Posted on 06/30/2005 7:10:05 AM PDT by Paul Ciniraj
A few dozen incinerated people at a suburban mall is what it will take to wake the Feds up......if that.
A few dozen incinerated people at a suburban mall is what it will take to wake the Feds up......if that.
Let's be rational and realistic.
Bush is not a "traitor", alright? To say so is sheer nonesense.
He may not have a coherent policy concerning protecting the borders, but that is hardly new, and doesn't make him a traitor.
Since the 1800s we, the U.S., have fought two wars with Mexico in regard to those very same borders. And every POTUS has struggled with the "Mexico" question. Militarizing the borders is alarmist at best, at worst it's the start of a slippery slope towards a police state.
If you have a better, realistic, rational, means of protecting the borders, which doesn't violate the principle of the military "not" policing civilians on U.S. soil. (A policy started by George Washington.)
I suggest you pen it in a letter and send it to your local representative.
"Well, if I get banned for what I think about the President I VOTED FOR, indeed, the Texas Governor I VOTED for, Then I would not need to be in here anyway"
Zero disagreement from me, but there are MANY posters here who feel that ANY criticism of the POTUS during wartime is, itself, treasonous, regardless of whether the criticism is spot-on accurate (As is the case here).
If/when some Muslim national crosses the border and attacks America, Bush's "Better to fight them over there, rather than over here" doctrine will be mocked roundly in the next election.
How about "Better to guard our borders during the WOT, rather than let all illegals into America to do the jobs most Americans won't do"?
"Wouldn't be the first time a Bush snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and handed the country over to a Clinton on a silver platter now would it?"
Good observation. And this time, there'd be no "Ross Perot movement" to blame.
"I simply cannot believe that he is so ignorant of the history of immigration amnesty and the military reality of a porous border as to be innocent of responsibility for allowing our enemies into this country."
I can. Bush is an admitted, avowed non-reader, so how would he be knowledgable of history?
Arabic(?) Diary abandoned by young Iranian man found along the San Pedro River in Cochise County, AZ, 02/09/03. Click the pic for a larger image.
Proof that young men from Southwest Asia have been infiltrating our southern border for over 2 years. The FBI has not said definitively that the owner of this diary is a terrorist...they also cannot say that he isn't.
Hey, it worked for us. It's way past time for the folks down there to 'petition' their government.
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Be Ever Vigilant!
Minutemen Patriots ~ Bump!
It just aint easy being POTUS.
Bush probably choose his words poorly, which wouldn't be the first time. His heart and convictions are often bigger then his vocabulary (and syntax).
Vigilante's always has a negative connotation associated to it, but you know...he didn't say criminals, right? Which is what the left would want to hear, and Vicente Fox.
Bush knows he has a border problem...I truly beleive that. I think Bush "may" know the reality of the situation. His problem, as with many other POTUS in the past, is how to make a coherent policy protecting the borders "without" placing the national guard, mine fields, and watch towers along the border like the old Soviet Union. Some within the forum think we should...ahhhhh...I think that's counter to our societies principles.
So it's a principles vs. security matter, right? The thinking goes, all bets are off once some terrorist pops a nuke off in Chicago...and they're traced back to the border...so why not militarize the border now? Tough question to answer. The answer has always been, Mexico needs to do it's job on its side of the border, but when will that happen?
We need to protect the American way of life, and to a certain extent illegal immigration, and the funds they send abroad, represent a threat to that, and to a larger extent crazed terrorist getting in is a big threat...bigger picture, some sort of intervention in Mexico may be the inevitable answer. End the corruption and set up Mexico as a viable nation state, which can support it's own labor force, and protect it's side of the border, which is wishful thinking...IMHO
I have made that point many times and it is pissing in the wind with the hate Bush conservatives. Even the Dems are starting to pick up on it and blame Bush for the problem of illegals. It is a food plan for them. Hillary moves right, the Dems and conservative Republicans merge over the border issue and, Voila!, President Hillary.
In the spirit of NAFTA why don't we get the Canadian military to guard the Mexican border and the Mexicans to guard the Canadian border while we protect all their butts in the rest of the world?
I agree. The horse left that barn a long time ago.
bump
It may be interesting to note that when the MMP was on the border here in Cochise County, the Mexican Army and Gruppo Beta (Border Security) managed to keep the illegals from crossing. Army and GB would intercept and reroute illegals headed for the MMP positions to crossing points beyond the 23-mile line.
As long as they're (Mexican border patrol authorities) consistant and dogmatic with their actions...would be the right way to secure the border, but there's a lot of border.
Solving the Mexican illegal alien problem is a much larger issue...Mexico would have to reform its government and make a concerted, lasting, effort to end corruption, and to stabilize its economy. And, that's going to take more than police and/or military action along the border from either side.
The list goes much further than these few examples, but this should give you an idea of what needs to happen at a minimum.
Remember, though, that you can't drain the swamp before you plug the dike. Border security is first and foremost, whatever it takes.
It's really a chicken and the egg arguement...
It's a "given" that we protect the borders, but we must also reduce the incentive (actions you have listed) to immigrate on both sides of the border.
Regime Change in Mexico may be the only answer.
I'm afraid the terrorists are well past the planning stage on that little mission.
**
Unfortunately, you are correct.
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.