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.


President Bush to Militarize Border?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in


posted on May, 20 2006 @ 07:52 PM

Originally posted by valkeryie
Now it seems this will last longer than the year he mentioned in his speech.
Surprise, surprise.

Well, I don't quite see the problem with that. Participating in border patrol is an excellent training ground for the Guard, esp. for new recruits. It's much more preferable to get their first real-world experience on their own soil rather than half a world away. I think most members of the Guard would agree.

After all, their name is the National Guard, isn't it?

If it's OK to send them to assist hurricane victims, why isn't it OK to have them assist in guarding the borders?

Or am I missing something?

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 08:51 PM
I guess the only thing that is being missed here is that he said it would be a temporary assignment last for up to a year. Once again the guy is lying to his citizens.

"This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year.

Seriously, just how much lying does this 'president' have to do? If the leader of Canada ever did this much lying to his citizens, he would be out of office quickly.

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 09:21 PM
Let's expand your quote a little bit:

This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year. After that, the number of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online.

Emphasis added

I don't see the lie. I don't see the inconsistency, and I don't see any attempt to mislead.

What I do see is your snipppet of a quote, used in attempt to call Bush a liar.

Personally, I don't see the advantage of staying with a one year committment. Imo, the Guard should be available for as long as they are needed and available.

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 09:31 PM
I have no problem with the NG being there permanently. Your comment that they are the "National Guard" seems right on point to me and I fail to comprehend how anyone would be able to argue with that, except of course that it was President Bush's idea. That in and of itself means some on here would be against it.

He could discover the cure for cancer and there are people here that would say it was his fault in the beginning.

Again, what is wrong with them defending our borders when they "help" in hurricanes??

I do not fall for the BS about "They have jobs, It's so far for some to go etc etc." Well they signed up and now it is their duty to go where they are told and do what they are told to do.

AGain no one has been able to answer why is it OK to search me at an airport, and let Illegals cross unhindered?

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 09:32 PM

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

Well, I think that's pretty common (I feel the same way). I guess young adult males are out of luck though, and that's precisely the group that causes the government the most hassles, and it's also the sort they need for military service...

Interconnected issues, hard to discuss all at once, so don't let me derail the thread, except to suggest that the ultimate irony would be using conscripted illegal aliens to patrol the southern border. It'll probably never happen, but stranger things have...

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.

Look, I'm not calling you a racist, and I'm not trying to infer that you're a racist. Forget racism for a minute, and remember STIGMA (which is a component of racism, certainly). Mexicans have been stigmatized, so that when they're labeled 'illegals', regardless of whether they are or not, people are more inclined to accept the label.

The really powerful labels are the ones that transcend race anyway, the ones that can be applied to anyone. 'Infected' is a good one, or 'Diseased' if you prefer, that's gonna be popular around these parts soon, I bet. Should be a bunch of fun.

Ask someone growing up in an urban environment about the label 'gang member' and how it effects things like the boundaries of probable cause, sentencing, even sharpening the cop equivalent of ROE (rules of engagement). Whether or not someone is a gang member is immaterial, if they are labeled as one, they will be treated quite poorly, and may very well wind up dead through no fault of their own. For those who actually are gang members, it's no big tragedy, you reap what you sow. But what about those who were mislabeled? Don't they deserve justice?

An awareness of the power of labels, and how they lean on our judgement, is crucial to the issue.

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.

Some do choose their label (I'm a 'smoker'), others don't. I take the stigma in stride and don't complain overmuch about it, because it's a personal choice that I made, and choices have consequences.

And obviously, the people who break the law are responsible for understanding the consequences of their decision. But we're talking about militarizing the border, and stepping up enforcement, and my point is that we need to excercise caution in forming judgements about people based on the labels applied to them by the media.

When we see them suffering in Haliburton camps, we won't know anything about them as individuals, all we'll have to base our judgement on is the label they wear.

The obvious parallel is Gitmo detainees, 'terrorists' is the label they wear, and clearly it's served its purpose. Extrapolate that...

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 10:10 PM
wyrdeone, Good argument, however as you (and I) wear the label of smoker as a choice, Illegals wear that label through choice as well. Yes Yes I know the, "they are looking for a better life, they have no choice" arguments, my contention is that they choose to walk across our border illegally and so must wear the moniker.

As for Gitmo, Conspire against our country and that is what you get. Most other countries would have executed them on the spot. I went to SERE school in the Military and I was put through worse then was reported there. Yet everyone is crying about the poor poor detainees. Well boohoo. I could care less about that happens to them. They are enemies of my country and should be treated as such. Or let them go and maybe they will kill one of our sons or daughters and then we can all cry, "where was the government!! Why did they let him go??"

Did I have any illusions about what would happen to me if I was captured in combat? NO NO NO, I knew what the "opposition" did to snipers, yet I chose to do my duty. The terrorists at Gitmo, chose to do what they have and were captured and only in this liberal wimp of a society can you be a prisoner of war and whine loud enough for half of the country to start feeling sorry for you. SHEEESH

But back on topic

Come on now...someone answer me why am I searched at the airport, yet it is OK for the Illegal Aliens to walk across as they wish????

A little common sense goes a long way.

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 11:00 PM
About the only thing I can say about your response is that people will always apply labels to individuals and groups. We can't change that; they have to change themselves. To try to change someone's opinion will only frustrate you. Even when you think you've succeeded, the moment they are out of sight, or back in their old element, bad habits return.

Yes, the media plays a role in it also. To use part of your own reply:

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
But we're talking about militarizing the border, and stepping up enforcement, and my point is that we need to excercise caution in forming judgements about people based on the labels applied to them by the media.

I don't agree with the term "militarizing the border".

As far as stigma, all that a person can do is to rise above the label applied to them. It takes hard work, but it can be done.

posted on May, 21 2006 @ 01:53 AM
I'm not clear about the label or stigma concern.

If you lay bricks for a living, you are a bricklayer. If you commit a crime, you are a criminal, if you are Illegal, then you are Illegal.

Should I be upset at being called an American because so many people on here hate Americans? I mean that is what I am, an American.

I really do not care how they have to "live with the stigma" they are Illegal ALiens, Criminals that broke the law and need to pay for that or at the least sent home until such time as they decide to respect our laws.

posted on May, 21 2006 @ 08:23 PM

Illegals wear that label through choice as well.

Nobody needs to have pity for the guilty. We just need to guard against assumptions of guilt in the absence of evidence, and the callousness that labels sometimes provoke.

Yes Yes I know the, "they are looking for a better life, they have no choice" arguments

Looking for a better life is one thing, I can understand that argument if we're trying to understand why people are breaking the law. But who's saying they have no choice? That's ridiculous. We've always got choices. Maybe it's their best choice, but there are always others.

Come on now...someone answer me why am I searched at the airport, yet it is OK for the Illegal Aliens to walk across as they wish????

Airport security is a farce..they consistently fail to find planted dummy bombs and weapons. It makes people feel better about flying. Just like a few sections of wall patrolled by a few thousand weekend warriors will make people feel better about the border situation, without really having any effect.

Even if we sealed it up tight as a drum, with a few hundred thousand soldiers and dogs, and 20mm auto cannons, immigrants will find a way, be it by air, sea, subteranean, in trunks and turnip trucks, in cargo containers, floating in bathtubs, you name it.

If the country wanted to protect itself against terrorists, hardening the power grid, the water supply, and the food supply would be the first logical steps. But we haven't done that, have we? No, we've spent billions on fancy toys and do-nothing consultants, while the real vulnerabilities remain unaddressed and the fat get fatter.

That's not my idea of tough on terrorism, that's my idea of easy on war-profiteers.

posted on May, 21 2006 @ 08:53 PM
It's long overdue to militarize the border. I'm all for immigration, but the legal way. If your first act in this country is to break the law, then we're better off without you.

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 01:10 AM
Given that Bush has been in power for six years this smacks of a political stunt to boost low poll ratings. I dont understand the American mind set . Americans are parnoid about the government going bad (hasnt it alreadly ? ) and yet many of these people over look the invasion of illegal aliens.

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 05:12 AM

Originally posted by xpert11
Given that Bush has been in power for six years this smacks of a political stunt to boost low poll ratings. I dont understand the American mind set . Americans are parnoid about the government going bad (hasnt it alreadly ? ) and yet many of these people over look the invasion of illegal aliens.

I for one could care less what his motivations are as long as something gets done to stem the flow of Illegals.

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 05:56 AM
If you gonna put mexicans out.. whos gonna build the wall ?

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 06:01 AM
How about all the less fortunate that can't seem to find jobs?

Worked for Truman.

Now that is a welfare program I could get on board with.

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 06:13 AM
The simple truth is that people don't want to do anything harsh to make a point. Sometimes, however, that's exactly what's necesary.

If the government were truly interested in securing our borders, then they would allow the use of deadly force all along the border, on the US side of course, and enforce it. If that were done, the first few shot dead and returned to Mexico would send the message that that kind of thing won't be tolerated anymore. They would stop coming across altogether, I can assure you. The only reason they do now is because there are no repercussions for their actions. All that happens is they get sent back home with a proverbial slap on the wrist.

At some point, an example has to be made. When will that happen? Or will it ever?


posted on May, 22 2006 @ 01:36 PM
TheBorg, are you suggesting we shoot mexicans coming across the border? Those same Mexicans trying to escape the harsh realities of their lives in Mexico in search of a better one in the United States?

Theborg, your post is extremely one sided, but I don't think you seem to care. Doesn't really matter anyways because the use of deadly force will never be authorized unless(and I do stress this), unless the use of deadly force is the last option, short of nuking mexico. Using deadly force at this stage is not only politically incorrect, but other nations would certainly step in to do something, then we have a whole global fiasco in our hands. Of course with the whole Iraq situation(and the growing Iranian situation), another global problem is the last thing the U.S. needs.

So I don't think that the use of Deadly force would be the wisest choise at the moment.

They're only trying to escape the hardships in their country, I'm not sure you put yourself in their position.

Shattered OUT...

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:56 PM
Courtesy of the Neal Bortz Show

* Ten percent of Mexicans now live in the United States.
# Fifteen percent of the Mexican workforce lives in the U.S.
# One in every 7 Mexican workers "migrates" to the U.S.
# Mexicans make up 56% of what the Chronicle refers to as the "unauthorized U.S. migrant population." I'll translate: Mexicans make up 56% of illegal aliens in the U.S.
# There are some Mexican communities that have almost no workers left. They've gone to the U.S.
# Mexicans in the U.S. send about $20 billion a year back to their homes in Mexico. This amount exceeds Mexico's income from all oil exports and is much higher than Mexico's revenue from tourism.
# The $20 billion that Mexicans send back home exceeds the entire foreign aid budget of the United States.
# In five Mexican states the money sent home by those who have invaded the United States exceeds total locally generated income.


Now there are some scary statistics.

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 07:13 PM

I would like to thank you for your wonderful discussion about stigmas and the harm it could do for a group of people. I, for one, wanted to know where and who "coined" the word "illegals" in the first place. I am not suprised that no one could come up with an accurate definition. An "illegal" is an "illegal", right?

Well, there wasn't an article in Wikipedia, but I did find two sources that discuss the term: The National Association of Hispanic Journalists and the National Association of Black Journalists. Together, with the National Association of Asian Journalists and Native American Journalists Association, they have issued guidelines about talking about immigration and have asked the media to stop using the perjorative term of "illegal".

They discuss what harm such stigmas can do:

NAHJ Urges News Media to Stop Using Dehumanizing Terms When Covering Immigration

NAHJ is concerned with the increasing use of pejorative terms to describe the estimated 11 million undocumented people living in the United States. NAHJ is particularly troubled with the growing trend of the news media to use the word, illegals, as a noun, shorthand for "illegal aliens". Using the word in this way is grammatically incorrect and crosses the line by criminalizing the person, not the action they are purported to have committed. NAHJ calls on the media to never use illegals in headlines.

Shortening the term in this way also stereotypes undocumented people who are in the United States as having committed a crime. Under current U.S. immigration law, being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime, it is a civil violation. Furthermore, an estimated 40 percent of all undocumented people living in the U.S. are visa overstayers, meaning they did not illegally cross the U.S. border.

In addition, the association has always denounced the use of the degrading terms alien and illegal alien to describe undocumented immigrants because it casts them as adverse, strange beings, inhuman outsiders who come to the U.S. with questionable motivations. Aliens is a bureaucratic term that should be avoided unless used in a quote.

The NABJ has issued their own statement in talking about the stigma such a word could have in the press:

Post details: NABJ Cautions Media Over Language Use in Immigration Debate

According to the U.S. Census, more than three million of the suspected 12-15 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. come from countries outside Mexico and Latin America, including Russia, Poland, Ireland, China, India and Canada.
At the 1994 Unity convention, the four minority journalism groups -- NABJ, NAHJ, the Asian American Journalists Association and the Native American Journalists Association -- issued a joint statement on the term "illegal aliens": "Except in direct quotations, do not use the phrase illegal alien or the word alien, in copy or in headlines, to refer to citizens of a foreign country who have come to the U.S. with no documents to show that they are legally entitled to visit, work or live here. Such terms are considered pejorative not only by those to whom they are applied but by many people of the same ethnic and national backgrounds who are in the U.S. legally."

George Lakoff, a linguistics professor at the University of California at Berkeley was quoted in the New York Times recently: "Metaphors repeated often enough eventually become part of your physical brain," he said. "Use the word 'illegal' often enough, which suggests criminal, which suggests immoral, and you have framed the issue of immigration to a remarkable degree."

This is something to consider when using the term "illegal". As I wrote in another thread, "What Harm Could A Word Do?" A lot if you are the one being "dehumanized" by the speaker.

Again, I graciously extend my appreciation to you for your humanity in treating this subject.

[edit on 22-5-2006 by ceci2006]

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 08:35 PM
But ceci

They are Illegal and Aliens

So are they not Illegal Aliens?

I mean if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 08:40 PM
semperfortis, yes they are. But they are also "undocumented workers", "emigres who overstayed their visa", "illegal immigrants" or simply, "migrants".

Words when describing people are important. And if you noticed the census information above in the NABJ piece, a lot of the "undocumented workers" come from other countries. But somehow, people always concentrate on Mexico.

WyrdeOne is right in his assessment that words can be used as a stigma to assign people unfairly. I'm sure you can think of some terms that are offensive to you that you don't like other people to use.

Everyone has them.

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in