# The Mexican Border



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

There is a thread here about the possible threats of dieses coming across the border with the millions of Mexican and South American illegals coming across the border but I couldn't find it when I just looked so I start this one. 

The American military stands guard on the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, so why don't we do the same here?

True, that one is only 160 miles long where ours is 1954 miles long, but it looks as if about 50,000 Border Patrol, men/women, with about a $150,000,000 budget per year with a man/woman setting up in 50 foot towers about 300 yds. apart could stop that crap in a heart beat! 

Just set them up there with a 700 Remington in 30.06 with a good scope on them and let them have at it for anyone walking across the border. 

It wouldn't be but a little bit before they would realize that it simply wasn't worth the chance to get into this country across a shooting gallery any longer. 

I mean why are we keeping the Korean border closed when we can't even close our own. 

And if it works there I'd think it would work here.

These illegals are costing the American tax payers far more than $150,000,000 a year as it is, then there is the danger of them starting some epidemic, plus it would actually put another 50,000 men and women to work again. 

I am disabled but I could sure stand, standing guard for 8 hours a day and firing a few warning shots before taking a shot. 

This is the war we should be fighting instead of everyone else's wars. 

Or better yet, just stick a few hundred drones up there with infrared, and puff, the fire breathing dragon sticking on the nose, and let them continue to fly from one end of the border to the other and turn around for another pass.

JMHO

Ranger


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

You might want to recheck those budget numbers. 50,000 border guards are going to cost a bit more than $150,000,000.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> You might want to recheck those budget numbers. 50,000 border guards are going to cost a bit more than $150,000,000.


Do what you can with the $150M, and ask for volunteers.


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

Yea, you right M & M, I was a zero short there. Thanks for catching it because 1.5 Bill was what I was looking for? 
I just rough figured it pretty fast to make a point, but I was off for sure, so I just spent a bit more time this time thinking this out a bit better. 
My backs hurting and mistakes do happen when I do hurt. 
But we have 1954 miles plus we'd probably need to stretch out a few miles around the gulf also and the Pacific also, but considering the Coast is supposed to be the Coast Guards job any way, let's round it off at 2,000 miles, with a 2 mile buffer zone on this side of the Rio Grand. 
It would take three shifts of men/women per mile, 24/7's, 365 days a year. 
So 3 men/women per mile would be would be 6,000 men/women on the towers per shift, and 3 shifts would be 18,000 border patrol. 
The reason that I say 3 per mile is because that will be 586.6 yards between two patrol persons. 
If you worked them all five days on a two days off, it would only take 25,200, but let's say a total of 30,000 to make sure they get the job done. 
The center between them would be 293.3 yards, so each person should be able to overlap that center line a bit and gain some added yardage even with an out of the box Remington 700, chambered in 30.06! 
Heck, you don't even need a 30.06 at that range. even AR-15's or M-16's chambered in 5.56 or AK's in 7.62 should be able to cover that range easy enough or they don't need the job anyway. They need to be able to shoot a few warning shoots in front of their feet, even in the dark. 
I could hit a pie plate with both my SKS' with open sights about 3 years ago, @300 yards out and they both have some years on them and so does the shooter. I can still shoot with a good scope but I am having a time welding any more. 
My glasses and welding shield doesn't like each other. 
Anyway, I am looking at what LEO's are paid around here and bumping it up a bit, so we are looking at say maybe may be $30,000 a year tops for a set on your butt in a small office with AC, (which should be powered by Solar, considering the area), and pull the trigger target practice.
I don't know how many of you feel about it, but I'd love the dickens out of having the license to fire off a few rounds in front of their feet and watching them turn tail and go home, never to try that again, after regretfully having to teach them that sometimes we stop target practicing at there feet! 
As said, the North Koreans don't try to come across that DMZ. 
They'll learn in short order also. 
If they would sink 5 or even 10 BIL in it to get the towers built, the weapons and ammo purchased, and maybe even some lights out at say 250 yards shaded from the patrolmen of course, and powered by solar also, after that another bill a year would pay for it until the problem became non-existent. 
It's just a thought because no one else is coming up with any idea whatsoever. 
Maybe you all think that I am a sorry person for saying what I have said, but look at what they are doing to this country! 
They are either coming up and raping the women, killing some one, robbing a true American, or costing us well over what this idea would cost up. 
Like Barney Fifth used to say, we need to nip it in the bud. 
Forget letting them cross the border and then transporting them back to Mexico or South America! 
Stop them in their tracks before they cause any problems whatsoever!

Ranger


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I'd bet lunch, that even with a sniper at every turn, many would still try to make it across because, they don't have much to lose. 

We seem to forget that the reason Mexicans cross the borders, is because Americans want them to cross the borders.

Americans, both Liberal and Conservative, who want their cheap labor, their money they spend here, the money to arrest, represent them detain them, house them heal them and yes, even the votes, bringing them here may get.

Through many both GOP and Dem admins, we probably could have built a "DMZ" 50 years ago, if they really wanted one.

But they didn't and they still don't.


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> Just set them up there with a 700 Remington in 30.06 with a good scope on them and let them have at it for anyone walking across the border.


I would recommend an immediate psychiatric evaluation for anyone saying this, seriously. You sound over the line from venting into talking serious and evil violence. Mods?


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

notwyse said:


> Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.[/QUOTE
> 
> Note it makes no mention of drug cartels, terrorists, criminals escaping the law in their home country, and those looking to live off the American taxpayer. Nor does it mention those who are looking to claim land for the country they came from.
> 
> Oh, and, your quote referred to those who came here legally.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Where does one find where America invites illegals to our nation?


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

DryHeat said:


> I would recommend an immediate psychiatric evaluation for anyone saying this, seriously. You sound over the line from venting into talking serious and evil violence. Mods?


What is the difference between our border and the Korean border. I mean they learned really fast not to try to get across that didn't they? 
As I said, after a half dozen rounds at their feet and they'd be swimming or running back across the Rio Grande anyway. 
I am not advocating just down right murdering them by no means. Just stop them in their tracks and escort them back across the border! Maybe with a little luck, and a bit of harsh punishment on the way, this mess would come to a halt.

Ranger


----------



## gweny (Feb 10, 2014)

BadFordRanger said:


> Yea, you right M & M, I was a zero short there. Thanks for catching it because 1.5 Bill was what I was looking for?
> I just rough figured it pretty fast to make a point, but I was off for sure, so I just spent a bit more time this time thinking this out a bit better.
> My backs hurting and mistakes do happen when I do hurt.
> But we have 1954 miles plus we'd probably need to stretch out a few miles around the gulf also and the Pacific also, but considering the Coast is supposed to be the Coast Guards job any way, let's round it off at 2,000 miles, with a 2 mile buffer zone on this side of the Rio Grand.
> ...


Bwahahaha!
Our military is not nearly that efficient!!! Look how much they spend on toilet seats?! What about all the staff needed to support those men on the wall? What about the 30 days leave they each get (and the medical leave, chaplains leave, and bereavement leave)? These guys are conus so they will be relocated with their families. They will need on base housing, medical, activity centers, golf courses, parade fields, play grounds, etc. etc....


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

gweny said:


> Bwahahaha!
> Our military is not nearly that efficient!!! Look how much they spend on toilet seats?! What about all the staff needed to support those men on the wall? What about the 30 days leave they each get (and the medical leave, chaplains leave, and bereavement leave)? These guys are conus so they will be relocated with their families. They will need on base housing, medical, activity centers, golf courses, parade fields, play grounds, etc. etc....


Yea, you are probably right there too, gweny, but still yet, we'd be a lot better off spending whatever it takes to keep them on their own side of the boarder than spending money to take care of them after they get here, whatever the cost!

Ranger


----------



## gweny (Feb 10, 2014)

BadFordRanger said:


> Yea, you are probably right there too, gweny, but still yet, we'd be a lot better off spending whatever it takes to keep them on their own side of the boarder than spending money to take care of them after they get here, whatever the cost!
> 
> Ranger


Ok, but if we're going to spend that kind of money than why not put in a lock/dam canal system that will have its own revenue.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

notwyse said:


> Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.


 That's a poem, not law or policy of the USA!


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

gweny said:


> Ok, but if we're going to spend that kind of money than why not put in a lock/dam canal system that will have its own revenue.


Now tat's the best dang idea I have heard yet Gweny, but it'd take a while to get a shop nearly 2,000 miles!

But just so all will know, I was unaware while I was jabbering about the border that up to 60% of the people coming across the Rio was children. That puts a different light on the subject entirely. 

Ranger


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

notwyse said:


> Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.


Hmmm...perhaps that means LEGALLY!?!?!?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

po boy said:


> That's a poem, not law or policy of the USA!


HEY!!!! Nothing wrong with using a poem to set national policy. Dontcha just love the logic of liberals?


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

That poem was the impression immigrants had of the united states. They were welcomed in the harbor with the site of the statue of liberty. This is not our policy...nor really has it ever been. But if you are sitting in a third world country it sounds good. And many risk life to come.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> I'd bet lunch, that even with a sniper at every turn, many would still try to make it across because, they don't have much to lose.
> 
> We seem to forget that the reason Mexicans cross the borders, is because Americans want them to cross the borders.
> 
> ...


I think this stance is outdated. The latest influx of refugees (that is what they should be called) are minor aged children. I highly doubt there are many here in the US that are hoping to use them as cheap labor.

I see this latest tidal wave as a humanitarian mission. Several other nations have reached such a pitiful state their citizens are packing up and heading for greener pastures. There's nothing wrong with this; in fact there are many international laws and agreements to handle it. What is wrong is for politicians here to term them "illegal immigrants". They are not, they are currently in refugee status. They only become immigrants if the US chooses to accept them as citizens.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

In my understanding of this most recent flood of juveniles, another big factor hasn't been mentioned in the discussion here. The several Central American countries they're coming from, Guatemala, etc, are presently caught up in drug trade violence as various cartels are buying up their infrastructure with bribes and building waystation landing strips all through the jungles. Back thirty years ago or so, Guatemala had mining and other development interests similarly corrupting any supposed legal protections their tribal Indian areas had in order to buy up gold deposits, etc, even when villages voted overwhelmingly to keep the areas agrarian. Army troops would simply take the fifty adult males in a town away in a truck and SSS. There were Indian and Mestizo refugees leapfrogging across Mexico then, too, trying to get to the US simply to stay alive. Look here for IMDb info about the Oscar-nominated (best writing & screenplay) docu-drama "El Norte" from 1983: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085482/ It's available on Netflix and I recommend it. Now it's not mining, it's drugs, but clearly the locals understand that their choice is either to sell their land and move to city slums and be quiet... or again be murdered by drug gangs and maybe even again by police and army goons. So these poor parents are scrabbling for $3k-$5k per kid to send them away with enough in hand to pay the Mexican coyotes (again, a subset of the drug cartels now) hoping against hope that they can hide here in the US where the civilized among us at least don't babble about shooting at them at the border, and especially for speaking intelligently and truthfully on various subjects once they are somewhere other than their native country.

This is a *tragedy* in the true sense. No, we cannot simply casually absorb illegal migrants endlessly, no more than the planet can support another billion then another billion humans, all with ambitions to better themselves, obliviously past resource carrying capacity, onto the downslope of the peak oil (and many other resources) curves. Then, there's the factor of *our* obviously failed "War on Drugs" policies that do little but support obscene prices for various substances that could be taxed instead, drying up the gang funding and motivations, and allowing rational treatment programs for any pathetically addicted creatures... and lowering prison populations, AND dropping the plague of thefts by druggies. In a way, thread drift, sorry about that, but that's also where these teenagers are coming from, and why. It's horrible to see their families drained of income (back to cartels, even) then the kids deported maybe even to be shot or imprisoned as embarassing troublemakers by their banana republic governments.

Shoot at their feet? Ridiculous. Some of them likely have the brains and courage to just keep walking forward pointing at their hearts as a better target. Remember, our wonderful Border Patrol goons have already shot Mexican teenagers in the back for throwing stones over the fence. Any talk of enabling similar violence seems a very bad idea at the least.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

* Somebody's Got To Do It*


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

notwyse said:


> That poem was the impression immigrants had of the united states. They were welcomed in the harbor with the site of the statue of liberty. This is not our policy...nor really has it ever been. But if you are sitting in a third world country it sounds good. And many risk life to come.


I guess you think they just landed at the Statue of Liberty, ran all around til they found a home?
Did they send unaccompanied minors?

I believe they were PROCESSED. I believe there was a time limit for this to go on. I believe there was no WELFARE then.


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

And I guess you think that you would be content to live in fear and poverty.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I guess you would like for about 100 of them to enter your house, eat your food, take a few showers, sit down, sleep in your beds. Then a couple will shoot your family.
This does happen. 
They need to get here legally. Just as I would if I'd been born there.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

There's a Mexican border? Seth


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

notwyse said:


> And I guess you think that you would be content to live in fear and poverty.


Why do they live in fear and poverty? Could it be because they put up with it and vote for people out to destroy their countries like liberals do here? Those liars run on big promises of freebees for the masses but they never materialize. Soon ours will go too. How many of those poor folks would you say should be let into our country? Anywhere you draw the line, some of those poor folks will be left behind. We cannot take them all and still have a country. Immigrants aren't like they used to be when they came here to work and better themselves. Nowadays they come here and many set about trying to make this country just like the one they fled.


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

I have said we need to fix the problem. I did not say annex mexico. I did not say open to all. But until we are willing to make some hard choices both as a country and as citizens we need to accept that they are coming and will cross our borders. The answers are for the most part contained in some of the laws we already have. For instance...how about prosecuting employers who use undocumented workers? Including farms?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> I guess you think they just landed at the Statue of Liberty, ran all around til they found a home?
> Did they send unaccompanied minors?
> 
> I believe they were PROCESSED. I believe there was a time limit for this to go on. I believe there was no WELFARE then.


http://www.ellisisland.org/genealogy/Annie_Moore.asp

The story of the first person through Ellis Island might sound familiar to those trying to reunite with their children today.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> http://www.ellisisland.org/genealogy/Annie_Moore.asp
> 
> The story of the first person through Ellis Island might sound familiar to those trying to reunite with their children today.


Sounds just like my great grandparents! Had to drop the O' from in front of their last name because they were Irish and considered as trash. 

BUT:

They followed the laws and became citizens. The only thing they asked for was a chance, not a handout. These folks are nothing like our predecessors their coming here because they have been told that everything here will be free!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nate_in_IN said:


> I think this stance is outdated. The latest influx of refugees (that is what they should be called) are minor aged children. I highly doubt there are many here in the US that are hoping to use them as cheap labor.
> 
> I see this latest tidal wave as a humanitarian mission. Several other nations have reached such a pitiful state their citizens are packing up and heading for greener pastures. There's nothing wrong with this; in fact there are many international laws and agreements to handle it. What is wrong is for politicians here to term them "illegal immigrants". They are not, they are currently in refugee status. They only become immigrants if the US chooses to accept them as citizens.



Seriously? Why let reality get in the way of a good story.

All illegal adults, stopped coming across the border, when the kidlins started showing up?

According to Fox news, 190,000 illegals were *arrested* by April, this year. Wonder how many got through?

As far as workers, I'm pretty sure, all kids grow into adults sooner, or later.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ant-border-traffic-despite-napolitano-claims/


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

notwyse said:


> I have said we need to fix the problem. I did not say annex mexico. I did not say open to all. But until we are willing to make some hard choices both as a country and as citizens we need to accept that they are coming and will cross our borders. The answers are for the most part contained in some of the laws we already have. For instance...how about prosecuting employers who use undocumented workers? Including farms?


I'm all for prosecuting those employers. Let's also secure the border NOW. As long as we have money to fund Islamic radicals overseas, we should use that money to secure our border. Hows the border fence going? Those wanting illegals in claimed the fence didn't work. As Charles Krauthammer asked, "If fences don't work, why do they have one around the White House"?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Seth said:


> There's a Mexican border? Seth


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

There have been more than 173 tunnels discovered since 2001. There have always been problems with the tunnels. Many are huge with great ventilation. Some are quite long. All can be used for both drugs and people.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

notwyse said:


> There have been more than 173 tunnels discovered since 2001. There have always been problems with the tunnels. Many are huge with great ventilation. Some are quite long. All can be used for both drugs and people.


So what? Deal with above ground NOW. Then put some focus on the tunnels. Declare open season on the coyotes that smuggle people across the border.


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

Why build a fence that will not work. Stupid. Put the resources on things that do. Prosecute employers. Make it easier to get a green card and microchip the recipients. Pull the troops out and beef up the border security. Fund more drug dogs. Squash the american drug market...follow the money.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/juangastelum/militia-leader-calls-on-members-to-go-armed-to-the-border

Well.. this should just fix the problem right up.

I especially find this part 
_"commander Chris Davis said militia members &#8220;need to go armed&#8221; and incited them to &#8220;start the next 1776 right there on the border&#8221; if they are confronted by local law enforcement and federal agents."_ 
to be wise.
And this part too..
_In the 21-minute video, the man also accused &#8220;illegal immigrants&#8221; of &#8220;invading&#8221; the country and said, &#8220;It is time that we start taking back our national sovereignty.&#8221;_
_&#8220;How?&#8221; the man asked. &#8220;You see an illegal. You point your gun right dead at him, right between the eyes, and say, &#8216;Get back across the border or you will be shot.&#8217;&#8221;_

Yep. Everything will be taken care of.

Snark.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Seriously? Why let reality get in the way of a good story.
> 
> All illegal adults, stopped coming across the border, when the kidlins started showing up?
> 
> ...


So you are suggesting that private industry is promoting allowing children into the country illegally under the business model of having to pay taxes to support them until they become of an age to work so they can have cheaper labor?

But then again adults crossing the border illegally does not constitute the _humanitarian_ crisis this administration is heralding.

So which do you think it is? Are there enough children that this should be called a humanitarian effort, or is the larger percentage adults?

BTW, I really don't like that the Federal Government has blocked all access into the processing facilities. I have no idea why they would do that.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

notwyse said:


> Why build a fence that will not work. Stupid. Put the resources on things that do. Prosecute employers. Make it easier to get a green card and microchip the recipients. Pull the troops out and beef up the border security. Fund more drug dogs. Squash the american drug market...follow the money.


Let me tell you...if there was a fence border agents could at least patrol & possibly see spots where they'd come over. 
Little children & moms w/babies would NOT be climbing a fence. 
Sure, many would get over but to try to tell the US that fining co.s would be more effective is pure BS. 
Yes, that would be a great thing but it WILL NOT STOP the influx. WILL NOT. They'd have to be here for several wks, mo.s b/4 they'd figure out that biz was being fined. 
Can you not see that?

I'm all for giving more green cards, folks have to be 'processed' for that & maybe we'd catch a few OTMs. Plus, we'd have to STOP all immigration form countries that hate us to up the ante for Mexicans to immigrate-LEGALLY.

Start deporting adults & thier children, if they had them here, & you'd soon get the word out. 
But NOOOooo, our Idioitincharge has to let the world know we're NOT deporting...what happens???


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Start deporting adults & thier children, if they had them here, & you'd soon get the word out.


They're deporting. It just has to be done with due process of law.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Due Process of Law===== Bull Feathers~!
They Crossed Illegally not just over stayed their visa when it was up. 
Take that to some other ears that will listen to that stable floor sweepings rumbling of the left who don't know THE LASW and Who do not care what is going on the Southern end of this Great Country.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Due Process of Law===== Bull Feathers~!
> They Crossed Illegally not just over stayed their visa when it was up.
> Take that to some other ears that will listen to that stable floor sweepings rumbling of the left folks.


I don't believe that Obama has the unilateral authority to deny due process required by law. Moreover, it wasn't Obama's idea. Due process for these immigrants is required by a law signed by GWB long before Obama took office.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I don't believe that Obama has the unilateral authority to deny due process required by law. Moreover, it wasn't Obama's idea. Due process for these immigrants is required by a law signed by GWB long before Obama took office.


This is very true, except it was only signed by GWB just before he left office. I have seen a lot of legislation passed as the incumbents make last ditch efforts to shore up voting lines. Most of this legislation contains many unintended consequences.

It's interesting that Obama is saying he wishes to circumvent this due process, although he hasn't officially asked for it yet.

As I read this I'm think the saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" may be very apropos.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

notwyse said:


> And I guess you think that you would be content to live in fear and poverty.


I grew up with fear and poverty, didnt care much for either so I did something about it. I worked my way up and out of both situations. I see no reason that our southern neighbors couldnt do exactly the same thing right there in their own country.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Start deporting adults & thier children, if they had them here, & you'd soon get the word out.


We have been deporting for years and years.... problem is the method of deportation. Thus far we have basically put them on a bus and shipped them back across the border where they can walk right back across and we start all over again. My idea would be to put them on airplanes, fly them far enough south of the border they cant just walk back.... then toss them out of the plane at about 20,000 feet.... a couple trips like that and our border would be flooded with illegals trying to get back home where they belong.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I don't believe that Obama has the unilateral authority to deny due process required by law. Moreover, it wasn't Obama's idea. Due process for these immigrants is required by a law signed by GWB long before Obama took office.


There is no end to using "It is Bush's fault.".

Bush might have passed the law, but Obama laid out the welcome mat with his "Dream Act" EO.


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

The border has always been porous. Most places it is simply barbed wire. Cattle come thru. Many places no road access. Border patrol very underfunded. I have seen groups of more than thirty coming across. And where was the only bus? Not anywhere close. The fence is great for the coyotes. Dig under and charge more. Simple.. This is not a city with guards. I have a friend who ranches down close in new mexico. His ranch has two homes. It is a fifty mile drive from one house to the other by road...or several hours by horse. You are not gonna cut across. Not very simple folks. Pressure in the towns and on the roads pushes these folks deep. Deep means remote. Remote means dangerous. Danger means death. I am not OK with that.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> There is no end to using "It is Bush's fault.".
> 
> Bush might have passed the law, but Obama laid out the welcome mat with his "Dream Act" EO.


Either you want Obama to follow the laws - or you don't.

The Dream Act was about granting amnesty, to grown illegal alien children, who likely came with an adult, who have resided here for 5 years prior to the passing of the act.

There are 3 year old children crossing the border. Not a good situation, but Americans are just going to simply turn them around and point them in the opposite direction?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

plowjockey said:


> Either you want Obama to follow the laws - or you don't.
> 
> The Dream Act was about granting amnesty, to grown illegal alien children, who likely came with an adult, who have resided here for 5 years prior to the passing of the act.


Which was never passed as law. Obama should be impeached for violating the existing law.



> There are 3 year old children crossing the border. Not a good situation, but Americans are just going to simply turn them around and point them in the opposite direction?


Mexico has made it their problem.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Either you want Obama to follow the laws - or you don't.
> 
> The Dream Act was about granting amnesty, to grown illegal alien children, who likely came with an adult, who have resided here for 5 years prior to the passing of the act.
> 
> There are 3 year old children crossing the border. Not a good situation, but Americans are just going to simply turn them around and point them in the opposite direction?


We would not be facing this crisis if 0 had not made the hordes of baby invaders think they could come here to stay.

Now people like you throw the law up like some shield from blame.

0 gets the credit for this one.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> They're deporting. It just has to be done with due process of law.


They let tens of thousands of criminals go b/c they had no idea what to do w/them...now these 'kids' as well as whomever came w/them will 90% STAY.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't believe that Obama has the unilateral authority to deny due process required by law. Moreover, it wasn't Obama's idea. Due process for these immigrants is required by a law signed by GWB long before Obama took office.


In '08 there was a unanimously passed law about children from the sex trade allowed in. These are NOT THEM.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

HDRider said:


> There is no end to using "It is Bush's fault.".
> 
> Bush might have passed the law, but Obama laid out the welcome mat with his "Dream Act" EO.


"Bush's" law was about central american children escaping the sex trade.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency and CIA, said the constant flow of illegal immigrants should be treated like an insurgency.


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ha...mail_job=1576628_07092014&promo_code=tkii4hdv


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

Seth said:


> There's a Mexican border? Seth


Apparently it is someplace north of say, Wisconsin.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> There are 3 year old children crossing the border. Not a good situation, but Americans are just going to simply turn them around and point them in the opposite direction?


Watch the gumball video at this link:

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/519156-refugee-kids.html

The major points of the video, which seems to have been largely ignored in HT, there are billions or people just as poor and even more poor than the ones coming here from Central America. There is no way we can possibly take in that many people. The problem has to be addressed in their home countries. 

IMO, due process is important. Someone found on the border, and probably filmed while crossing, can get an instant adjudication and sent back home instantly. We would spend far less than the billions Obama is asking for if we sent them home and funded a camp for them back in the home countries. Their own countries are going to have to be forced to deal with their own issues because we can't do it for them and it would be wrong for us to force an American solution down the throats of other people.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> there are billions or people just as poor and even more poor than the ones coming here from Central America.


Their requests for asylum aren't on the basis of poverty. Evidently you don't understand the problem.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Their requests for asylum aren't on the basis of poverty. Evidently you don't understand the problem.


I dont need to understand the problem..... its not my problem.... They need to deal with their own problems in their own country.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Their requests for asylum aren't on the basis of poverty. Evidently you don't understand the problem.


Are you sure they are requesting asylum? Obama would tell you to be very careful with that, it opens up a whole different avenue of laws if they are. Come to think of it, maybe that's why no-one is being allowed to talk with them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Are you sure they are requesting asylum?


Of course. That's why they can't be sent back without due process of law. If they weren't asking for asylum then there wouldn't be a problem. If someone from central America shows up and says their life is in danger if they are sent back then we have to give them temporary residence.

The fact that they're asking for asylum is what this problem is all about.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Their requests for asylum aren't on the basis of poverty. Evidently you don't understand the problem.


Evidently you don't understand the problem. Most of the third world can ask for asylum and we just do not have the money to support them all. 

From the US Citizenship and Immigration website:
_To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status._

Therefore, if we prevent them from entering the US, just as the USCG does when it intercepts Haitian boat people before they step foot on dry land, we are not obligated to go thru the due process process.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Of course. That's why they can't be sent back without due process of law. If they weren't asking for asylum then there wouldn't be a problem. If someone from central America shows up and says their life is in danger if they are sent back then we have to give them temporary residence.
> 
> The fact that they're asking for asylum is what this problem is all about.


Why do you think that? 90% of those interviewed said they came b/c they were under the impression they'd be allowed to stay. B/c no children were gonna be deported. 90% did NOT say they ere excaping sex trade, oppression, nada.
Poverty, sure. That's not a requirement for asylum.

It is estimated that over 80% WILL NOT come in for their court date. 
Saw an example in MD on tv yesterday. 
Central American lady & small child came 2000 miles? w/coyote & lots of $$ paid, was put b/4 a judge, given a day & time to come back & she never returned. Address in MD she gave was incorrect. 
This will happen with nearly all of them.

Imagine that.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Of course. That's why they can't be sent back without due process of law. If they weren't asking for asylum then there wouldn't be a problem. If someone from central America shows up and says their life is in danger if they are sent back then we have to give them temporary residence.
> 
> The fact that they're asking for asylum is what this problem is all about.


Why were the Germans who recently asked for asylum from religious persecution turned away?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

You know once the children have been here for 6 months or so, the Democrats will start agitating about how unfair it is that the children are separated from their parents. Then the bill to unite the children with their families - in the US. 

And I bet they will even propose that we pay for the children's father, mother, brothers, and sisters to move to the US and then provide food, shelter, and health care for them for some period of time.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> You know once the children have been here for 6 months or so, the Democrats will start agitating about how unfair it is that the children are separated from their parents. Then the bill to unite the children with their families - in the US.
> 
> And I bet they will even propose that we pay for the children's father, mother, brothers, and sisters to move to the US and then provide food, shelter, and health care for them for some period of time.


Right.

0's plan...

1. Invite them here
2. Settle them here
3. Repeat

Might this be one effort to "fundamentally change America"?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Sever parental rights 
Grounds
Contributors to minor delinquency
Abanddement
Neglect
Causes harm
Substandard living conditions

Pleases add to the list so as to be prepared to justify why mommy and daddy can't come.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> You might want to recheck those budget numbers. 50,000 border guards are going to cost a bit more than $150,000,000.


$150 million divided by 50,000 border guards = $3 million per guard.


----------



## hardrock (Jun 8, 2010)

Get a HAM license and you can find out from the horses mouth why these 

people are selling EVERYTHING they own to pay their way to get here.

They know they will be robbed, raped, and in some cases killed.

They were told they would not be deported. Guess where they heard that? 

In the future, people from all over the world will start showing up.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

mnn2501 said:


> $150 million divided by 50,000 border guards = $3 million per guard.


You might wish to recheck your work. I could make some snarky comment about how math like this explains why some conservatives believe the earth to be 6000 years old or how it explains those balanced republican budgets but I'll refrain and let it go as an honest mistake. We all make them from time to time.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

were are the kids going to be housed? how about the detention camps all around the country


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

hardrock said:


> Get a HAM license and you can find out from the horses mouth why these
> 
> people are selling EVERYTHING they own to pay their way to get here.
> 
> ...


Already this is the case, border agents have held people from Syria, Iraq, Iran, afghanistan...
Anyone watch Hannity w/Perry & the border the other nite? I don't watch him but saw what was going to be on & recorded it. 
Wow.
Nearly 625,000 cries in the last 7 yrs in TX alone committed by illegals. 
Ranchers reporting that dead bodies found on their land is not unusual. Horrific.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

And te ACLU is going to Sue on behalf of the mistreated, Dear Lord help us.

..........................................................................

Illegal immigrants pouring across the border could trigger a wave of lawsuits flooding the U.S. court system for years and costing taxpayers millions, according to legal experts.

The American Civil Liberties Union has already sued the federal government to ensure that each of the 60,000-plus unaccompanied children who have come across the border since November gets taxpayer-funded representation at deportation hearings. But legal advocacy groups who represent illegal immigrants could file additional suits alleging improper treatment at the hands of the government. And with the system overwhelmed, thereâs little doubt corners are being cut.










âYou can bet there is a phalanx of left-wing lawyers trying to line up illegal alien plaintiffs,â said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.

"The skyâs the limit, it could be a nightmare.â
- Jessica Vaughn, The Center for Immigration Studies

Slow asylum hearing dockets â like those that have already prompted a class action suit on behalf of 40,000 illegal immigrants â are certain to get much worse, experts say. But every interaction between the government and the illegal immigrants pouring in could potentially trigger a cause of action if lawyers can prove the letter of the law was not followed.

Jessica Vaughn, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said there's little the White House can do now that the children â most of whom are from Central America âare already here. Under U.S. law, kids from non-contiguous countries cannot be turned back at the border and must be granted deportation hearings.

âIf we start sending these kids back to their home countries, there will be lawsuits galore,â said Vaughn. âWeâre already seeing suits for conditions and denial of privileges. The skyâs the limit, it could be a nightmare.â


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> They're deporting. It just has to be done with due process of law.


And what if they don't appear in court after they're released? 

Most don't, you know.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/09/us/undocumented-children-immigrants/


> "Most of the time, they're getting released to relatives in the U.S.," Cabrera said. "There's nowhere to put them, so they're released on their own recognizance and have a pending court date. I'd say between 95 and 97% of adults or youths don't show up for court."


Process of law, my foot. There is no law!!!!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5577501

When I find myself agreeing with Sheldon Adelson the world has indeed become a screwy place.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5577501
> 
> When I find myself agreeing with Sheldon Adelson the world has indeed become a screwy place.


Not that screwy. I sure don't agree with them, but that is expected if you do.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> Not that screwy. I sure don't agree with them, but that is expected if you do.


So you don't agree that our current laws are part of the problem and congress refusing to deal with the problem only perpetuates the problem. I'll understand if you disagree with their solution, but how do you fix a problem if you won't even address it?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5577501
> 
> When I find myself agreeing with Sheldon Adelson the world has indeed become a screwy place.


Here's what will happen if the House passes any type of immigration bill.

The Senate will force the bill into reconciliation with their bill. There are likely enough Democrats and squishy Republicans in the House to approve the Senate bill.

The only defense the Republicans have is to pass no bill at all.

Right now, the law that treats the illegal immigrant children not from Mexico different than children from Mexico needs to be amended. 

Why hasn't the House passed the change? Because the Senate will amend it be replacing it with the Senate immigration bill. So the House is waiting for the Senate to act 1st.

When I see 3 billionaires supporting a path to citizenship, I ask what's in it for me. And the answer is higher taxes, tighter job market, and stagnant wages. I can see why the rich might want this, but it is bad for the majority of the American people.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> So you don't agree that our current laws are part of the problem and congress refusing to deal with the problem only perpetuates the problem. I'll understand if you disagree with their solution, but how do you fix a problem if you won't even address it?


I do not believe in some fast path to citizenship for those here illegally. I think you knock on the door and ask permission to come in and you follow the rules as they exist.

I am all for a guest worker program.

Not sure why you suggest I am not willing to address it. Not that it matters to you other than your blanket statement, but I have addressed it many times.

Two forces are at work here. Groups wanting cheap labor and folks wanting more socialist voters. I agree with neither.

I expect no agreement from you. To my recollection there has never been any agreement in anything that comes to mind.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> Here's what will happen if the House passes any type of immigration bill.
> 
> The Senate will force the bill into reconciliation with their bill. There are likely enough Democrats and squishy Republicans in the House to approve the Senate bill.
> 
> ...


I understand your reasoning but the Senate has acted on immigration reform. It is the House's turn. I believe they don't want to act because it forces them into an unpalatable political choice. Any compromise loses them the support of the hard right, any measure that would satisfy the hard right loses them moderates and, more importantly, further alienates Hispanics. There's no good vote for the republicans on the national stage so they choose not to vote at all. And the problems continue.

I'd support a simple plan to fund and set up temporary courts near the border to hear and adjudicate these cases with immediacy. Appeals can be handled by a series of three judge panels within a fixed time period. Until the case is finalized all persons should be held in detention facilities. Anyone found not deserving of asylum should be immediately returned to their country of origin. Fairly simple and straightforward, I think it balances our need to follow the rule of law with our desire to disincentivize illegal immigration.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> I do not believe in some fast path to citizenship for those here illegally. I think you knock on the door and ask permission to come in and you follow the rules as they exist.
> 
> I am all for a guest worker program.
> 
> ...


I wasn't referring to you, personally, not addressing the problem, but to the republicans and their leadership in the house.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I understand your reasoning but the Senate has acted on immigration reform. It is the House's turn. I believe they don't want to act because it forces them into an unpalatable political choice.


And all those bills the house has passed over the last few years and the Senate has failed to take up? You feel the same?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> And all those bills the house has passed over the last few years and the Senate has failed to take up? You feel the same?


Some of them I do. Some, like the 40+ votes to repeal the ACA I think are a waste of time and paper. But please, keep coming after me and not the points I've made.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> I understand your reasoning but the Senate has acted on immigration reform. It is the House's turn. I believe they don't want to act because it forces them into an unpalatable political choice.


I think you missed my point. Besides, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the House to act on immigration (or any bill) just because the Senate did. What the House has done is similar to a "pocket veto".

If the House passes ANY bill related to immigration, the Senate will force reconciliation. At that point, the House Republicans have lost their power and the House Democrats will pass the bill with support from just a few Republicans.

That would be both stupid and a betrayal of the voters who put them in control of the House. What the House must have is a clean bill from the Senate.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I think you missed my point. Besides, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the House to act on immigration (or any bill) just because the Senate did. What the House has done is similar to a "pocket veto".
> 
> If the House passes ANY bill related to immigration, the Senate will force reconciliation. At that point, the House Republicans have lost their power and the House Democrats will pass the bill with support from just a few Republicans.
> 
> That would be both stupid and a betrayal of the voters who put them in control of the House. What the House must have is a clean bill from the Senate.


There are two separate problems. One is the immediate crisis on the border the other is long term immigration reform. They are interconnected but can be acted upon separately. The Senate has passed a bill that addresses the long term problem. The house had refused to vote on it, or even discuss reform if their own. That is a problem in and of itself. The immediate problem can be dealt with on its own but not if the republicans in the house sit on their hands, criticize and refuse to offer a plan of their own. Your responses only point out that the republicans are in a tough political spot. How much support would you give to any who compromise with democrats to find a middle ground solution?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> There are two separate problems. One is the immediate crisis on the border the other is long term immigration reform. They are interconnected but can be acted upon separately. The Senate has passed a bill that addresses the long term problem. The house had refused to vote on it, or even discuss reform if their own. That is a problem in and of itself. The immediate problem can be dealt with on its own but not if the republicans in the house sit on their hands, criticize and refuse to offer a plan of their own. Your responses only point out that the republicans are in a tough political spot. How much support would you give to any who compromise with democrats to find a middle ground solution?


You are still not getting it. Let's say the House passes a bill that says the children can be immediately returned to their country of origin. Because the bill is in the category of immigration, the Senate can amend the House bill by substituting their Immigration bill and eventually, force reconciliation.

To us that is illogical, but that's how it works.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> There are two separate problems. One is the immediate crisis on the border the other is long term immigration reform. They are interconnected but can be acted upon separately. The Senate has passed a bill that addresses the long term problem. The house had refused to vote on it, or even discuss reform if their own. That is a problem in and of itself. The immediate problem can be dealt with on its own but not if the republicans in the house sit on their hands, criticize and refuse to offer a plan of their own. Your responses only point out that the republicans are in a tough political spot. How much support would you give to any who compromise with democrats to find a middle ground solution?


As there is no middle ground between you and I, there is no middle ground between conservative Republicans and socialist Democrats.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> You are still not getting it. Let's say the House passes a bill that says the children can be immediately returned to their country of origin. Because the bill is in the category of immigration, the Senate can amend the House bill by substituting their Immigration bill and eventually, force reconciliation.
> 
> To us that is illogical, but that's how it works.


Even a reconciled bill has to pass both houses in its final form. You may not like the final outcome, I may not like it but it's how the process works. Not going through that process leads us to where we are today. Once again, your response highlights the problem. It's your way or no way. It's wrong on both sides to operate that way and nothing will get solved.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

HDRider said:


> As there is no middle ground between you and I, there is no middle ground between conservative Republicans and socialist Democrats.


And the attacks and name calling continue. I proposed a plan to deal with the current situation on the border. It's one that follows the law and seems workable to me. Feel free to criticize my plan. All the other sturm and drang I can do without.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Even a reconciled bill has to pass both houses in its final form. You may not like the final outcome, I may not like it but it's how the process works. Not going through that process leads us to where we are today. Once again, your response highlights the problem. It's your way or no way. It's wrong on both sides to operate that way and nothing will get solved.


Are you saying that there are no laws already in place that deal with illegal aliens wanting to come to the USA? What kind of cash are they bringing to contribute? What kind of skills for employment do they have? Are they going to be supported by us taxpayers?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And the attacks and name calling continue. I proposed a plan to deal with the current situation on the border. It's one that follows the law and seems workable to me. Feel free to criticize my plan. All the other sturm and drang I can do without.


Here is my plan:

Send the National Guard to the border and turn back anyone that shows up! If they attempt to cross....shoot them and then send their bodies right back.

They will get the message.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Here is my plan:
> 
> Send the National Guard to the border and turn back anyone that shows up! If they attempt to cross....shoot them and then send their bodies right back.
> 
> They will get the message.


At least its a plan. How many guard members would be willing to shot unarmed women and children is a question I might pose. When exactly do you shoot them? Once they've touched foot down on our side they're due all the legal protections available to you or I. If they haven't set foot down on our side what crime have they committed to deserve to be shot? Is there some magical point?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

It is a war zone that expanding to every state by the plane load.

It is a plan in action to break us by our own humanity. Yes the child are being used as the trogian horse. The children are the victim of those that pull the strings of the puppet pres. He is in that position because too many voters wanted the hope of a freebie vs the reward of earning it.

There is no war on women there is a war on freedom.

I want the children saved and not the ones who are the tools to destroy America. That is my fault if I were calling the shots I would end up helping some who wish use harm.. they may not be laddend with bombs but the real potential that illness, and evil persons are what we as a nation will be blown up financially and emotionally in trying to do the morally right thing.

It is planned and I firmly believe that some in the places of high power are controlling it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

See you know that their are parents with these children.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Are you saying that there are no laws already in place that deal with illegal aliens wanting to come to the USA? What kind of cash are they bringing to contribute? What kind of skills for employment do they have? Are they going to be supported by us taxpayers?


Sure there are. The enforcement of one of those laws is part of the current problem. Ending the backlog of immigration cases isn't rocket science. Simply apply more resources such as courtrooms, judges, lawyers and other personnel. Of course they'd have to be paid for. I'd back immediately issuing a deportation order for anyone not appearing for a scheduled hearing. The use of tracking bracelets for those awaiting adjudication might be appropriate. There are answers to be had, we just have to look for them.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I've got the plan.

Offer each of the involved countries - El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua - $250 million to receive their illegal immigrants back and support them. Then round them up and ship them back to their governments.

Total cost - maybe 1 1/2 billion. One time. No ongoing costs.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> I've got the plan.
> 
> Offer each of the involved countries - El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua - $250 million to receive their illegal immigrants back and support them. Then round them up and ship them back to their governments.
> 
> Total cost - maybe 1 1/2 billion. One time. No ongoing costs.


And when those countries take the money and the people back what's to stop them from starting the long walk north again? And if you're Guatemala why would you stop them? You got paid once, maybe we'd be foolish enough to repeat our folly. You get what you reward.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> And when those countries take the money and the people back what's to stop them from starting the long walk north again? And if you're Guatemala why would you stop them? You got paid once, maybe we'd be foolish enough to repeat our folly. You get what you reward.


You cut off all aid to the country and impose an embargo on their goods if it happens again.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> At least its a plan. How many guard members would be willing to shot unarmed women and children is a question I might pose. When exactly do you shoot them? Once they've touched foot down on our side they're due all the legal protections available to you or I. If they haven't set foot down on our side what crime have they committed to deserve to be shot? Is there some magical point?


There are plenty that will shoot whoever their told to shoot, just look at what our cops do on a daily basis. They are not afford the same legal benefits as citizens here if their considered invaders....which they are. Set one foot across our border is reasonable cause for dispatch. If they don't cross the border, no problemo!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> And when those countries take the money and the people back what's to stop them from starting the long walk north again? And if you're Guatemala why would you stop them? You got paid once, maybe we'd be foolish enough to repeat our folly. You get what you reward.


Thats easy.... when we ship them back to their home countries via air craft... and offload them minus parachutes at 20,000 feet over their hometowns they will most likely not have much interest or desire to return again. The key here of course is to remove the incentive to come here in the first place. seeing your cousins falling from the sky around you would have that affect.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> There are plenty that will shoot whoever their told to shoot, just look at what our cops do on a daily basis. They are not afford the same legal benefits as citizens here if their considered invaders....which they are. Set one foot across our border is reasonable cause for dispatch. If they don't cross the border, no problemo!


If you can get the law passed more power to you.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> If you can get the law passed more power to you.


In case you havent heard.... in our country laws are not required anymore... a simple executive order seems to suffice since about 2008.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> If you can get the law passed more power to you.


I'm working on it!

Our police chief Beck.makes his own laws up and/or disregads those already on the books. Besides laws pertaining to an invasion are already in place!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Even a reconciled bill has to pass both houses in its final form. You may not like the final outcome, I may not like it but it's how the process works. Not going through that process leads us to where we are today. Once again, your response highlights the problem. It's your way or no way. It's wrong on both sides to operate that way and nothing will get solved.


There's always an EO. That is what got us to where we are today.

An EO and the perception it created.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> And the attacks and name calling continue. I proposed a plan to deal with the current situation on the border. It's one that follows the law and seems workable to me. Feel free to criticize my plan. All the other sturm and drang I can do without.


You or I having a plan does not matter. There is no plan the two sides can agree on.

We have laws to deal with this. AND, that is the problem. The 0ne's in power today don't like those laws so they aren't enforcing border security, but are "inviting" new illegals to come with hopes to settle here.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

You want a plan? here's your plan: 

Article One, Section 10, Clause 3 of the US Constitution 

We're tired of all talk and no action. there is talk with Governor Perry and US Representative Louie Gohmert. I don't imagine they'll have any problem getting our US Senators or the majority of Texans to support this.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> I've got the plan.
> 
> Offer each of the involved countries - El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua - $250 million to receive their illegal immigrants back and support them. Then round them up and ship them back to their governments.
> 
> Total cost - maybe 1 1/2 billion. One time. No ongoing costs.


All those gov'ts are corrupt. Are you saying they take this $$ & not their usual stipend? B/c they're all getting aid from us.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thats easy.... when we ship them back to their home countries via air craft... and offload them minus parachutes at 20,000 feet over their hometowns they will most likely not have much interest or desire to return again. The key here of course is to remove the incentive to come here in the first place. seeing your cousins falling from the sky around you would have that affect.


Oh, gosh, YH, please!


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Oh, gosh, YH, please!


My plan is legal


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> All those gov'ts are corrupt. Are you saying they take this $$ & not their usual stipend? B/c they're all getting aid from us.


The bill would be worded such that there are 6 month reviews and if the country is found to be in violation of the agreement, all funds would be withheld.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> The bill would be worded such that there are 6 month reviews and if the country is found to be in violation of the agreement, all funds would be withheld.


And who would certify there were no violations? The same gov't that says deportations are up and that the border is more secure than ever? Will we trust the gov't that says there is little inflation? Will we trust the gov't that says the unemployment is rate is 6.x% but that the employment rate is 65.x% (what are the other 29% doing?) Will we trust the gov't that had a law to cut aid to Egypt if there was a coup, but decided a military take over was not a coup? And will we trust a gov't that said 37 times, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> And who would certify there were no violations? The same gov't that says deportations are up and that the border is more secure than ever? Will we trust the gov't that says there is little inflation? Will we trust the gov't that says the unemployment is rate is 6.x% but that the employment rate is 65.x% (what are the other 29% doing?) Will we trust the gov't that had a law to cut aid to Egypt if there was a coup, but decided a military take over was not a coup? And will we trust a gov't that said 37 times, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."


And your solution is?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> And your solution is?


Unlike many liberals and pols of all stripes, I recognize that I don't have a solution to all the world's problems. However, people are not fleeing Costa Rica the way they are Guatemala and Mexico. Costa Ricans enjoy more democracy, more freedom, more free enterprise than their neighbors. The US has tried using force to make Central American countries more democratic and free, but at best, our record is checkered. The people of those countries have to make democracy, freedom, and opportunity happen. 

In the mean time, no matter what anyone says is the right thing to do with the illegals already here, we have to stop, or at least dramatically slow, more illegals from coming. Nat Guard on the border, taking into custody new arrivals and processing them out of country immediately is probably too easy and smart for our gov't to do it. Yes, due process, but due process immediately. If a few guards take in a group of on the border captures and tells a judge, the judge should be able to send them home immediately.


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

Congress simply needs to rewrite the law about anyone making it to the border being treated as a refugee and turn them into what the heck they are. People entering our borders illegally and treat them as illegals from day one and only give them 4 hours to be shipped back home. 
Seems like congress loves to rewrite laws anyway they want to anyway. 

Ranger


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

rambotex said:


> My plan is legal


My plan is every bit as legal as most of the things Obama does.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Pretty clever allowing children to invade the country and calling it a humanitarian crisis. 

The whole thing stinks to high heaven, IMHO. I don't ever recall a mass exodus of unaccompanied children fleeing a nation; at the very least it's mothers and children. 

And how is it that the parents happened to already be here? Why didn't they bring their children when they made 'the journey'? If the situation in my country was so bad I had to flee, I dang sure wouldn't leave my children!!!!!


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

They need to set up a court their where they cross ,in fema trailers if need be.They could video conference the judges to the trailers. Alot of courts in the u.s. are already doing this (video conferencing ).It would cut the bus cost and no shows out and get this took care of quick and the letter of the law would be followed.Once judgement is held we will know where to send them. I hope you all talk of killing these poor people in jest. Even a criminal is a son ,a daughter ,a mother, a father.We need to make it like the 38th parallel on the border and stop all this foolishness . People are dieing and it just doesn't seem to matter.:smack


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

michael ark said:


> People are dieing and it just doesn't seem to matter.:smack


I didnt tell a single one of them to pack up and risk their lives. If they are dyeing.... its not my fault!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I didnt tell a single one of them to pack up and risk their lives. If they are dyeing.... its not my fault!


That is this choice in the matter. If they want to take a chancre with their lives to cross into such hostile places then so be it. Many have died over the years trying to cross the hot and dry desert of AZ. Not our fault if they are foolish to take a desert on like that.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Apparently there's a report that says the migration isn't about violence after all, but about 'misconceptions about US immigration policy'. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-policy-behind-surge-illegal-children-report/
Emphasis mine.


> The 10-page July 7 report was issued by the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), which according to the Justice Department website is *led by the DEA and incorporates Homeland Security*. Its focus is on the collection and distribution of tactical intelligence, information which can immediately be acted on by law enforcement.
> 
> "Of the 230 migrants interviewed, 219 cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos to UAC (unaccompanied children) and adult females OTMs (other than Mexicans) traveling with minors,&#8221; the report said.


That would explain why the feds were reluctant to allow the immigrants to be interviewed. 

Draw your own conclusions as to where the 'misconception' came from.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Good keep it up there. We do not need your liberal healthcare antics, we do not need your liberal ways of doing many other things as well.
That is why so many Americans will to stand for a healthcare system like yours, no way now how.
And has many that will just blast any thoughts that man is the cause of what some have claimed as GW happening. Course we all know thumps and ANY GW that MAY have been happening in years past has Long Gone Bye Bye over the last 13 years.
And in no way do we need to tighten said epa standards any tighter then they already are. And they are strangling so many coma pies from expanding and hiring more workers to others closing the doors for good. 

And that then leaves the companies to look else where in the world and move the heck out of the USA. They sure don't look North for a move now do they?
If Canada was so great companies that look outside of the USA to get out of High Taxation, terrible epa standards laws. Sure would be close to just go North nice and close no ocean to tend with but nope not even companies think much of that liberal state that Canada is. There are a few that have moved North but not the countless that have gone over the ocean for a better place to set up shop and cheaper for them to operate, and compete on a world market place.


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> At least its a plan. How many guard members would be willing to shot unarmed women and children is a question I might pose. When exactly do you shoot them? Once they've touched foot down on our side they're due all the legal protections available to you or I. If they haven't set foot down on our side what crime have they committed to deserve to be shot? Is there some magical point?


As I said, before, Congress can change that danged law in a week if they wanted to. 
Close that danger "BOARDER NOW" before it is too late!

Ranger


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

It's all good. Dingy Harry Reid said the border is secure.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> It's all good. Dingy Harry Reid said the border is secure.


well there you have it.... I will sleep much better tonight knowing our border is secure.... btw... did he mention which border?


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

looks like Govenor perry is tired of the Lip Service from Washington, sending 1,000 of our texas national Guardsman down to assist the overwhelmed Federal Agents. Apparently the funds to pay for this national problem will come out of our Texas Treasury. Lt. Gov Dewhurst said they had been setting money aside for the last 8 years to help with this problem. 

this isn't just about mexicans and folks from Central america; there are many Terrorist that are entering our country by crossing the Rio Grande while this Administration stands back and watches. My heart odes go out to the innocent children but OUR Country is already broke. Who is going to pay for their food; their medical needs, their education? I can't pay anymore; I'm one of the payors. The takers should be concerned too; when somebody in washington finally realizes they are paying out more than they are taking in there will have to be cuts to programs.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

rambotex said:


> looks like Govenor perry is tired of the Lip Service from Washington, sending 1,000 of our texas national Guardsman down to assist the overwhelmed Federal Agents.


Two things about that. First, since Perry authorized it he has to pay for it with Texas tax dollars. Second, the troops can't interfere with federal law enforcement activities without federal authorization. In other words if the border patrol tells them to stand down, they'll have to stand down.

This is more of a political stunt than anything.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Two things about that. First, since Perry authorized it he has to pay for it with Texas tax dollars. Second, the troops can't interfere with federal law enforcement activities without federal authorization. In other words if the border patrol tells them to stand down, they'll have to stand down.
> 
> This is more of a political stunt than anything.


Well that is your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. As noted in my post; I didn't say they were going down there to kick butt and take names; I said, and so did Perry & Dewhurst, that they were going down there to assist the Border Patrol Agents do their job. There's no big secret here; Perry doesn't like obama and obama doesn't like Perry. if you have any stroke in nevada, call senator Reid and ask him if Texas can send these folks to Nevada so your local communities, hospitals, schools, etc can absorb the cost for keeping them.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/illegal-immigrants-texans-frustrated-their-land-has-become-highway/

You should ask the Landowners or people of the City of McAllen what they think. Not waiting on Obama any longer


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

rambotex said:


> I didn't say they were going down there to kick butt and take names; I said, and so did Perry & Dewhurst, that they were going down there to assist the Border Patrol Agents do their job.


Where does Perry derive the authority to assist federal agents in enforcing federal law?


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Where does Perry derive the authority to assist federal agents in enforcing federal law?


from the Constitution of the Untited States of America.

Funny how you choose to pick out certain parts of posts and ignore the rest. And here's a question for you; what da_ _ difference does it make to you what we do in our State? Mind your own business, we're paying our own bills.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

rambotex said:


> from the Constitution of the Untited States of America.
> 
> Funny how you choose to pick out certain parts of posts and ignore the rest. And here's a question for you; what da_ _ difference does it make to you what we do in our State? Mind your own business, we're paying our own bills.


Where does the constitution authorize a state governor to enforce federal law?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Where does the constitution authorize a state governor to enforce federal law?


We can start with the tenth amendment. Its that one way down at the bottom of the bill of rights. Something about powers being reserved to the states and the people unless prohibited by the Constitution... so I guess its up to you to show us which part of the Constitution prohibits a Governor from assisting the feds if they so choose.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Where does the constitution authorize a state governor to enforce federal law?


Article One, Section 10, Clause 3 of the US Constitution

And again- you pick and choose what you want to respond to. please answer my question about what concern it is of yours what we are doing in Texas with our own money? please answer my question about who is going to pay for these children's bills and education when the Feds are broke already. Answer it. How do you pay for something when you don't have any money?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We can start with the tenth amendment.


The Tenth Amendment in no way authorizes a state governor to enforce federal law.

_The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people._

Since the Constitution specifically authorizes the president to faithfully execute federal laws, the power to enforce federal law is delegated to the United States. So where does the constitution authorize a state governor to enforce federal law?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

rambotex said:


> Article One, Section 10, Clause 3 of the US Constitution


Yeppers, this too.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

hello????? where'ya at ? must be reading :trollface


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The Tenth Amendment in no way authorizes a state governor to enforce federal law.
> 
> _The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people._
> 
> Since the Constitution specifically authorizes the president to faithfully execute federal laws, the power to enforce federal law is delegated to the United States. So where does the constitution authorize a state governor to enforce federal law?


If enforcing a federal law is a power.... and I think it is, then its up to you to find where that power is denied the states in the Constitution. And then of course there is that other thing that rambotex mentioned... Article one, section 10... again its way at the bottom... you have to read all the way through but its there plain as day.  

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war,* unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.*"


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If enforcing a federal law is a power.... and I think it is, then its up to you to find where that power is denied the states in the Constitution. And then of course there is that other thing that rambotex mentioned... Article one, section 10... again its way at the bottom... you have to read all the way through but its there plain as day.
> 
> "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war,* unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.*"


You're reaching...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You're reaching...


You're kidding... latest estimates I have heard is something like eleven million invaders to date.... Federal government doesnt seem to want to exercise their power to quell the invasion in a timely manner.... so whats a governor to do?


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Nevada said:


> You're reaching...


Really?? You might want towatch this. And, AGAIN, for the 3rd time, why I this any of your business if we're paying for our own?

Are you smarter than Louie Gohmert? 



http://video.foxnews.com/v/3690233718001/rep-gohmert-on-decision-to-send-national-guard-to-border/?playlist_id=928378949001#sp=show-clips&v=3690233718001


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

If the government won't protect the citizens (which btw is their JOB) the citizens will protect themselves. Gov. Perry is doing his job.
More than I can say for President Obama.


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

Eventually the US citizens will have to take our country back. It will not be pretty I think.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You're kidding... latest estimates I have heard is something like eleven million invaders to date.... Federal government doesnt seem to want to exercise their power to quell the invasion in a timely manner.... so whats a governor to do?


I don't know what Perry should do. What I know is that there is no clear constitutional authority for a state to enforce federal law. But we have no clear constitutional ruling on the matter either.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41423.pdf

Maybe, maybe not, but declaring that the constitution authorizes it is a stretch.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

So you're saying Louie Gohmert doesn't know what he's talking about?


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

And you still haven't answered my question about why you give a rat's A_ _ what Texas is doing with their money.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Wow! I just found the coolest feature on HT, the ignore List. Enter the member's name and all of their posts disappear, life is good. :icecream:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

rambotex said:


> So you're saying Louie Gohmert doesn't know what he's talking about?


Sure, I'll be glad to say that. LOL


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

See ; 

View Post Today, 03:40 PM 
Remove user from ignore listNevada 
This message is hidden because Nevada is on your ignore list. 
:banana:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Where does Perry derive the authority to assist federal agents in enforcing federal law?


The constitution. You should read it. 

I could cite the relevant passage but I don't want to pass up this teachable moment.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

yvonne's hubby said:


> if enforcing a federal law is a power.... And i think it is, then its up to you to find where that power is denied the states in the constitution. And then of course there is that other thing that rambotex mentioned... Article one, section 10... Again its way at the bottom... You have to read all the way through but its there plain as day.
> 
> "no state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war,* unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.*"


bingo!


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I don't know what Perry should do. What I know is that there is no clear constitutional authority for a state to enforce federal law. But we have no clear constitutional ruling on the matter either.
> 
> http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41423.pdf
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but declaring that the constitution authorizes it is a stretch.


Why is it that liberals refuse to read plain language words as just that. They get so confused by "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and, "shall not infringe," and "unless invaded." 

Invasions don't have to be by organized armies.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> Invasions don't have to be by organized armies.


You'd have a hard time making a case that refugee children showing up and seeking asylum is an invasion.

This is not an appropriate situation for a show of military force. Perry sending in the Guard is a political stunt.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Since the Constitution specifically authorizes the president to faithfully execute federal laws


And when he doesn't? What happens then? States aren't allowed to defend/protect themselves?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

rambotex said:


> See ;
> 
> View Post Today, 03:40 PM
> Remove user from ignore listNevada
> ...


I've never used to ignore feature myself. I'm interested in what everyone has to say. But if I ever did use the ignore feature it wouldn't be because I disagreed with someone. If someone was rude or abusive then I might consider it, but that doesn't describe any of my posts.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> You'd have a hard time making a case that refugee children showing up and seeking asylum is an invasion.
> 
> This is not an appropriate situation for a show of military force. Perry sending in the Guard is a political stunt.


And there are ONLY children crossing the border illegally?


----------



## palm farmer (Jan 3, 2014)

the natty guard guys dont actually guard much, thye do the regular mundane jobs border patrol is usually tied up doing, putting diesel in generators for light towers, mowing the road along the river, this frees up the border patrol to do more of the things they are better suited at. the problem as far as I can see is there is no way to turn the illegals back, once they touch ground they are escorted to HQ, processed and turned loose. My farm is 6 miles north of the river and some fields we work out of are right on it. while Bp is busy changing diapers and holding hands the narcos are crossing loads of wets, meth and coke, pot season is over for now and wont start again till fall. they turn these kids loose and remember kids covers 17 year olds too, and yes some are violent gang members, some of the girls are pregnant so tahts another anchor baby on the way.....on the bright side for us locals, they dont stay here, they all spread out up north and head for hills to await amnesty


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You'd have a hard time making a case that refugee children showing up and seeking asylum is an invasion.
> 
> This is not an appropriate situation for a show of military force. Perry sending in the Guard is a political stunt.


I might agree with you if these hordes of "children" were not young adults, and if they were actually seeking asylum from an oppressive government.... but that is simply not the case.... these young people are simply seeking a free ride on our government (similar to the free ride atop the trains) which has promised them a much easier way of life than they have in their own poverty ridden countries. They are also arriving by the thousands daily.... that does indeed constitute an invasion by anyones definition.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I don't know what Perry should do. What I know is that there is no clear constitutional authority for a state to enforce federal law. But we have no clear constitutional ruling on the matter either.
> 
> http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41423.pdf
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but declaring that the constitution authorizes it is a stretch.


You have been given the article and section that specifically grants any state to defend itself against invasions.... you think its a "stretch"..... how about you show me the article and section that grants the federal government the authority to use tax dollars for charity, or to infringe upon the rights of the people to bear arms, or to subsidize peoples health care insurance or to restrict the peoples right to practice the religion of their choosing.... While you are at it you might look up where the president is authorized to pick and choose which laws passed by congress he is going to enforce. (think immigration here for this exercise although there are plenty of others) Then come back and talk to me about "stretching"!


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

Nevada said:


> I don't know what Perry should do. What I know is that there is no clear constitutional authority for a state to enforce federal law. But we have no clear constitutional ruling on the matter either.
> 
> http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41423.pdf
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but declaring that the constitution authorizes it is a stretch.


While the Federal border is what it is, the Texas Border is also what it is. Now who says that the Federal Government has to give Texas the right to secure its own Border?
Texas has just as much right to defend its own Border as the Federal Government has to defend all of it, and which as we all know, are failing quite royally at it!

Ranger


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

BadFordRanger said:


> While the Federal border is what it is, the Texas Border is also what it is. Now who says that the Federal Government has to give Texas the right to secure its own Border?
> Texas has just as much right to defend its own Border as the Federal Government has to defend all of it, and which as we all know, are failing quite royally at it!
> 
> Ranger


Interesting how Texas couldn't afford the expand Medicaid, but can afford $12 million/month for the national guard to go on an undefined mission.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Interesting how Texas couldn't afford the expand Medicaid, but can afford $12 million/month for the national guard to go on an undefined mission.


Kinds of indicates how expensive the Medicaid expansion was / would have been to certain States huh.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Gotta have your priorities straight.:nana:


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

BadFordRanger said:


> While the Federal border is what it is, the Texas Border is also what it is. Now who says that the Federal Government has to give Texas the right to secure its own Border?
> Texas has just as much right to defend its own Border as the Federal Government has to defend all of it, and which as we all know, are failing quite royally at it!
> 
> Ranger


 I disagree with your stance and political views, but this is a valid point.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

iti_oj said:


> I disagree with your stance and political views, but this is a valid point.


You sir are tolerant. Proud to see your thoughts we do not agree on this issue, nor must we.


----------



## iti_oj (Jul 15, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> You sir are tolerant. Proud to see your thoughts we do not agree on this issue, nor must we.


Thanks. It's hard now a day. So much polarization. Every thing is treated as black and white but Truth is usually gray. Well o would say techno colored but that's for philosophical reasons. I would say that we should stop, united we stand, divided we fall.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

iti_oj said:


> Thanks. It's hard now a day. So much polarization. Every thing is treated as black and white but Truth is usually gray. Well o would say techno colored but that's for philosophical reasons. I would say that we should stop, united we stand, divided we fall.



Amen Brother, :clap:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Kinds of indicates how expensive the Medicaid expansion was / would have been to certain States huh.


Doesn't matter. It looks like republicans in congress are going to help Perry out by paying for the national guard.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-republicans-unveil-plan-to-tackle-border-crisis/


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

If they keep it up it will be a big first step toward getting out country back. This may be the start of something big.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Doesn't matter. It looks like republicans in congress are going to help Perry out by paying for the national guard.
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-republicans-unveil-plan-to-tackle-border-crisis/


At least this makes sense.... by defending the border.... there will be little or no need to expand medicaid spending Or welfare or public housing, or.....


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Interesting how Texas couldn't afford the expand Medicaid, but can afford $12 million/month for the national guard to go on an undefined mission.


Because Perry, and a lot of other Texans, understood that the *fed subsidies would be phased out in a few years*, leaving states to bear the _full burden_. 

It'll be interesting to see how that effects those states that chose to expand Medicaid. I daresay it won't be good.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Texas COULD afford it, but did not wish to encourage more welfare spending and so decided not to. Plus irrc the subsidies came with numerous caveats and strings we decided were not worth dealing with. I admit I love that our state would rather be independent than accept fed aide with the strings fed aide comes with. 

Personally protecting the border is a MUCH better use of the money than making bennies easier for the invaders to get. Iffin I was in charge all these folks would be put on buses and driven straight back across the border, no appointments no nothing, just off you go.

Of course our border patrol would also be allowed to return fire and would be as well equipped as the army. 

So now according to CBS the republicans are also going to begin trying to do their job by helping pay to protect our border... bout blasted time.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

MJsLady said:


> Texas COULD afford it, but did not wish to encourage more welfare spending and so decided not to. Plus irrc the subsidies came with numerous caveats and strings we decided were not worth dealing with.


ALL the states could afford it......by raising taxes through the roof. If that doesn't work, then it's federal bailouts - again. And that's what's in store for those states that agreed to expand Medicaid.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> ALL the states could afford it......by raising taxes through the roof. If that doesn't work, then it's federal bailouts - again. And that's what's in store for those states that agreed to expand Medicaid.


Indeed!


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Interesting how Texas couldn't afford the expand Medicaid, but can afford $12 million/month for the national guard to go on an undefined mission.


You know, they could be thinking that spending $12 million a month keeping them out of the country is sure cheaper than what will end up being billions taking care of the problem characters. 
What do you think about that?

Godspeed

Ranger


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

A thought that came to me today:

If the administration lied about Benghazi, why wouldn't they lie about why these people are coming across the border?

Just sayin'. 

I don't believe much of anything they say these days. :nono:


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

I remember when I used to be able to drive to Mexico and all I had to worry about was not drinking the water.. What happened?

I am all for border security.. but my fear is, that we'll do such a good job building a big wall that all we do is seal ourselves in whither away while the rest of the world moves on.

Every terrorist from 9/11 was here legally.. some overstayed their Visa's, but they still got papers, they still came here and still did what they did.

Does building a wall or spending more money on patrol stop the actions that feed terrorism?

Do we really need to turn our borders into the new war on terror?

Whatever we do, I hope it remains "Civil".

However, lets be honest, this seems like the very same playbook that took us into Iraq. I hope we slow down and take a good look at this new road we're speeding down.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

supernovae said:


> I hope we slow down and take a good look at this new road we're speeding down.


slow down? new road? 

We've been doing the same nothing since I started paying attention during the Reagan years. How much slower should we go?


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> slow down? new road?
> 
> We've been doing the same nothing since I started paying attention during the Reagan years. How much slower should we go?


yeah, the road of one failed policy after another..


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

June 18, 2014: Children detainees sleep in a holding cell at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection processing facility in Brownsville,Texas.AP

Unaccompanied illegal immigrant children with communicable diseases have given or exposed federal agents to lice, scabies, tuberculosis and chicken pox, according to a report issued Thursday by the Department of Homeland Securityâs Office of Inspector General.

In two cases, the children of a border patrol agent got chicken pox contracted from their parentsâ exposure to unaccompanied children with chicken pox, according to the report on conditions of detention centers and border facilities.










The report, the first in a series, is based on 87 unannounced visits to 63 detention centers being used to house unaccompanied alien children (UAC) in Texas, Arizona and California during July 1-16.

âMany UAC and family units require treatment for communicable diseases, including respiratory illnesses, tuberculosis, chicken pox, and scabies,â said the memorandum summarizing the report.

âUAC and family unit illnesses and unfamiliarity with bathroom facilities resulted in unsanitary conditions and exposure to human waste in some holding facilities.

âDHS employees reported exposure to communicable diseases and becoming sick on duty. For example, during a recent site visit to the Del Rio USBP Station and Del Rio Port of Entry, CBP personnel reported contracting scabies, lice, and chicken pox.

âTwo CBP Officers reported that their children were diagnosed with chicken pox within days of the CBP Officers' contact with a UAC who had chicken pox. In addition, USBP personnel at the Clint Station and Santa Teresa Station reported that they were potentially exposed to tuberculosis.â

Sources previously told FoxNews.com of multiple instances in which Border Patrol agents were exposed to tuberculosisâand one instance in which an agent contracted a severe case of tuberculosis from illegal immigrants in his care.

Other sources told FoxNews.com that swine flu has been found at several detention centers in Texas.

According to the OIG report, one of the detention centers being used to house unaccompanied children did not have a trained medical tech on site and four did not provide detainees access to prescription medication.

OIG agents checked the sites for sanitation, availability of medical care, food services and other factors. Sites and their staff were found to be largely in compliance with rules and regulations.

The memo also reveals that DHS OIG is investigating a June 11 complaint to DHS Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and DHS OIG filed by the ACLU on behalf of 116 unaccompanied alien children.

The office currently is investigating 16 of those allegations while separate offices are investigating the others.

During their detention site visits, OIG agents did not observe misconduct or inappropriate conduct by DHS employees nor did they receive new complaints from any of the randomly interviewed unaccompanied children.

The OIG also found that the data system used by CBP to comply with the required documentation of the arrests and care and release of unaccompanied children was unreliable because of frequent system outages causing inconsistent reporting.

CBPâs data system is supposed to be used to track compliance with guidelines including meal times per day, phone usage, detainee medical conditions and detainee arrests and releases from CBP custody


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Illegal immigrant kids exposed federal agents to lice, scabies, tuberculosis and chicken pox, report says


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

supernovae said:


> yeah, the road of one failed policy after another..


I haven't seen any change in policy in 40 years. Lots of talk, a little fence, and no border security.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Never autoplay videos

The House late Friday revived and approved a Republican-authored border crisis bill after GOP leaders hurriedly resolved an internal battle that scuttled the vote a day earlier â but with the Senate on recess and the House soon to follow, thereâs little chance of any bill reaching President Obamaâs desk until the fall.

The president now is vowing to act unilaterally to address the illegal immigration issue.










The House legislation was approved on a 223-189 vote. The new version of the bill adds additional funding for the National Guard and includes policy changes meant to speed deportations of illegal immigrant children surging across the southern border.

"It's dealing with the issue that the American people care about more than any other, and that is stopping the invasion of illegal foreign nationals into our country," said Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. "And we got to yes."

However, a separate Senate bill died on a procedural vote a day earlier, and no more votes in that chamber are scheduled until early September.Even if the Senate were somehow to approve the House bill, Obama vowed Friday he would veto it.

In the absence of any legislation that all sides can agree on, the president threatened to act on his own to address immigration challenges, potentially during the five-week recess.

"I'm going to have to make some tough choices to meet the challenge, with or without Congress," Obama said Friday, speaking to reporters in the White House briefing room.

He later added: "I'm going to have to act alone, because we don't have enough resources."

But House leaders scrambled to corral the votes for the bill Friday out of a desire to pass something before the recess, if only to save face and put the pressure back on the Senate to act.

Chamber leaders faced a revolt on Thursday from conservative rank-and-file over a prior version of the bill, and were forced to pull it from the floor. But they delayed the recess and stayed Friday to cobble together the new version.

The new measure's price tag is now roughly $700 million, up from $659 million -- but still one-fifth of the $3.7 billion Obama requested, and a far cry from what the Senate considered.

Sources described the changes as relatively minor -- "adding a few periods," as one lawmaker put it -- but nevertheless changing some minds.

The new bill includes $70 million in National Guard money for both the states and federal government. It includes more than $400 million for the Department of Homeland Security to boost border security, and nearly $200 million for housing and "humanitarian assistance."

It would also tighten language tweaking a 2008 immigration law, for the purpose of speeding deportations of illegal immigrant children back to Central American countries.It would bar housing the children on military bases if doing so displaces service members or interferes with military activities.

Further, a separate measure was being revised that would prevent Obama from expanding a program that suspended deportations for some illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.

The vote Friday allows Republicans to at least blunt Democratic criticism.

Democrats on Thursday used the collapse of that vote to hammer Republicans as doing nothing about the surge of illegal immigrant children crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

If Obama decides to take this own himself he's gonna have Texans mighty unhappy.


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

supernovae said:


> Every terrorist from 9/11 was here legally.. some overstayed their Visa's, but they still got papers, they still came here and still did what they did.
> 
> I wonder if you'll live long enough to actually realize that 9/11 was an inside job, as a few lived long enough to learn Kennedy wasn't killed as they said?
> 
> ...


Yea, and Bush was the one that started that mess. And what the dickens do you mean slow down. We are setting at a dead stop now! If we get any slower we'll be going backwards!

Ranger


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

That was JUST for the Trafficking Of Children.

OBAMA did this all by himself when he signed into law back in 2012 by using his pen and a EO.

They are not the same thing. So do not drag Bush Did It First into this OBAMA Tragedy~!


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Why did the immigrant cross the border?????


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> That was JUST for the Trafficking Of Children.
> 
> OBAMA did this all by himself when he signed into law back in 2012 by using his pen and a EO.
> 
> They are not the same thing. So do not drag Bush Did It First into this OBAMA Tragedy~!


I was talking about Bush and 9/11 and wasn't talking about Obama's royal screw up.


----------

