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.

 

Calls For President Obama To Protect American Citizens By Securing The Border

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Dan Burton & 17 other Members of Congress on Thursday April 29, 2010
call on President Obama to protect American citizens by securing the border.

The preamble to the United States Constitution clearly establishes that one of the fundamental purposes of the Federal government is to ‘provide for the common defense.'


The people of Arizona grew tired of waiting for the Federal government to act and they took matters into their own hands. Its time for Washington to wake up and defend the people of the United States by doing whatever it takes to secure our southern border."


Letter to President Obama from Congress


Dear President Obama,

As you know, violence in the vicinity of the U.S.-Mexico border continues to increase at an alarming rate. We believe that this violence represents a serious threat to the national security of the United States as well as a serious threat to U.S. citizens that live along the 1,969 mile long border. We strongly believe that it is imperative for your Administration to promptly take the necessary steps to prevent this violence.

We urge the Administration to take action to address this growing national security threat on our southern border. Without swift and decisive action, it is our fear that this violence will only increase in severity and scope. We urge you to deploy the National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border, as has been requested by a number of border state Governors and Members of Congress. We ask that any National Guard troops that are deployed should be provided with very clear guidance of proper rules of engagement and should be armed and allowed to defend themselves if fired upon or attacked.

As you know, the level of violence along the border continues to increase. Since January 2008, nearly 5,000 homicides have been committed in Juarez, Mexico, making it one of the most violent cities in the world. In 2009 alone, 79 U.S. citizens were killed in Juarez, Mexico. On March 13th of this year, Lesley Enriquez, a U.S. Consulate employee, and her husband Arthur Redelf, a ten year veteran of the El Paso Police Department, were killed when Mexican drug gang members fired a number of rounds at their vehicle. That same day, Jorge Alberto Salcido, the husband of a U.S. Consulate employee, was killed when cartel members shot at his car at a separate location.

On March 27, 2010, Robert Krentz, a longtime Arizona rancher, was found shot dead and slumped over in his all-terrain vehicle with the engine still running. Following the murder of Mr. Krentz, his assailant was tracked to the U.S.- Mexico border and there is evidence that he crossed the border into Mexico. The day before the killing, Mr. Krentz's brother had called the Border Patrol to report a caravan of illegal immigrants who were ultimately caught carrying 280 pounds of marijuana.


Full Text of Letter Here:

www.kokomoperspective.com...

Information on the legislation here:

burton.house.gov...




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Well this story was from the 29th of last month and still no word???
you think he's listening now?
Probably not



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


I just have to promote this as it is a real threat to many states!

I know, I know, Obama is apathetic on this...


In a rare appearance in the press cabin on Air Force One, President Barack Obama sounded skeptical that he would sign comprehensive immigration reform this year.

Obama told reporters Wednesday night that he wants Congress to press forward with immigration reform but said he’s unsure lawmakers have the “appetite” to get it done and acknowledged it would be difficult to do without Republican support


Read more: www.politico.com...

Honestly, it sounds like he wants people to put this away?


What, no appetite? I think it is ripe for the battle!

[edit on 1-5-2010 by burntheships]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
This will achieve nothing. The Dems have proven to be cowards, lazy ones at that, that are only interested in their own careers and pocketbooks. This would be truely easy to deal with, create jobs, make the US a safer place, as well, as proving that Obama was about change. By cowing to the corporations who profit from the illegals, as well as continuing the war on drugs, he's just preserving the status quo. C'mon, if this "new law" was uconstitutional, we'd have heard about it now. Preserving ones seat seems to be the norm now a days.....to hell with we the people...... The republicans are no better on this issue, in my opinion, however, I didn't hear them saying it's been a tiring year, after only 4 months. Vote everyone of these jackasses out of office. If they are in office now, they owe someone, some more then others, but they all do.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
If you guys (partisan righties) really wanted to put Obama's balls in a sling you would take the TEA PARTIES right down to the boarder and FORCE his hand.

I think politically speaking you couldn't design a better political siege weapon...

You wouldn't have to do crap all, the media would cover it 24/7 and the Pres would have to do all the lifting, talking and dodging. I could not think of a better calculation at present.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


Agreed, well said. Perhaps this is precisely why Obama wishes this to "go away"? How many more democrats will lose thier seat if they are forced to show thier true stance on this?

I look for this to explode! This has the all the makings of dwarfing the
Tea Party movement!



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I dont see this as a "left" "right" issue. This is a National Safety concern, and Congress knows it. However, they do not want to be forced to deal with this right now, it will make the midterms explosive. Even as Obama speaks he betrays his real fears!



"So it's a matter of political will," Obama said. "Now, look, we've gone through a very tough year, and I've been working Congress pretty hard. So I know there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue. There's still work that has to be done on energy. Midterms are coming up.”


Read more: www.politico.com...

Catch that part there? The President had been "working Congress pretty hard"!

"Its a "controversial issue"!

"Midterms are coming up"

In other words let me interpret this for you..."I dont want my Democrats to lose seats over this!"



[edit on 1-5-2010 by burntheships]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


Agreed, well said. Perhaps this is precisely why Obama wishes this to "go away"? How many more democrats will lose thier seat if they are forced to show thier true stance on this?

I look for this to explode! This has the all the makings of dwarfing the
Tea Party movement!



It could


It could also be disastrous if any element gets to comfortable in the rhetorical realm.

If an element that uses unsavory, not PC descriptors gains a national platform it will stir up the whole enchilada as they say... this could motivate the base and bring in the ranks of objectors who are really voting against the vocalizations of the more extreme
of the anti illegal group, not the concept itself.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
what those of us who live down here really fear is an all out massacre...
WE poor little locals armed with our hunting rifles are well aware we're no match for armored cars rocket launchers and full auto weapons... they can come at us anytime they like and our headstones will read we put up a valiant struggle but were overcome by overwhelming forces... what then where do they go from there? LA Denver Houston Hell the could take the toll roads right into DC and those lazy fat cats who embraced NAFTA will still be saying, "The Border is as secure as it ever was"

Well mister Obama here's a fact... 17 thousand border agents control only 700 of the almost 2,000 mile long border... explain to America how the hell that's secure? and why right now there is a plan to move many of those border agents up to Canada?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I dont see this as a "left" "right" issue. This is a National Safety Concern, and Congress knows it. However, they do not want to be forced to deal with this right now, it will make the midterms
explosive. Even as Obama speaks he betrays his real fears!



"So it's a matter of political will," Obama said. "Now, look, we've gone through a very tough year, and I've been working Congress pretty hard. So I know there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue. There's still work that has to be done on energy. Midterms are coming up.”

Read more: www.politico.com...


Get that part there? The President had been "working Congress pretty hard"!

"Its a "controversial issue"!

"Midterms are coming up"

In other words let me interpret this for you..."I dont want my Democrats to lose seats over this!"


I am talking the WORLD OF POLITICS, not the world of reality... Strategy, perception,
manipulation, chess...



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

I think politically speaking you couldn't design a better political siege weapon...

You wouldn't have to do crap all, the media would cover it 24/7 and the Pres would have to do all the lifting, talking and dodging. I could not think of a better calculation at present.


You know, this is a really good idea! I hope someone who makes decisions reads this, and takes action on it!



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
why can't the AZ Governor just call up
the NG to use on the border?

Why go through the Pres???



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
why can't the AZ Governor just call up
the NG to use on the border?

Why go through the Pres???


I think because both "sides" are really trying not to fook up a good political opportunity.

One bad move could really define November -

We are talking politicians at the end of the day



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I'm not saying this is why Obama doesnt want a closed border
but you really should go read my latest post
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Another excellent question, I would have to research that,
does the Governor have that authority as it stands, or does there need to be "A State Of Emergency" delcared first?



[edit on 1-5-2010 by burntheships]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaddyBare
I'm not saying this is why Obama doesnt want a closed border
but you really should go read my latest post
www.abovetopsecret.com...


IMO, there is still an effort underway for the North American Union

And the Dems have no answer to this, except A National ID card?


“Ending Illegal Employment Through Biometric Employment Verification,” Reid, et al, set forth their chilling scheme to require all Americans to carry a 21st Century version of the Social Security Card. The national identification card will be embedded with biometric data detectable by federal agents. Specifically, the Reid plan will mandate that within 18 months of the passage of immigration reform legislation, every American worker carry the “fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant, wear resistant, and machine-readable social security cards containing a photograph and an electronically coded micro-processing chip which possesses a unique biometric identifier for the authorized card-bearer.”

As if that isn’t enough to freeze the blood of any ally of freedom and our constitutional republic, the Senate sponsors insist that the new identification card will contain the following information, as well: “(1) biometric identifiers, in the form of templates, that definitively tie the individual user to the identity credential; (2) electronic authentication capability; (3) ability to verify the individual locally without requiring every employer to access a biometric database; (4) offline verification capability (eliminating the need for 24-hour, 7-days-per-week online databases); (5) security features that protect the information stored on the card; (6) privacy protections that allow the user to control who is able to access the data on the card; (7) compliance with authentication and biometric standards recognized by domestic and international standards organizations.” Read it and weep, lovers of liberty!



www.thenewamerican.com...
www.usatoday.com...



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red
[the ranks of objectors who are really voting against the vocalizations of the more extreme
of the anti illegal group, not the concept itself.

Thanks for voicing that. As I've read all these illegal immigration threads, I've found myself torn between a righteous indignation towards an apparent theft by illegals and a kneejerk reaction to defend the underdog.
Both sides are passionate and vocal. You're either "for 'em or agin 'em".
I'm still searching for that middle ground between ignoring an obvious problem and setting up concentration camps.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by 23refugee]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

reply to post by DaddyBare
 


I just have to promote this as it is a real threat to many states!

I know, I know, Obama is apathetic on this...



Don't you mean Pathetic!



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 23refugee

Originally posted by Janky Red
[the ranks of objectors who are really voting against the vocalizations of the more extreme
of the anti illegal group, not the concept itself.

Thanks for voicing that. As I've read all these illegal immigration threads, I've found myself torn between a righteous indignation towards an apparent theft by illegals and a kneejerk reaction to defend the underdog.
Both sides are passionate and vocal. You're either "for 'em or agin 'em.
I'm still searching for that middle ground between ignoring an obvious problem and setting up concentration camps.


Ya, its really a tight rope walk and I fear the pro side is really missing a few calculations that could really help their cause and strategy.

I.E; ATS started off having debates last weekish that were fairly civil, however in a few days the words for describing illegals went into the; flees, rats, pestilence depot
in some cases. If people don't check that, they might as well hang their cause now
and start penning the eulogy.

In any case, understanding this will serve the pro deportation crowd immensely, unfortunately the very act of trying to point this out is being translated as race baiting.
Confusing rhetoric and the actual realities is never a good strategy, public opinion
in godlike in America.

And I agree with you, I want the problem fixed big time, but some of the talk really repulses this basic desire in me.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


As I mentioned in another thread, I've refrained from expressing an anti-illegal stance for fear of a tidal wave that may be coming. Between the militias, the Tea Partiers, the illegals, and now environmentalists, this "enemy within" rhetoric seems to pushing the average American toward some very un-American thoughts.
I don't know who I'm supposed to hate anymore.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join