US Warns It Cannot Guard Arizona Section of Border

page: 3
88
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Excellent Find!


I hope this doesn't derail to an Obama vs. Bush, left vs. right sort of thing. I didnt' know about it in 2006 or I would have raised just as much hell as I am in 2010!

I also don't blame Obama himself, it is the entire Federal Government, both Dems and Republicans, including McCain, because it might make good soundbites to criticize the Administration for this, but McCain could be taking action instead of talking!

The State Government of Arizona needs to follow the example of Okaloosa County and the small counties in Mississippi, and Governor Jindal in LA, and they need to fix this theirselves right now, and then need to send the bill to the US Government!!




posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Lunatic Pandora
 


Speaking of the Arizona Law! I got an email from some of my family in Missouri. I am sure it is a viral email by now and I havent checked out the validity of it yet, but I was very impressed if what they say is true. Missouri is well ahead of Arizona and the did this years ago!


I plan to start a new thread on Missouri's law after I check it out and verify it.



Simple solutions to not so complex problems!


The "Show Me" state has once again showed us how it should be done. They need more publication and exposure on this. Let's pass it around.
In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the Official language of Missouri . Nearly 90% voting in favor! English became the official language for ALL governmental proceeding in Missouri . It also means no individual has the right to demand government services in a language OTHER than English.
In 2008 a measure was passed that requires our Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be here illegally. It allows Missouri law enforcement offices to receive training to enforce federal immigration laws. The bill makes it clear that illegal immigrants will NOT have access to taxpayers benefits such as food stamps and health care through Missouri HealthNET.
In 2009 a measure was passed that ensures Missouri 's public institutions of higher education do NOT award financial aid to individuals who are here illegally. The law also requires all post-secondary institutions of higher education to annually certify to the Missouri Dept. of Higher Education that they have NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States .
So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to remember Missouri has been proactive in addressing this growing problem.
Missouri has sent a clear message that illegal immigrants are NOT welcome in our state and they are certainly NOT welcome to receive public benefits at the cost of Missouri taxpayers!

Article in "The Ozarks Sentinel" Editorial Opinion - Nita Jane Ayres, May 13, 2010

www.electnitajaneayres.com...

community.myfoxhouston.com...



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Yes, 2006 and I pointed that out in other threads. They also didn't point out the interagency dispute between Department of Interior and DHS.

Border patrol is limited when it comes to patrolling Federal lands due to envronmental reasons.


It's interesting the 2 Depts that are charge with protecting us are standing in the way.

Bottom line is this...as far as I know every State has the right to protect it's citizens and borders from incursion and attacks.

AZ should hire a contractor and then take this to the Supremes, where I think the State would win in lieu of the Feds not following their constitutional obligations!



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Totally agree! Action is required.
In my letter to McCain I stroked the ego a bit by suggesting his becoming Commander-in-Chief of a militia. He's been wanting that position for years. Why not take it locally? In the pariah state of Arizona. You cant buy that kind of publicity.

The cartels and illegal immigrants would bypass Arizona altogether if they knew that a #load of rednecks with rifles and shotguns was waiting for them.

The truth is that a criminal is going to pick the safest target. Confrontation is the last thing that they want.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by blood0fheroes
 


In a perfect world the militia would be made up of locals.

however to qualify under the second amendment as maintained and well regulated. A militia has to meet certain requirments. and unfortunately a volunteer force won't meet them. not legally at least.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I really wish people would look further than "newsmax" on stuff like this. :shk:

The original article says:


The closed off area includes part of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge that stretches along the U.S.-Mexico border.


It's actually 3% of the park. Right along the border.

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge Remains Open



June 2010
Recently there were reports in the news stating that the Buenos Aries National Wildlife Refuge was closed. This information is not correct. In early 2006, a small section of land (about 3% of the refuge) along the border was closed to visitation. However, no new restrictions are in place and the majority of the refuge remains open. Today, we are seeing a decline in violent activity in the southern most area thanks to ongoing cooperation between the US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Customs and Border Protection. The Refuge will reopen the lands along the border at such time that it is determined to be safe for visitors.


Further:

Media Advisory



Recent news items further falsely stated that the closure extends from the border 80-miles to the north. This distance is far from accurate. On October 6, 2006 roughly 3500 acres, or 3% of the Refuge, was closed to public access due to human safety concerns. At that time there was a marked increase in violence along the border due to human and drug trafficking. The closed area extends north from the international border roughly ¾ of a mile. A notice of the closure, including a map has been on the Refuge website since 2006.


Do any of you ask yourselves WHY this is becoming an issue NOW???



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by realmatrix
 



AZ should hire a contractor and then take this to the Supremes, where I think the State would win in lieu of the Feds not following their constitutional obligations!


I imagine that the contractors will be prohibited from entering federal land and the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the fed.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


BH, I concede!

Great find. In my opinion the border should be closed within 3/4 of a mile and consistently controlled anyway.

Plus, the fact that this is 2006 news and nothing has changed makes any new news on the subject very suspect indeed!

I am not a fan of Fox News, but I feel it is necessary to offset the other equally falsified news channels. At least if we watch both we can ascertain some portion of truth lying in between the two versions we are spoon fed.

No offense to OP, you brought this whole scenario to my attention, but sadly it seems this is just more propaganda!



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



Do any of you ask yourselves WHY this is becoming an issue NOW???


Yep, sure do. Just another part of adding fuel to the fire and distracting everyone from what are probably more serious issues.

IMO, the violence is due to the US war on drugs. A war the US is involved in. Therefore, the US is well aware of what is happening on the border.

BTW, I made a thread explaing the main reason the area is out of controlled. But IMO, people rather keep buying the hype.

Thanks for the info you provided.



[edit on 17-6-2010 by jam321]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


BH, I concede!


Can I just copy that and put it in my signature?



Seriously, I feel STRONGLY that we at ATS need to do extra research on items like this. If we just read the "news" and repeat it here, we're no better than the MSM we're parroting. ATS is BETTER than MSM. That's the whole point! Posting a story from newsmax, because it serves some agenda, without looking further makes us no better than the worst "news" outlets or blogs.

And I think ATS is better than that.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
My idea is this:

Mobile Patrols made up part time volunteers organized into squads of 16 volunteers each - all with standard weapons and uniforms. Each squad would have 4 fireteams each of 1 grenadier, 1 light machine gunner, and 2 riflemen and then each squad would have a medic, a radio operator, an Assistant Squad Leader, and a Squad Leader as a sort of HQ element.

Ranks would be Volunteer (no insignia), Fireteam Leader (1 bar), Assistant Squad Leader (2 bars), and Squad Leader (3 bars).

Reaction Forces made up of permanent forces paid by the state government. Each reaction force would be a platoon sized unit following the same organization as above and would primarily operate via vehicle but I suppose horses could be used as well. If the State Police/Highway Patrol was willing to provide some air transport then even better. Each Reaction Force would have 3 squads plus a HQ element of 3 medics, 2 radio operators, an Assistant Platoon Leader (4 bars), and a Platoon Leader (5 bars).

The Mobile Patrols would do the searching as they would know the area better as it's their own backyard while the Reaction Forces would come in and do the actual "removal" of the drug cartel forces, rogue Mexican Army units or whatever.

The third and final element would be the fixed defensive positions placed every mile or so along the US-Mexico border. Each position would consist of a guard tower and a few bunkers and reinforced positions manned by a platoon or company sized force. Each position would be well supplied with 60mm and 82mm mortars, machine guns, recoiless rifles, maybe a 105mm howitzer if needed, etc and would basically look like a Vietnam era firebase with a few helicopter landing pads or an airfield. The garrison would be made up of a mix of part time volunteers and permanent forces.



[edit on 17-6-2010 by ChrisF231]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Contrary to your report of things getting safer.
dated 6/16/10
www.foxnews.com...

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News that violence against law enforcement officers and U.S. citizens has increased in the past four months, further underscoring the need to keep the 80 miles of border land off-limits to Americans.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Aye, but those requirements stem from the 1903 militia act. Which unless i've misread it, those requirements are the price payed for federal funding. No federal funding = no federal requirements.

Though I could be wrong, i'll have to do more research tomorrow evening; right now it's sleepy time.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Doesn't it strike you as odd that the sources you list are saying that it is getting safer?

Who do these Federal sources report to? Obamination?

Isn't he against the moves that Az has made?

Hasn't he said that any illegals turned over to ICE by Az wil be released if they have no record?

Consider the source as well. LoL



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by awakentired
 


That's from the same article titled "Uptick in Violence Forces Closing of Parkland Along Mexico Border to Americans". What are you saying? That the recent uptick in violence "FORCED" a closure 4 years ago? That's exactly the point I'm making. FOX and the officer you quoted have an agenda. Apparently the same as yours.

Look, I'm not denying the violence along the border, but aren't you the least bit curious about the FOX title, when in the article itself, it says this action was taken in 2006?



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Crime, Immigration Connection Unclear



FBI and U.S. Department of Justice data show that Arizona’s violent crime rate is lower than the U.S. average and has been declining more rapidly than the U.S. average, The Independent found.
...
Reports by the nonpartisan Immigration Policy Center and libertarian CATO Institute both indicate crime rates fell in Arizona over the past decade.
...
Census data show that overall, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born people, according to both institutes.


LOOK FURTHER THAN FOX!



[edit on 6/17/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Again consider the sources. I will trust the word of local sheriff over data from federal census workers and organizations whose alignment is clear.

We can pull counters all day and still not agree. I personally don't require you to agree with me. However, I will not accept your attempt to kill this thread due to the OP source choice when you post sources that, by their very nature, have an axe to grind with the issue of the Az handling of illegal Mexicans.

Whether the illegal issue be political or humanitarian I personally could care less. I work everyday and see hundreds of illegals at work and making a living where I should see unemployed Americans.
Get rid of them and the Americans will move into those jobs.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
80 miles of refuge on the the U.S./Mexican border that's off limits to U.S. citizens (supposedly for their/our protection)...

How convenient. Strategically it's not bad, I'm impressed. But at the same time, I'm disgusted. Where exactly is this refuge? Can citizens easily monitor activity there from satellite? Not necessarily Google Earth, but maybe some other application. U.S. citizens might be banned from the 'off-limits' zone but likely not from a complete radius.

Which brings me to another point. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has thought of this. Potentially, Mexicans are not the only ones who know how to cross borders and that includes a restricted border INTO the U.S. side. Use your imagination, sometimes it's a good thing to have. But please do not panic, that won't help you or anyone else.

And here's an interesting eye-sore to heap onto the dilemma...

Seizure at Arizona Border - Why we Must Support Arizona

www.rogerhedgecock.com...

Above article and photos came from here...
www.rogerhedgecock.com...

Toni



[edit on 17-6-2010 by Antoniastar]

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Antoniastar]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by awakentired
I will trust the word of local sheriff over data from federal census workers and organizations whose alignment is clear.


You trust the local sheriff whose alignment is clear, though, because it happens to align with your agenda.


The sources I gave have actual crime rate numbers. Argue with THEM.



Originally posted by awakentired
However, I will not accept your attempt to kill this thread


I don't care about the thread. I care about the truth. And the truth is that this story has been brought up in the news FOUR YEARS after it happened to feed the anti-immigration agenda and manipulate the people who listen to FOX News.

You have been manipulated. I have not.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Antoniastar
 


WoW what a haul! Enough weapons to outfit a company and coming into the US!

Do you know what the insignia represents on the hats?




new topics
top topics
 
88
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join