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 Obama proposes cutting border security in 2011 federal budget

page: 2
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaddyBare

President Obama proposes cutting border security in 2011 federal budget



[SARCASM]That's because we need all the illegal immigrants we can get!

After all, who's going to fill all these jobs that are unfilled right now, it's not like every able working body in the USA isn't working already.

And no need for them to have taxes taken out of their paychecks, the rest of us can pay their share, after all, we can afford it!

And our government has such a surplus of money, let them have free health care and social services also.

After all, the USA is the richest country in the world![SARCASM/]


[edit on 5/5/2010 by Keyhole]




posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I hope people realize what this really is:

Obama is removing the Federal Government from the issue of illegal immigration as much as possible. Why? To get votes. Period.

Everybody knows that as the states begin implementing their own version of how to handle illegal immigration, it will be rife with controversy. If for no other reason than, unless they pass the exact legislation across the board, states will simply be moving the problem from one border to another. Which, is obviously NOT a long-term solution.

Therefore as states' budgets become smaller and smaller, they will be forced to spend more and more money on border control. This will prevent states from being to meet other areas of need -- such as unemployment and medicare and welfare -- since right now, there is only so much money to go around.

This will put the Federal Government is an excellent position. It will be viewed as the fight against illegal immigrants is too costly and will prevent entitlement programs to be funded.

My best guess is that in 6 months or so the Federal Government is going to declare an amnesty / auto-citizen fast track plan in order to:

-- curtail individual state funding on illegal immigration
-- allow a large percentage of current illegal immigrants to become fast-tracked citizens
-- most importantly: this will happen in time to collect votes for the 2010 & 2012 elections. Votes that the Democrats desperately need.

The bottom line is that states should not have to deal with illegal immigration -- especially on an individual basis. It is a nationwide problem and should be enforced at the Federal level. Which frankly wouldn't be that difficult since we already have the laws in place -- we just need somebody to actually READ them and ENFORCE them.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
I hope people realize what this really is:

Obama is removing the Federal Government from the issue of illegal immigration as much as possible. Why? To get votes. Period.



Votes from who?

Can illegal immigrants vote now?



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by damwel
No the last President had airplanes crashing into buildings and letters with poisonous anthrax in them.


Why do you even bother? Everyone on here knows that you either work for Obama's 'Web Cleanup' group or you are just a misguided Obama nut.

Not ONE of your posts has ever, EVER used any common sense or logic when it comes to Obama. You accept what he does like it's written in the holy scriptures, without question, and you attempt to deflect and villify anyone who raises a eyebrow at his actions.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I don't know if anyone else noticed this but it would seem that those cities who will be receiving funding are all sanctuary cities. At least, that is how it appears to me.

I'm thinking that Obama may be taking a page out the Reagan book by working towards amnesty. This decision over the budget could be the first indication that he may take such a step.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
In 6months the tides of politcal change are coming to washington. Everyone knows why Clinton administration was able to create a budget surplus because the Republican majority wouldn't pass Clinton's bulls.hi.t budgets. This November the hand is changeing again, no bulls.hi.t budgets will be allowed to pass. It might actually improve Obama's image as it did with Clinton, but does that really change what he has already shown us about who he is.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Sadly my initial reaction to the thread title and article was "Of course he is." It's rather disheartening to realize I expected nothing less from this administration. What's it going to take for the masses to realize that this man doesn't give a rat's behind about this country and all the talk during his campaign was nothing more than that? It was all just talk to get elected and people fell for it.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Keyhole

Originally posted by lpowell0627
I hope people realize what this really is:

Obama is removing the Federal Government from the issue of illegal immigration as much as possible. Why? To get votes. Period.



Votes from who?

Can illegal immigrants vote now?


Ask ACORN ...

Also ask Bob Dornan, who was defeated in a CA house race by a dem possibly due to illegal immigrant votes.

article


In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presiden­tial vote margin in Florida in 2000. Indeed, the Cen­sus Bureau estimates that there are over a million illegal aliens in Florida, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more non-citizen voting cases in Florida than in any other state.

Florida is not unique. Thousands of non-citizens are registered to vote in some states, and tens if not hundreds of thousands in total may be present on the voter rolls nationwide. These numbers are significant: Local elections are often decided by only a handful of votes, and even national elections have likely been within the margin of the number of non-citizens ille­gally registered to vote.


and


The evidence is indisputable that aliens, both legal and illegal, are registering and voting in federal, state, and local elections. Following a mayor's race in Compton, California, for example, aliens testi­fied under oath in court that they voted in the elec­tion. In that case, a candidate who was elected to the city council was permanently disqualified from holding public office in California for soliciting non-citizens to register and vote. The fact that non-citizens registered and voted in the election would never have been discovered except for the fact that it was a very close election and the in­cumbent mayor, who lost by less than 300 votes, contested it.

Similarly, a 1996 congressional race in California may have been stolen by non-citizen voting. Republican incumbent Bob Dornan was defending himself against a spirited challenger, Democrat Lor­etta Sanchez. Sanchez won the election by just 979 votes


Oh, about the author of the above before anyone plays "shoot the messenger" ...


Hans A. von Spakovsky served as a member of the Federal Election Commission for two years. Before that, he was Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he specialized in voting and election issues. He also served as a county election official in Georgia for five years as a member of the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections. This report was produced for The Heritage Foundation.


[edit on 5/5/2010 by centurion1211]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Woah there BarryO-I thought your main priority was keeping Americans safe from terrorists.

How are you going to do that when your borders are more leaky than they are already?

Isn't border security the first line of defence against would be terrorists?



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Now, this is the sort of thing that frustrates me. To do this, at this time, with the drug dealing, kidnapping, murders & spikes in other crimes happening in the border states & the absolute wreckage that is our economy & the chaos that is our healthcare system- not to mention welfare, subsidized housing, education...on & on; bleeding individuals & the Treasury dry, WHY is this not a violation of Obama's oath of office? Why is it not dereliction of duty? If he (& the Congress) cannot be impeached for things like this, then something is wrong. The same is true for using US tax dollars paid by every American citizen going to pay for feeding, educating & healthcare for people who have come into this country in violation of our laws PLUS the cost of criminal investigation, process & incarceration when they commit crimes (& they do) *while US citizens live on the street & go hungry*. How is this not criminal?
How much would our deficit be if this corruption and these illegal, unconstitutional acts had not taken place? If it had been stopped long before now?

Our Congress- often at the behest of our president (whoever that might be), can attack foreign countries for completely fabricated reasons (& keep ON attacking even after the truth comes out). They can vote themselves FIVE THOUSAND dollar raises. They can mandate that people purchase goods & services from private corporations. They have legalized bribery & graft. They can AND DO anything they damn well please, regardless of how openly, blatantly corrupt- and in the real world, illegal, it is and they can't be thrown out of office for that?
They are on the cusp of converting those who have come into this country ILLEGALLY into citizens. Rewarding them! But if a US citizen breaks the law, we face prosecution. (How is this not discrimination and a violation of OUR "civil rights"? Or even human rights?) The so called healthcare reform bill ALREADY gives them access to insurance coverage (even though a percentage of US citizens "could not" be covered) at the taxpayers' expense- *against our protests*. US citizens are being discriminated against when applying for jobs because they can't speak the FOREIGN language of the people who are illegally invading our country- en masse. Our country is under siege, implicitly expressed conquest & our "leaders"...our armies, will not lift a finger to stop it. They facilitate it instead.

I don't CARE where Obama was born. I don't care who does whatever with whoever as long as I don't have to hear about it...actually, I do care if he hung out with subversives and communists as he was coming up (because it certainly seems to be relevant to who he is today), but it seems to me that since these things are TREASONOUS- in spite of how it is nickel & dimed- nitpicked & technicalitied, to death by the ideologues, the American people should be able to expel these leeches and traitors from our government. It isn't as though there are NO honest men in our country.

We have either bought into the idea of powerlessness too much or we are too lazy. I don't think we are complacent.
We need a constitutional convention. Maybe things this heinous weren't even imagined at the time the Constitution was written, but they have sure as hell happened now. And the list is growing. If the government wants to split the baby, so be it. It is the only hope the US has.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Its complete madness-unless of course someone wants the cartels/los zetas/their middle east pals to expand into the US uninhibited from such nuisances as border patrol.

But hey its OK,Its the recession-gotta have those cut backs..



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
The "profiling" argument with respect to the AZ law is a lie, and the continued mention of it is totally disingenuous.

The AZ law has been ammended to quite clearly state that "profiling" is not to be used as the reason for a stop by police. Instead, once stopped for some other reason, police can ask for citizenship documents.


See I live on planet earth
Do you honestly think that in AZ law enforcement will follow this to the T?

We aren't supposed to start wars without the approval of congress either but we are still doing that, what's your point?

Whether it clearly states it or not who cares?
Anyone with half a brain will know that A will eventually lead to B, ESPECIALLY in southern states.

And who is giving this view?
I am, and I am someone who doesn't even think this AZ initiative is about immigrants, it's about a soon to come national ID card.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


So, what is your problem if this law and others like it end up doing what the feds - now obama - have failed to do? Posts above show obama plans to cut back on border security, not strengthen it.


What's your problem with the illegals giving up and leaving?

Will you miss their votes? Are you worried that your grocery bill might be a little higher for fruits and vegetables? Concerned that you might have to mow your own lawn?

What is it really???

What if we could spend all those billions now spent on illegals on things useful to our actual citizens?

What's your problem with that?

Answers to all of the above please - or you'll just confirm yourself as being disingenuous as charged.

[edit on 5/5/2010 by centurion1211]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Though I don't disagree it will come to that, who do you think will be proposing the national ID? I don't think it will be "republicans". My understanding is that they are against a national ID, microchipping, etc. It was also a "democrat" (Salazar?) who said that he "wouldn't mind giving a little bit of his DNA". Really?.

The premise that an illegal alien would carry a national ID card when he wouldn't carry papers (even if he had them) would only add another law being violated- so what would be the point? (unless it is the same mentality that we have to give up our freedoms to preserve them) And if there is outrage on the left that law enforcement would have the temerity to ask a person for identification, how would a national ID magically make that okay?



[edit on 5-5-2010 by DogsDogsDogs]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
So, what is your problem if this law and others like it end up doing what the feds - now obama - have failed to do? Post above show obama plans to cut back on border security, not strengthen it.

Because it's useless and will only create destabalize the region
Something i'm sure you do not want.


Originally posted by centurion1211
What's your problem with the illegals giving up and leaving?

Them just coming back
So why spend all this money then?


Originally posted by centurion1211
Will you miss their votes? Are you worried that your grocery bill might be a little higher for fruits and vegetables? Concerned that you might have to mow your own lawn?

I won't miss their votes but Hillary might.. she wanted to give them drivers licenses remember?
Not worried about bills right now and I mow my own lawn, I like the smell of cut grass!


Originally posted by centurion1211
What if we could spend all those billions now spent on illegals on things useful to our actual citizens?

No disagreement here, and man does is this a can of worms!
How many billions of dollars in addition to illegals go left and right?
Honestly, as far as that is concerned illegals are a problem but not the biggest.


Originally posted by centurion1211
What's your problem with that?

Lack of efficiency
What you are suggesting is basically taking care of the symptoms of the problems rather than the actual cause.

To me that is a waste of money, something that you seem to be concerned about.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I'm all for increasing access to this nation, especially with a focus (preference) on those from our hemisphere, but this isn't the way to go about it.

We've done it before. Is days past it wasn't terribly difficult to get here. Shoot, Ellis Island let in almost everyone who hit their shores so it can't be that difficult.

Defunding the border really can be done provided we use the military. Honestly, the border patrol is a redundancy anyway and is 100% wasteful, especially in terms of manpower.

If the conservatives want to capitalize on the latinos, which they should, they would have an easy time of it considering they are normally religious conservatives already.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
[edit on 5-5-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by prionace glauca

Originally posted by Snarf
you just described every president we've ever had.

Whats the difference?


The last I checked, the last president didn't have terrorists walking around with bombs in major cities after 9/11.


well I'm glad you think anthrax is fine and dandy



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
This guy we call our president does not seem to give a rats a__ what happens at our borders. The remaining states, like Arizona need to write thier own laws and get after the intruders. Hurry November so we can dump this dude....



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I read the title, "President Obama proposes cutting border security in 2011 federal budget"... and I ask myself...

WHAT BORDER SECURITY?



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join