TANCREDO, IMMIGRATION REFORM CAUCUS TO CALL FOR TROOPS ON BORDER

Immigration Reform Caucus ^ | 6/17/02 | Immigration Reform Caucus

[Poohbah]

Just double that number for the Canadian border. It's not that big a deal.

You mind explaining how you build a 30-foot wall across the Great Lakes?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Come on Saber, don't go weird on me, there isn't even a hint of not enforcing the laws, outside a cheek-in-tongue comment. Of course you deport them when you catch them, I said so as much when I suggested that they get emergency medical assistance and a ride home, that's also a given when an employer gets busted using illegals, or when they get stopped for a traffic violation...or the hundred other times they expose themselves to a LEO.

The problem is that to eradicate 100% of illegals, we would have to turn ourselves into a police state, there's no way anyone is going to convince me to go that far.

Clean up the spilt sugar, and your ant problem will be pretty much solved. Eliminate welfare and make it difficult as possible for them to get work, and they'll go home all on their own.

[AmericanInTokyo]

IS TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT AND CONGRESSMAN TANCREDO A 'FREEPER'?

CAN WE MAKE HIM INTO ONE?

CAN THIS THREAD BY PRINTED OUT AND FAXED TO HIS OFFICE TO SHOW HIM HOW PEOPLE ARE VIGOROUSLY DISCUSSING HIM AND HIS ISSUES?

I say we make an effort to let this man in on our discussion and show him there is some conservative support in his corner (it takes some verve to go up against the WhiteHouse of your same party on a matter of principle).

[janetgreen]

Great idea. I don't know how to send a thread, though. If I can't figure it out, maybe someone else can help?

[AmericanInTokyo]

Sounds to me the easiest method is to print out this here neat FR thread (what, seven or eight pages?), then get the name of the chief legislative assistant to Cong. Tancredo on domestic issues or immigration, then FAX to his attention in D.C. on Capitol Hill, with a polite and short cover sheet (giving the freeper URL as well). I think this might work better than sending as an e-mail, considering how many e mails they might get. Just an idea. I'd be willing to do it. I am sure they would like to hear from us, both ideas in support and opposed articulated on this thread.

[janetgreen]

I got his fax number from his website - 720-482-9041. I'm going to try to do this, and I'll let you know if I succeed.

[nanny]

The military just might be tempted by drug money - but would they be more tempted than the people we have charged with protecting our borders now? Quite frankly, I believe they would be a lot less tempted. Our borders are as much a part of this war on terrorism as is Afghanistan. It is ludricrous to go to Afghanistan and roust out all the terrorists, then leave our borders open, effectively giving them a place to live (America). No, I still believe it is clearly a military job and should be used. We can obliterate all of the middle east, but if we have an open border and are allowing all these people into our country, we have lost. The military is being used to control the drug trade already, so why not give them what they need to make it work. Now I will not hold my breath thinking our governmen actually wants to stop either the drug trade or illegal immigration.

Well, we disagree on the subject of 'peace-time' operations.

I don't understand 'comparative advantage' - explain.

As far as what our military does and does well, do we not protect the borders of other countries in our 'peacekeeping' missions. I think they are very, very qualified to do this and as for 'personnel allocation', I don't know what the draft has to do with this. It is a matter of our government making a decision as to how they will use the personnel they have and do they consider this country's continued existence as important as that of other countries or that of the continued financial gains of corporation and politicians.

I agree regarding the bracero program. WE could reinstate that, I have no problem with it on a limited basis - but do not, do not call it a 'guest worker'. They should be called temporary workers - period. But this influx of cheap labor will only tend to keep down any advances in mechanization to do these jobs. Why develop a machine to do a job that no one will buy because they can use cheap labor that is being subsidized by the taxpayers.

The very survial of this country is at stake - not just in regards to terrorism, but economically and culturally.

But I really would like to ask what you would do about this problem -

[Poohbah]

The military just might be tempted by drug money - but would they be more tempted than the people we have charged with protecting our borders now? Quite frankly, I believe they would be a lot less tempted.

They make a LOT less money. And they would be drawn from the same cultural pool as the LEO types.

I don't understand 'comparative advantage' - explain.

There are some things that some organizations do better than other organizations.

As far as what our military does and does well, do we not protect the borders of other countries in our 'peacekeeping' missions.

If it's keeping out thousands of tanks and armored personnel carriers, we do great: the North Korean People's Army hasn't launched a mechanized assault on South Korea in 52 years. If it's keeping out small groups of people on foot, we do very badly at it. Witness Kosovo, Korea (saboteurs and spies routinely cross the DMZ, despite a very dense foot patrol by the ROK Army and the US Army), and Operation Anaconda, where a great many Talibunnies and Al-Quesadilla types got away on foot.

I think they are very, very qualified to do this and as for 'personnel allocation', I don't know what the draft has to do with this.

Trust me, you will need a draft to get people to stand around for several years at a time on the US-Mexican border, particularly in the numbers needed, on a soldier's paycheck.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Excellent. Let us all know how it works out. Good for you!

(And let the Bushbots work their side of the pro-illegal alien/pro-open borders during-a-time-of-War side-of-the-fence, for all I care....

Eagles Up.

[4Freedom]

Doesn't it embarrass you to ask ridiculous, disingenuous questions like that?

Why would we need a wall across the Great Lakes? If the wall makes it all but impossible to cross anywhere else, the Coast Guard nets the rest.

Think of all the nice, little, confiscated boats that will be up for auction. ;^)

[AmericanInTokyo]

This defeatist, 'it costs too much; it cannot be done' attitude really sucks.

What we REALLY need in the White House at this time, and more of in the Congress, is a JFK who committed us to the "nearly impossible" 1960s lunar landing, but rather on the burning and urgent issue of defending our own borders in a Time of War, common-sense, straight-up.

Imagine if we had the national leadership caliber of this:

"I believe that this nation should commit itself, to achieving the goal, before this year is out, of completing security our international borders from illegal and unauthorized penetration. No single homeland defense effort will be more important for the long range defense of the Country. And none would be so difficult, nor expensive to accomplish."

[Zack Nguyen]

Certainly we don't need to invade Mexico to resolve the incursion into our territory by Mexican troops. But surely we should do something before one of our Border Patrol agents is killed? They have been shot at on a few occasions, I understand.

[american spirit]

I can't define a real leader since we've not had one in my lifetime although a couple Presidents have come close. Anyway, we have our military in numerous countries guarding borders and sections of certain regions to PREVENT hostile action. These policing duties have increased steadily over the years and if our government can spend billions of our dollars to assist UN and NATO initiatives then why the hell can't they do the same to protect our borders from rapists, murderers, Al Quaeda and who knows what other vermin. What's your solution..wait until a Border Patrol agent is murdered or a Ariz. rancher is ruined by illegals killing parts of his herd?

[Poohbah]

Why would we need a wall across the Great Lakes? If the wall makes it all but impossible to cross anywhere else, the Coast Guard nets the rest.

OK, so after you've put the entire US Coast Guard on the Great Lakes...

How do they patrol the Gulf, Atlantic, and Pacific coastlines?

[Poohbah]

Certainly we don't need to invade Mexico to resolve the incursion into our territory by Mexican troops. But surely we should do something before one of our Border Patrol agents is killed? They have been shot at on a few occasions, I understand.

Wow. You've really worked overtime to justify a permanent, never-ending military presence at every port of entry and along the entire border strip, as opposed to actually resolving the problem.

I have news for you: martial law is NOT a good thing.

[Poohbah]

Anyway, we have our military in numerous countries guarding borders and sections of certain regions to PREVENT hostile action.

Where it's worked: the old inter-German border region, Kosovo (stopping the VJ from bringing their tanks back into the area), and Korea (at least as far as stopping massed assaults by armored and mechanized infantry armies.)

Where it hasn't worked: Kosovo (stopping the KLA), Korea (stopping saboteurs and spies from crossing the DMZ), Vietnam.

Which set of situations is closer to the situation on the US-Mexican border?

[4Freedom]

You've never met a situation you couldn't over-exaggerate.

LOL!

Patrolling the Great Lakes will be a challenge for the Coast Guard, but not impossible.

NO TAXATION WITHOUT CIRCUMVALLATION!

[Poohbah]

Patrolling the Great Lakes will be a challenge for the Coast Guard, but not impossible.

You obviously do not know the current state of the Coast Guard. They are extremely overworked and equally underfunded.

[american spirit]

It's pretty obvious that each police action has it's own set of unique circumstances and problems. It doesn't matter how our border situation with Mexico compares to Korea or Kosovo, what does matter is our future course of action to protect our borders from unwanted incursions. I do not condone using our military as policemen for several reasons, but our idiotic approach to solidifying our borders have made it so easy for all types of creatures to enter and endanger our well being that until some sanity is restored I suggest we use the most effective means necessary.

[Poohbah]

It's pretty obvious that each police action has it's own set of unique circumstances and problems. It doesn't matter how our border situation with Mexico compares to Korea or Kosovo, what does matter is our future course of action to protect our borders from unwanted incursions. I do not condone using our military as policemen for several reasons, but our idiotic approach to solidifying our borders have made it so easy for all types of creatures to enter and endanger our well being that until some sanity is restored I suggest we use the most effective means necessary.

Congratulations, you've just made the case against using the military.