It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If you think this is a good idea, let me know. An idea that would put people on the border and and force the action of law enforcement to patrol the area just to make sure the peace is maintained.
As Peter Schweizer notes in his best-selling expose of liberal hypocrisy, “Do As I Say (Not As I Do),” part of the fortune of this defender of the working man is a Napa Valley vineyard worth $25 million that she owns with her husband. The vineyard produces expensive grapes for high-end wines. Napa grapes bring up to $4,000 a ton compared with $300 a ton for, say, San Joaquin grapes.
But Pelosi, winner of the 2003 Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers, hires only nonunion workers and sells these grapes to nonunion wineries. [....]
Which makes Pelosi’s steadfast opposition to any attempts to enhance border security and stem the flow of illegal immigration into the U.S. all the more interesting since she seems to be among those rich employers who financially benefit from a steady supply of cheap foreign labor. [....]
Nor has Pelosi been a fan of employer sanctions against the hiring of illegal aliens. In 2003, she accused immigration officers of conducting “terrorizing raids” on Wal-Mart stores that led to the arrest of more than 300 illegal aliens.
Loraine Stewart, a farmworker advocate with Napa Valley Community Housing, in a 2004 San Francisco Chronicle article estimated that half of the migrant labor force in the valley consisted of undocumented workers, without whom “not one bottle of wine would get made here.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by CREAM
As for immigration, I dont buy into the idea that I deserve to live here more than other people, so I think they just need to make it easier for people to LEGALLY immigrate, if your a legal immigrant you pay taxes and what not, sounds fair to me.
Actually, becoming a LEGAL immigrant has rules in place that are necessary. For instance, if you are bringing someone into your family from another country, you must SHOW that they will not become a burden financially on the government. In addition, they must provide evidence of their past, criminal checks are done, etc. These rules are in place to prevent what unfortunately is happening now because of illegal immigration. If you merely allow people in, in an uncontrolled and unchecked way, chaos ensues. The chaos that we see now is a result of these checks and balances being bypassed.
Not really, our borders used to be open.
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Yes, they were. HOWEVER, at that time in our history, we didn't have all of the welfare and social programs that we have now. People HAD TO support themselves, or they would starve. Today, however, they can just be lazy and live off the work of others. Thus, either get rid of the social programs or close the borders. You CANNOT have both.
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.
The Missing 13th Amendment
"TITLES OF NOBILITY" AND "HONOR"
In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. By chance, they discovered the library's oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment's language and historical context, they realized the principle intent of this "missing" 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government.
So began a seven-year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history -- the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States. Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the "missing" 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860.
In June of this year, Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from our Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War.
Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are enormous.
What do YOU think should be done?
Should Texas threaten to secede from the US?
Should Obama be impeached for failure to protect our borders?
Should we bring out troops home, and place them on the border, with orders to shoot?
Or, do you have any other ideas?
Originally posted by Tholidor
How about this (taken from recent news articles):
First we carpet bomb the Mexican border towns (theirs, not ours). Toss in some white phospherous for good measure - surely we must have learned SOMETHING from the Israelis. All those bombs and inhumane weapons that we currently send to the Kosher Nostra could be put to use right here.
THEN we build a wall (maybe some Israeli construction outfits could be contracted - after all they know how to build a wall!).
Then, every time a round comes north over the border, we can cry "VICTIM" and establish a "security zone" about, say, 25 miles wide on the Mexican side, plant mines and above all - shoot anything that moves on the northern boarder of the exclusion zone.
Did I leave anything out? Oh yeah! We bulldoze all the houses in the new exclusion zone and build American settlements to insure our safety and security! Let's call it the "South Bank"! What a brilliant idea, if I do say so myself!!!
/heavy sarcasm off
[edit on 5-7-2010 by Tholidor]
I don't see how this could be, because the Arizona law is the Federal law, Arizona is just enforcing the Federal law.
Shoot to kill. Or build a nice block of ICE prison cells every 5 miles across the entire border. Sorry, but I'm pretty fed up. Actually, I'm all for deporting them all back to where they came from. Anchor babies and all. We'll deal with the "dire consequences.
People would be dying in the streets. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.
The nation would devolve in to a post-apocalyptic waste land where leather clad biker gangs raped and pillaged the ignorant masses for scraps of food and fuel.
Men would drive homemade armored vehicles with machine guns as they dueled each other for access to clean drinking water, because the earth as we know it would turn into a desert waste land.
I personally can't wipe my own butt without calling a government hotline that provides me step-by-step instructions along with subsidized toilet paper.
Unfortunately, the violence that is attendant to the drug trade in Mexico is spilling over the border into U.S. towns, like San Diego, California and Eagle Pass, Texas. Last summer, ranchers along the Texas/Mexico Border reported they were besieged by drug organizations smuggling coc aine and marijuana across their property--fences were torn down, livestock butchered and shots were fired at the ranchers' homes at night. Ranchers reported seeing armed patrols in Mexico with night vision equipment, hand-held radios and assault rifles that protected a steady stream of smugglers back packing marijuana and coc aine into the United States. The problem became so acute that the State of Texas and the Federal government sent support in the form of additional U.S. Border Patrol Agents, DEA Special Agents, Officers from the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas National Guard.
Does the US really need this kind of violence along its border?
Hell NO. But is sealing up the border really going to solve this problem?
BTW, the article is from 1997.
Let's be realistic and honest.
The border is more secure today than at any prior time.
Prove Napolitano wrong
"Over the past 18 months, this administration has devoted more resources—including manpower, technology and infrastructure—to the Southwest border than at any point in America's history," said Secretary Napolitano. "We are committed to further bolstering our cooperation with our state, local and tribal law enforcement partners as we continue to implement strong, smart and effective enforcement strategies along our borders and throughout the nation."
We currently have about 18,000 Border Patrol agents, just about every alphabet agency represented, tons of law enforcement who are well aware of what is going on at the border, and a government that is sponsoring the Mexican war on drugs.
So to say that the US is doing nothing about the Southern Border is BS.
They are doing something. Many people may not like the progress or feel they are not doing a good enough job, but that still doesn't add up to the US doing nothing.
So,what will it take to have a secure border and by whose definiton of secure do we go by?
But border security is in the eye of the beholder. There's no agreed-on definition of what constitutes a secure border and no budget for how much more to spend to achieve it.
Is it when the entire southern border of nearly 2,000 miles is fenced, or double-fenced? Is it when illegal immigration arrests are at zero or close to it? Is it when everyone who crosses the border can be identified? Is it when Army troops are sent to the border, as they were after Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa raided a New Mexico border town in 1916, or when the number of Border Patrol agents has quintupled?
How much money are you willing to invest and what measurements, objectives, or goals will we use to gauge success?
I agree on border security but my border security entails all the ways that one can enter the US, not just the Southern Border.
Should we really throw everything into the Southern Border while leaving our other borders basically unguarded?
Is this really about protecting America from bad guys or just about keeping illegals out? IMO, it is the latter.
And if it is the latter, I think it would be a lot easier and less costly for the US to address this issue by denying job opportunity to illegals.
E-verify has already seen a huge jump in business and I'm sure you guys won't mind that National ID anyway in order to take care of this illegal immigrant issue.
As far as the violence on our border, I suggest 3 things to ease the problem.
1) Get cartels to make peace. The conspiracy side of me says the US is playing them against each other.
2) Get US to change mind about war on drugs. Seriously, despite the money, time, and lives wasted in Colombia, Mexico, Afghanistan, etc.... drugs are still flowing.
3) Take over Mexico. Now you will have about 110 million Mexicans waiting for their US citizenship.
I leave you all with this quote about Border Security.
There is no "correct" definition of border security. It depends on what price the U.S. as a country is willing to pay for incremental gains in apprehensions and deterrence. But unless we begin a sensible debate on what a secure border means, and how to get there, badly needed immigration legislation will forever be hostage to an elusive goal.
This violence didn't start with OBama., nor did this immigration problem.
You know with all the suggestions to lay mines on the border and issuing shoot to kill...why not just support nuking Mexico?