 'illegal' you stigmatize them.
That's not opinion, that's fact.


It is not stigmatizing them, it's calling a spade a spade.


stig·ma·tize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stgm-tz)
tr.v. stig·ma·tized, stig·ma·tiz·ing, stig·ma·tiz·es
To characterize or brand as disgraceful or ignominious.
To mark with stigmata or a stigma.
To cause stigmata to appear on.
dictionary.reference.com...


Any disgrace or shame caused by the term illegal is an internal reaction and brought on by the criminal himself because of their own voluntary actions.

Now we should worry about hurting their feelings?:shk:



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Now it seems this will last longer than the year he mentioned in his speech.
Surprise, surprise.

www.foxnews.com...


SACRAMENTO, Calif. — President Bush's planned deployment of National Guard troops to the Mexican border would last at least two years with no clear end date, according to a Pentagon memo obtained Friday by The Associated Press.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   


Now we should worry about hurting their feelings?


Of course not, but you should worry about losing your own feelings. Can you answer my original question now? If you saw a truckload of people being detained and taken away, and you were told by an authority figure that they were 'illegals', would you cheer and be happy, or would you want to know more about the circumstances of those people in the truck? What if they were white and suburban-looking, would that influence your judgement at all?

You see a man led away in handcuffs, with his weeping family behind him, it's not hard to empathize with him normally. Unless of course he's wearing a label, hacker, or terrorist, or illegal, etc. - pick one, they're interchangeable.

If you see nothing wrong with it, rock on, seriously, I bear you no emnity. I just hope you and everybody else feels the same when you're forced to wear one not of your own choosing. Then y'all will really have my respect.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
After getting into rows with others about this issue for the past month, I am only going to refrain from expressing my opinion here. Instead, I am going to post an argument about why people should care about stigmas. And where else would you have an article about that? Out of the country. This is an article from the BBC. See what you think. This is a British perception of the illegal immigration problem:


The thorny issue of illegal migrants

Put the words "illegal" and "immigrant" next to each other in the same sentence and you've usually got a political row in the making.

During the 2005 general election, a good deal of hot air was expelled trying to work out how many unauthorised migrants were living within our shores.

And in the last couple of weeks, we've seen the ejection of a home secretary over his failure, in the eyes of the prime minister, to get a grip on an enormous blunder that led to serious foreign criminals not being deported.

Now new Home Secretary John Reid has come under fire after one of his top officials, David Roberts, plainly told MPs on Tuesday there was little point hunting individuals who overstay their visa.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Of course not, but you should worry about losing your own feelings. Can you answer my original question now? If you saw a truckload of people being detained and taken away, and you were told by an authority figure that they were 'illegals', would you cheer and be happy, or would you want to know more about the circumstances of those people in the truck? What if they were white and suburban-looking, would that influence your judgement at all?


I would probably have a mixture of feelings, like any normal human being. I don't think the range of feelings one could experience are limited to the two ends of the spectrum.

I would most likely feel the strongest if they were young children, tho, or the elderly.

But for you to ask whether I would feel differently if they were one race vs another is not something I would expect you to ask, WO. There is too much effort here trying to make this a racial issue, when it is not. Some people keep yelling "Racism! Racism!" because they have no other argument that can be defended. It's been tried in other threads, and soundly rejected there also.


If you see nothing wrong with it, rock on, seriously, I bear you no emnity. I just hope you and everybody else feels the same when you're forced to wear one not of your own choosing. Then y'all will really have my respect.


Well, some people take the risk of wearing a label. But that is of their choosing. In the case of illegal immigrants, their own gov't is at least as much at fault.

I don't know how many ways or times I can say this.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join