Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Soul Seeker


How is his interpertation less valid then yours?

And, exactly, where was it stated the the nat guard troops will be unable to carry ammunition and unable to detain an illegal?


20 posted on 05/16/2006 3:13:55 PM PDT by in hoc signo vinces ("Houston, TX...a waiting quagmire for jihadis. American gals are worth fighting for!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: in hoc signo vinces

From the President himself and his spokepeople.

From the president stating there would not militarize the border.

From the fact they've stated the Guard will be there to observe and essentially listed the duties the Minutemen already perform.

As far as the "Observations", the observations concerned what people who want a secure border desired. I think as a person who demanded action on this, I am qualified to state that "observation" is not what we desired.

We desired the borders fenced/walled from left to right, and right to left. Not pieces of structure. We demanded that talk of amnesty/guest worker be stalled until they secured the border. Not passed in conjunction with their lame carrots ensuring its unlikely our borders will be secured anymore than they were fom the last legislation two decades ago. We wanted strict eomployer sanctions enforced, we've nothing to suggest that'll occur. If they were serious they'd have done it by now with the laws on the book. So, no, it is WRONG to state we got what we wanted.


35 posted on 05/16/2006 3:26:38 PM PDT by Soul Seeker (Self Admitted BorderBot: Be Heard: Send a Brick: http://www.send-a-brick.com/brick.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson