124 Mile Wide International Zone of Cooperation
as displayed by the TAN BAND found in the map below:
Posted on 03/01/2002 2:16:18 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
WASHINGTON – Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge said Thursday that the 1,400 National Guard personnel planned for deployment along the Canadian and Mexican borders were not an effort to militarize U.S. entry points. "Because of the relationship we have and continue to develop and enhance every day with our friends in Mexico, the last thing we want to do is militarize the borders between friends. We want them open, we want them mutually beneficial, and that is simply a temporary measure," Ridge said during a roundtable discussion.
U.S. officials announced earlier this week that National Guard troops would be deployed to the northern and southern borders to assist other agencies with border protection. The announcement came as Ridge prepared to travel to Mexico for talks with officials on border security, immigration and trade issues.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has moved to secure the nation's borders, cracking down on the entry of illegal aliens into the country as well as the movement of cargo into ports and on U.S. roads.
At President Bush's request, Ridge is expected to meet with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Secretary of Government Santiago Creel in advance of Bush's planned visit there March 21 and 22. Ridge hopes to put in place an agreement on security with Mexico similar to that reached with Canada. But he stressed that Mexico might have additional problems with flow of drug traffic into the United States and illegal aliens.
"I think the Canadian accord is a good starting point," Ridge said. "We've framed the issues around security and commerce. They've been working on immigration and drug interdiction before. So it's a good place to start."
The United States has 301 ports of entry where goods and people may enter through 3,700 terminals: border checkpoints. In 2000, 489 million people and 138.5 million trucks and vehicles passed through the U.S. border inspection program, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. The United States, Mexico and Canada trade at the rate of $2 billion per day, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Ridge said few significant bottleneck areas exist that slowed down entry and exit along the borders. He pointed to San Ysidro south of San Diego, which has 20 million vehicles passing through annually. He said "smart card" technology could be an answer to the backlog of people and cargo moving across the border.
Ridge hopes legislation to allow Mexican commercial trucks on U.S. roads would be complete by the time Bush arrives in the region for a visit. Congressional lawmakers have resisted opening U.S. highways to the cargo trucks citing safety concerns.
Also on the agenda for discussion with Mexican officials are immigration issues. In his efforts to change immigration laws, Bush has, in the past, considered providing guest visas that would allow people from foreign countries, particularly Mexico, to come to the United States and work for a year. Administration officials believe it would cut the number of criminals who illegally enter U.S. borders.
"There has been a very high-level working group, with the attorney general and his office, and the U.S. Department of State, to try to address some of these issues, again, with an eye toward working in collaboration with their counterparts in Mexico, to see if between now and when the two presidents get together they can address that," Ridge said. He said the issue has picked up momentum within the administration over the past several weeks.
A 10 foot high wall would be a good place to start!
Dam*ed idiots are more concerned about putting hazardous Mexican trucks on our highways than about protecting us from terrorists.
General Black Jack Pershing must be rolling in his grave.
Well, I agree that Bush needs to take it more seriously, but it is not like his predecessor did any better.
No doubt about that. But illegal immigration has been ignored the last few elections. I think the issue has the potential to explode in the face of whoever is in office at the time. It's very possible by 2004 it is THE issue of the campaign. Unless the government puts a stop to it now.
What do you propose the "unorganized militia" do then?
Frankly, it's also possible that Elvis could start a comeback concert tour aboard a flying saucer from Area 51.
But I wouldn't hold my breath for either one being the case.
BTW, are you forgetting Prop 187? You don't think that can't happen again? From what I understand, they're already working on getting a new one up on the ballot. I'm predicting fireworks on this issue in the near future.
Unfortunately, the anger is strongest only among those who support crackpot parties that have no prayer of winning.
Maybe it won't be such a biggie in Maine. But in the border states with all those electoral votes, like California and Texas where the election can swing a candidates chances of winning if for carrying them, illegal immigration may very well be at the top of the agenda.
It's been done. Pete Wilson--a man who gave not even two hoots in Hades about illegal immigration--rode it to victory in 1994. The price tag was convincing politically apathetic Hispanics that Republicans hate Hispanics in general.
BTW, are you forgetting Prop 187?
No, but it's obvious you are. Prop 187 was a one-trick pony, and they imagery some of the ads used looked like Tom Metzger was the consultant on this, showing white California menaced by brown invaders.
It worked in 1994. The price tag was convincing a bunch of previously apathetic Hispanics that (a) Republicans were all white, (b) Republicans hated Hispanics, and (c) that they needed to throw Republicans out of office.
You don't think that can't happen again?
Not after the wakeup call we gave to Hispanics eligible to vote. My guess: a new Prop 187 dies by a narrow margin--a margin that we, like complete idiots, recruited with some of the stupidest imagery choices imaginable. Had the Prop. 187 supporters used somewhat more moderate imagery (including Hispanics who don't like illegal immigration), at the very least, we wouldn't have recruited the voters who voted against us in 1996 and 1998. Hell, we might have recruited them into the GOP instead of recruiting them to be DemocRATS like we did.
From what I understand, they're already working on getting a new one up on the ballot. I'm predicting fireworks on this issue in the near future.
Yeah, fireworks, all right. They'll probably explode in your hand this time around.
We'll see. If it makes it to the ballot though, there's going to be fireworks the candidates will not be able to ignore like they did in 2000. Immigration didn't even come up. With a Prop 187 part two on the ballot, people will at least be talking about it nationally. I'm also sure the writers of it will be sure to avoid the mistakes of before. They'll include more minority participation, and be careful it holds up to Constitutional muster.
Many of those ads had a white-vs-brown angle instead of a legal-vs-illegal one. I wonder if the team that put them together was a crew of stealth DemocRATs.
as displayed by the TAN BAND found in the map below:
On the first part: I'm not so sure about that. Basically, the Prop. 187 supporters were dumb enough went with what the "creative talent" (read: probable leftie-socialists who wanted them to fail) handed them. I'm not sure that they've learned anything (Glenn Spencer's obsession with Reconquista--the Latino community's equivalent of the Montana Freemen and the Republic of Texas loons--is rather telling).
On the second part: I'm not sure how ANY such measure can pass Constitutional muster. The question of immigration into the US is one of Federal jurisdiction, not a state one. The state can restrict welfare benefits to new ARRIVALS to the state without respect to citizenship status (by requiring, for example, that someone be domiciled in the state for at least two years prior to receiving public benefits or receiving the residential rate for college tuition), but they can't overrule Federally-controlled status (such as immigration or citizenship status) unless the Congress specifically allows such by appropriately-worded legislation. This, for example, is why it would be unconsitutional to allow foreign nationals to vote, as citizenship is a Constitutionally-mandated requirement for the franchise.
Two Americans Threatened with Civil Rights Lawsuit for Stopping Illegals
Can the state governor, as CinC of the state militia, order them to stand down or to execute their mission in accordance with rules of engagement promulgated by the governor? Just answer YES or NO, good sir.
If he did, what would be the patriot's duty?
Why don't you tell us what YOU think the "patriot's duty" would be?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
