POLITICS - Border Fence update

[Blackhawk]

Article Four of the United States Constitution

Description:
Finally, the fourth section of Article Four requires the United States to guarantee to each state a republican form of government, and to protect the states from invasion and violence.


Clause 2: Protection from invasion and domestic violence
... and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Section Four also requires the United States to protect each state from invasion, and, upon the application of the state legislature (or executive, if the legislature cannot be convened), from domestic violence. This provision supplied the basis for President Grover Cleveland's controversial dispatch of Federal troops during the Pullman Strike. Pursuant to the clause, Congress has authorized the President through the Insurrection Act to call up the state militia to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.


Does this not cover it?

Johnny

[El Mac]

El Mac... That is fairly sharp, but one area of the picture is a little fuzzy. What happens in this "no man's land" between the two fences?

Shoot on site.

I suppose the being a Coyote could be made a capital offense and illegal aliens could be sentenced to a term on the work gang. All it would take is the proper legislation.

Agreed.

Declaring war on Mexico to take a strip of their land is a fairly complex situation. A guerilla war of terrorism from Mexico that would go for generations would be the likely result. A decision would have to be made if bombs blowing up in malls in Ohio would be worth what is gained. But that is for the higher up to decide. It is beyond my pay grade.

That guerilla war has already been going on for decades.

Guerillas can be dealt with.

[Charles]

It popular for folks to view and discribe illegal aliens as "foreign invader". I guess that is just fine to do around the cracker barrel and down at the "Lodge". It does have a certain ring to it.

However, don't show up at the Courthouse and try to tell a judge that we don't have an immigration problem, but but we are being invaded by a foreign power. I take that back... do that..right way if possible.

"Invasion" under the Constution has a very specific meaning and it does not mean a hoard of field hand, maids, car washers, and other folks who work with their hands.

Oh me... I am finding my energy for ploughing the same old ground beginning to leave me. I just don't know how to deal with people who write their own dictionary, have their own body of Consutional Law and others live in some other world. So, unless somebody has a new question we have not talked about ad nauseum I will move on with my life.

[Caco]

There are a lot of issues to be solved, but starting out with the premise it's not possoble or workable will make it imposable. Instead of hearlding the problems, work on the solutions. In the instance of the college, if the buildings ore on US ground bend the fence around them-the river isn't straight either. I really don't think we have an alternative.
Just curious-what would happen if you crashed through a Canadian maned border check point going into Canada without stopping. Think they might persue? What kind of force would they use? I know there are many miles of unmaned canadian border that you can cross, but what response would you get at the offical crossings.
Used to go fishing up there and those guys didn't take any stuff and gotta suspect they would get pretty serious about you not stopping. One comment I remember was "your in Canada now!!" and that didn't preposition a greeting.
How do officers inforce laws around your neck of the woods-just break off if you run?
We had a local farm kid with a mean 4 wheeler test the boys out. didn't take long to gather a crowd of sherif and highway patrol. The kid banged up a couple of persuing cars, made a new road through some corn fields, but they were always on the other sides waiting. A comment from one of the officers" the kid can drive but it'll cost him"
Point is we can learn how to make it tough enough to do some good.
Dave

[Blackhawk]

I was referring to Domestic Violence by forigners.

Yall are on your own with this one, I'm tired of trying to discuss this with the wall.

Johnny

[Charles]

Caco.... I do believe it is possible to get the problem under control and should be placed under control. My issue has always been let's what what is effective, not what is ineffective just because it feel good and seems good.

Our Goverment is famous for throwing mammoth amount of money at a problem without solving the problem. The fence is just such a project. Everybody that understands anything about the border knows that. It is the folks that know nothing about it, that are pressuring the Goverment for this worthless solution.

Like you I would think if we are going to have a wall it should follow the meanders of the river, but the Feds don't think so. If the wall followed the meanders of the river, the 700 miles of Texas/Mex border would stretch into several thousand miles of fence. I would guess three or four. The Feds won't do that because of the cost to build, maintain and watch. Bring up the river on Google maps, get down close and follow the river for a couple of miles. It may look fairly straight from the 30,000 foot fly over, but it isn't and therein is the crux of the current problems.

If the Feds would follow the meanders of the River, most of the lawsuits would go away.. but they won't, although you might be able to talk them into it.

Oh well, I think it is very unlikely that any significant amount of the fence will ever get built. In 50 years it will only be a footnote in some text book on 21st. CEntury political history.

[El Mac]

You are right Charles. It won't get built and without the proper manning and gun emplacements it wouldn't do much anyway.

Folks, realize this, your government is selling you out. Completely.

[FWiedner]

Apologists and liberals will find any excuse to obfuscate a simple issue and to rationalize why it can't be done.

The goal of these people is to demoralize and convince Americans that they are too intellectually weak or politically ineffectual to prevail in the fight for our nation to defend it from foreign invaders.

The only reason that the U.S. can't build a barrier fence, guard it with U.S. troops and National Guard, and use force to stop illegal aliens from violating that defensive perimeter is because the aforementioned apologists and liberals are more concerned about money and the rights of criminal alien invaders than they are about the survival of their fellow Americans and their nation.

JMO

[bunklocoempire]

Charles wrote:

1) It is not unrealistic to want to get control of our Border. It can be done. It will require us to accept some things some foks don't want , i.e. a national identity care, hard sanctions against employers, a guest worker program, and many more dollars on actual border security. Dollars spent for things that will work and not things that won't work.

Currently we have boots on the ground at the actual border in the form of Border Patrol. They catch many, many illegals I see the numbers of about 50 percent.

There is a secondary line of security by checkpoints on all highways leading north from the border about 75 to 100 miles inland. They pick up a large number of illegals and drugs at these check points.

There are several thousand Border Patrol jobs going begging for want to people to fill them. The starting salary is in the mid 40s and at the end of one year that will be mid 50, plus excellent health care and retirement after 20 years. It is easier to get people to go to Iraq and Afganistan than come to the Border. Why is that?

2) There are folks on this board who do advocate the killing of illegals and turning the border into a free fire zone. You may not, but others do.

3) We do round them up and send the back across. They will be back again in 48 hours.

4) No American jurisdiction allows LEOs to shoot fleeing criminals. The criminals must be doing something that presents a physical threat to the LEO or another person. This is the law everywhere in this land. Check it out. i.e.. You can catch em, but you can't shoot em if they run away. Tis the law of the land, like it or not. Cops who shoot fleeing people and get caught at it, go to prison.

5) We cannot compel Mexico to enforce our laws, just like they can't compel us to enforce their laws. This whole notion flys in the face of national soverignity.

To get to No. 1 above, we must recognize that No. 3 - 5 are facts that are not going to change. Don't take my word for it..check them out.

#5 is where it gets interesting/alarming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7193487.stm
...Speaking during his official visit to Mexico, Mr Mukasey said the e-Trace database would be installed at US consulates across Mexico to help local police track gun dealers back in the US.

Working together to stem "gun violence". I don't trust OUR government, now we'll deal with the upright Mexican officials.Yeah, keeping people safe we've got nothing to worry about, we're not criminals. Gonna have to join the MRA as well.

Fear of drugs=more gun infringin' ......Fear of economic loss=eroding soverignty

Lotta good takes on this topic, alot to think about. All comes down to money doesn't? Do I want to pay $8.00 for a tomato? I like Liberty so I'll pay $8.00 and remain soverign, problem solved. Build a wall, defend it.

Thanks for the posting Charles, appreciate the updates.

A long read, but offers insight as to what our "leaders" think of our North America community, (thats North America, NOT United States of America).
McCain, Romney, Hillary, Obama, they're all associated with this "think tank". http://www.cfr.org/publication/8138/bui ... unity.html

This is what a soverign United States is up against.


Bunkloco

[Leverdude]

Charles,

None, or most of us arent legal scholars, but we know right from wrong. I'm sorry if we bore you with our ignorance but personally I'm frustrated by the way the Gov't acts just like you are. That theres nothing to be done. This isn't a normal crime & cant be treated as a normal crime. We act unilaterally against a pee ant country across the globe but somehow it would be wrong to defend the border with force. Advanceing in the face of force justifys its use no?
Maybe a criminal cant be shot running from a cop but if that cop says stop right there & I keep coming I reckon he would use force.

We could let all those border patrol guys go & simply station troops along the border.

But honestly I shouldn't be surprised. This problem gives everybody in the legal profession & Govt, from lawyers & judges to legislators & cops, politicians & their cronies plenty of work, it helps other agencies get funding to the programs put in place to help assimilate the illegals into our society too. Why would anybody except the average taxpaying American have a trouble with it.

Its the first duty of a sovereign nation to protect its sovereinity . In other words its the pinacle of irresponsibility to sit & watch helplessly while foreign nationals stream across the border. If as you say we have exhausted all other means of discouragement to this then we need to seriously consider a military solution. We should anyway since it apears that the Mexican Govt has repeatedly used military forces to escort refugees & secure their saftey against the "minutemen".

It may not be an invasion in the political sense but its sanctioned by Mexico & that should have political repercusions. I'm tired of hearing how we need other countries too. Thats another nail in our coffin.

[Caco]

Some one is missing the point-rob your home town bank and see if you are ignored
Dave

[Grizz]

Charles, I get the feeling that if I took your constitutional law course I'd fail it because I don't think the constitution is a living document, and I certainly don't think that SCOTUS is supposed to make law, something you stated that they do.

So we're so diametrically opposed in our views that I probably couldn't a D in your course.

I believe the purpose of the supreme court is to prevent the legislature from enacting laws contrary to the constitution. Anything else is excess and should not be accepted.

The very thing you cite, the court making law, is the thing I detest about it. A pox on their law making.

I don't know how you can be comfortable with judges making law. It's unnatural. It's not the way things are supposed to be. A judge making law is like a doctor making medicine; it's like a LEO executing a prisoner; it's like a hacker stealing your identity. If it's the way they are, then shame on them, and a pox on all their houses.

So we cannot see eye to eye about it, even though you get paid to express your views about it, and I do it for free.

I love going into Mexico. I love the people I meet there and plan to continue to visit them. I like the food. I like the language, IN MX.

I just think that we should at least have the same immigration policy they have, functioning the same way theirs does. It's our politicians who've dropped the ball, a pox on all their houses. They've neglected to defend the border, how treasonous can they get?

What happens when you get actual conservative students, do you flunk them?

Regards,

Grizz

[Charles]

Caco.... Say what?... I missed that one.

Grizz... The function of a jury is to be the decider of disputed facts. The function of a judge is to be the decider of what the law is and isn't. It has been that way in this country since it was founded and for centuries before in England. The judge must know the Constution, the Legislation and the case law and must decided what the law is and how it applies
to any fact situation. That is what they get paid to do. I am sorry if that doesn't set well with you, but it is not likely to change.

You might make an A in the course. All you have to know is the material. The contents isn't liberal or conservative. It is just the facts of United States Constutional Law. You must know what the Constitutional law is, but it is not necessary you agree with it.

It is like a math course. To pass you must know that most folks think 6 times 6 is 36. You don't have to agree.

Take care guys...

[Old Time Hunter]

Charles,

Just FYI:

Top Ten Countries with which the U.S. Trades
For the month of November 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The values given are for Imports and Exports added together.
These Countries represent 67.42% of U.S. Imports, and 60.26% of U.S. Exports in goods.

Year To Date
Total in Total in
Billions Billions
Country Name of U.S. $ of U.S. $

Canada 49.97 517.31
China 35.59 354.16
Mexico 31.78 320.37
Japan 17.52 191.02
Federal Republic of Germany 12.54 131.81
United Kingdom 9.26 98.88
Korea, South 7.10 75.66
France 5.90 63.75
Taiwan 5.56 58.74
Venezuela 5.19 44.96

Guess that makes Mexico #3.......Just the FACTS as you state. Of course this takes into consideration both export and imports. What percentage of the Mexican value is actually EXPORTED from the US to Mexico? Betcha not much. Unless of course you include the funds the illegals send back. Which I find treasoness in that it takes funds out of OUR economy, kinda like having an anchor dragging. Also, JUST the facts, judges interpret the law, they do not make 'em. Their decision is a guide line, or precedent, that can be overturned. That is why there is an appeal process.

Lastly, why can we not make the penalties for hiring illegal immigrants a capitol felony? Hang a few CEO's in the public square might get the message out that the majority of "real" citizens here in the US consider that this IS an invasion. Especially if an illegal commits an additional crime(they already commited one by being here!) while under your employ or protection!

[Grizz]

Charles

The function of a jury is to be the decider of disputed facts. The function of a judge is to be the decider of what the law is and isn't. It has been that way in this country since it was founded and for centuries before in England. The judge must know the Constution, the Legislation and the case law and must decided what the law is and how it applies
to any fact situation. That is what they get paid to do. I am sorry if that doesn't set well with you, but it is not likely to change.

It's possible I'm a lot older than you and don't recall my civics lessons as well as I should.

In my fuzzy recollection the supreme court is not in the law making business by design, it's the check-and-balance that is SUPPOSED TO guarantee that the law makers stick to the constitution. I can't recall anywhere from past lessons in history and civics where they are to go beyond that job description.

Now when and if they just do that, just keep the law makers from making unconstitutional laws, well and good. That's their job and I'm OK with that.

Funny you should bring up juries, I had not, but I love the idea of jury nullification and I'll sit on any jury I possibly can so I can get my own bit of law making in.
So I agree with you about the function of a judge, HOWEVER, making law is not one of them. That's a transgression. As in the whole idea of 'emanations and penumbras'. That's a crock of horse manure, to speak plainly and accurately. Let's just call it what is, horsesh!!

That's what I'm talking about. It won't do you any good to change the subject on me 'cause I always notice.

Good Night,

Grizz

[Caco]

Charels
Well-just trying to show that applying the law--enforcement--effort in apprehension is dependent on the effort to accomplish such. Do we try to catch illigals and smuglers with the effort we would apply to say an armed robber. IE rob a bank and see if you arn't chased by guys with guns.
This to me portrays the difference in enforcment attitude. Attitude in navagation as here is the direction you have decided to sail. change it and your destination will change.
Dave

[Charles]

Grizz.... Despite that folks here like to view me as a liberal, I am nothing of the sort. I do not believe in "activist judges" nor do I believe that Judges should "legislate from the bench ", nor do I believe the Constitution is a "living document" as that term is understood by activist judges.

I am dead set agin it and have been for many, many years. That is my problem with Roe V. Wade. SCOTUS found a Constitutional right where none existed. The right to privacy as far as abortion goes was pulled out of thin air. It doesn't matter where a person comes down on the issue of abortion, the fact remains that Roe V. Wade is bad law.

That said, it is the courts job to apply the law to a given situation. The problem is, seldom if ever are there any two fact situations that are 100% the same. Lawyers speak of "white horse cases", and that means a case whose fact situation 100% in agreement with that in the prior decided case. White horse cases should more properly be called Unicorn cases as they seem to be mythical. Every fact situation has some difference from all other that have gone before it. No two are 100% alike.

The judge must of necessity interpret the law. In light ot the complex body of law and the infinate number of fact situations judical intrepretation is an absolute necessity. The judge must decide what the law is as it pertains to the individual fact situation. The judical system would have ground to a halt centuries ago, without it.

Now here is the trick... when does interpretation become creating a whole new law.. i.e. legislation? I think it is easy to see which cases fall over the line. Roe vs. Wade is one example I use. But this line is very subjective. All to many people consider any judical ruling they don't like as judical legislation. Whether you or I like it is not the test.

There is no doubt that some judges do legislate from the bench, but most do not. But's let's not call all judical interpretation "law making" for indeed the vast majority is not.

As far as the idea of a courts sole function being to decide if legislation stand up to Constutional standard... indeed that is one of their function and a very important one. However again we come up against the infinate number of human situations that end up in court.

There would be no buildng big enough to hold all of the acts of legislation is the various legislature tried to regulat by law, every possible act and combination of acts that humans beings do.

I don't think any of us would want such a goverment anyway. There are huge holes and grey areas in legislation and here again the courts must interpet and look for "judicial intent" and the "spirit of the law".

Judicial interpretation is an absolute necessity be it the Constution, or the various law of local, state, and federal goverments. This is just the way, the legal system has worked from day one and continues to work today.

Now as to "jury nullification", I consider that to be a gross violation of honor. When a person is sworn in as a juror, they take an oath that they will follow the law as given them by the judge. They raise their right hands and swear and oath to do that. To take such an oath with no intention of keeping it is not an honorable or moral thing to do. If a person can't or won't follow they law, they should be honest and not serve on the jury. I have never taken an oath I did not intend to keep. Men of honor keep their word and an oath is the strongest form of "word giving". T he honorable thing to do is tell the judge you can't take that oath because you won't apply the law if it doesn't seem the right thing to do according to your own thoughts. Do that and the judge will excuse you from jury duty and respect you for your honesty. Sorry if that hurt, but it needed to be said.

When I was a kid I joined the Boy Scouts and learned that Scouts were trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, kind, courtesy, thrifty, cheerful, obediant, brave, clean and reverant. I may have missed one or got them out of order. But, at a young age, I learned that those were the characteristics of Scout, an honorable man and a good citizen. I have been called naive, but I still think that is a good measure of a man and have tried to live that way all of my life. I have not alway been sucessful, but I have never wavered in my belief or struggle.

As to age... I am 65 pushing hard against 66. Most folks consider me to be quite conservative, but I refuse to pack up my brain and follow the mindless hurd in lockstep obedience of a party line or mantra.

[Charles]

Charels
Well-just trying to show that applying the law--enforcement--effort in apprehension is dependent on the effort to accomplish such. Do we try to catch illigals and smuglers with the effort we would apply to say an armed robber. IE rob a bank and see if you arn't chased by guys with guns.
This to me portrays the difference in enforcment attitude. Attitude in navagation as here is the direction you have decided to sail. change it and your destination will change.
Dave

Dave... If an illegal alien was armed and fleeing he would be persued and the Border Patrol would use such force as necssary, including deadly force, to effect the arrest. It happens almost every day, when the aliens have guns, which most often mean they are drug smugglers.

There are not different laws for illegal aliens and your local criminals. When they present a clear danger to the officer or bystanders they will be delt with accordingly. An unarmed fleeing suspect/criminal that present no danger can be persued, but the officers may not used deadly force to catch them.

Most illegal aliens have nothing more than a change of clothes and a jug of water. If they run the Border Patrol does try and catch them. However they can't shoot them just because they are trying to evade capture. Same law in the Border brush as on your hometown street.

[gon2shoot]

Charles, have to admit I didn't read all the post, but it seemes you're taking some flack. You know of course, if we build a 36" hog wire fence all the border problems will go away.
I lived for 30+ years in NM and Az., was a LEO in Maricopa Co, Az. early 70's. when the estimate was 60+ percent of the "off road" traffic across the border were loaded.
Guess what I'm getting at is, don't take it personal, most folks only know what the TV tells them and you can't fault them fot that.
I, for one, could never fault a man for trying to improve his ability to provide for his family (I'LL catch hell for that) I'd do the same thing.
We all know the border leaks, always has-always will.
We need to tighten it up, but we wont stop it as long as folks think they can have abetter life here.

pinche gringo colo? shame on you

[azoil]

Wouldnt it be much cheaper if the govt went thru with dozers and chemical plant killer and cleared a 50 yard zone, then posted signs in various languages stating that tresspassers would be shot?
Charles, I know from past discussions you think this method is harsh but in the long run, how many people are killed trying to swim or sneak across?
In reality, if a few were shot trying to cross, dont you think people on the other side would say, "It aint worth it." We could also post signs directing people to the immigration office if they want to come into the US but trying to sneak in would get a bullet. Why is that any more harsh then the electric subplant down the road from me with the big 10-foot fence around it with the warning signs that the fence is electrified. I have no problem understaning that if I try to climb into the subplant, I am going to get crispy fried.

If we removed the economic incentive, they would decide on their own "It ain't worth it." No killing required, either accidental or intentional.

Yep, it's working in AZ!!

AND, guess what, the jobs are being filled by legal citizens!!

[Charles]

gon2shoot... Thanks for the shout from another old Border rat. I don't worry about the flack, not do I get spun up about it. I do realize they only know what they hear on TV and are in general clueless about the issue.

For some strange reason, I keep thinking that folks really want the straight facts and want to make reasoned, informed, and responsible decisions about the issue. It is evident that many do not want the facts, but from the emails I get, it is just as clear that some do.

I believe there is much we can and should do to improve our border security. I just don't believe the fence is the way to do it. But among some, if you are anti-fence, anti-free fire zones, you are an object of scorn and just have to be some kind of left wing wacko. It doesn't hurt my feelings or make me made, it is kinda funny when I think about it. But my wife always said I have an arrested sense of humor.

Yes..shame on me, I mispelled "culo".

Take care... Charles

[gon2shoot]

Charles
As much as we fear the over-run of of our nation (which is well founded)by outsiders, we tend to forget that most folks here came from some place else too.
I do believe we need to look for " I WANT TO BE AMERICAN" immigrants, not those who would make this country an extension of the place they were running from.
I also shy away from the "My grandpa won the west" post.
My ancestors didn't go west in a wagon train, but they sat back in the brush and watched them go by.

[Caco]

Our Ia dem governor gave some kind of noise like he was going to get tough on illegals nothing has happened that I know about.
Honestly don't know what the border states are doing, but things still are out of control.
Maybe if the government went at it like a revenue making venture like they do many other issues, we could have an effect. Instead of more border patrol which doesn't generate income, have more agents around the country inspecting for proper credentials. For each non complieng worker the employer would be fined 10,000. come back in two days and do it again as long as it pays then go on to the next place. In the case of private indivaduals hireing non documented fine them 1000 just like taking deer out of season.
The government makes money, employers get the message and illegals are not touched, but get the message. Offer bus transportation to the border.
Where there are drugs or crime is involved treat them as they would do So of the border. But have the prison located where their labor could be utilized to help the cost of incarceratin. and close enough to the border so it would be possible for them to ESCAPE BACK.
But do get serious while you can-I do think a fence in the right places boots in others all with technology and detection devices while not perfect will be needed if you want to slow smuggeling, and and wet back traffic. As I tried to point out before, commit any other crime in the US and they will persue you weather you have a gun or not and justify the force to control you.
Closing your eyes in the same old way will give the same old result.
Dave

[El Mac]

Well lets see...we've never had a true fence. But we have all the high and mightly smarter than thou gents saying it wouldn't work.

We've never had true hiring of illegals enforcement. But we have all of the above telling us it will never work.

Ya. Makes good sense to me too. How could I have ever been so stupid!

So the solution is just more of the same, which will most certainly work - about as well as its always worked.

Fences, guns and the will to use both have worked for centuries around the globe. But now we are to believe that they won't for us...because...why again? Hmmm....I'm missing something.

Going back to some higher learning...its like saying 2 + 2 can not equal 4 because we have never added em together so therefore it can not be true.

[Caco]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"gon2shoot... Thanks for the shout from another old Border rat. I don't worry about the flack, not do I get spun up about it. I do realize they only know what they hear on TV and are in general clueless about the issue"


Charels your acting clueless about the effect and cost on our educational, medical and law inforcment systems. Not to mention an errosion effect on entry level and service sector jobs for legal citizens. Plus another group for liberals to minipulate for support in socializing our country.
Dave

[azoil]

This is working!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080208/ap_ ... _sanctions

[Charles]

Azoil.. thanks for the link. I read the article and was delighted to learn the Arizona law has been upheld. That is a real world workable attack on the problem. Hats off to the good folks of Arizona. Other states should follow their lead.

Dry up the jobs avilable to illiegals will soon make the border security issue moot. It will also make entry level jobs available for those than wat them.

Now dry up the social services for illegals , except for humanitarian life saveing events, and poof go the illegals and poof go the problem.

The folks in Oklahoma are doing something similiar in regard to business hiring illegals. On my way down to the Valley on Christmas day, I passed a caravan of 16 pickups on the road through the King Ranch. Each pickkp had beds filled with household good all tarped down and th cabs filled with brown people. The cravan was heading South for Mexico. Every one of the pickups had Oklahoma plates!

These types of state laws do work.

[Charles]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"gon2shoot... Thanks for the shout from another old Border rat. I don't worry about the flack, not do I get spun up about it. I do realize they only know what they hear on TV and are in general clueless about the issue"


Charels your acting clueless about the effect and cost on our educational, medical and law inforcment systems. Not to mention an errosion effect on entry level and service sector jobs for legal citizens. Plus another group for liberals to minipulate for support in socializing our country.
Dave

Dave,,, Never has I said that the hoard of illegals in this country are not a great strain on the various institutions of local goverment. Never have I said I am pro-the status quo. Never have I said anything that would make you think I am clueless about the problems presented by this mass of humanity. Never have I said we don't have a serious problem with illegal aliens in this country, and that problem needs to be address and corrected. Never had I said anything to support your clueless comment.

I am anti-fence and anti-free fire zone. I don't believe the fence is a workable solution and the shoot on sight is immoral. If I thought the fence would one of the key pieces in a solution I would be pro-fence. I don't consider the fence to be a moral issue..it is just a waste of money that requires the taking of folks land who have worked for it.

I will never be in favor of shoot to kill illegals. That is just plain wrong, no matter how you slice it. If somebody thinks shooting to kill unarmed men, women and children is right, correct, and moral, then I just don't know what to say to them. All I can do is pray for their souls.

Please try and be fair and base your comments on what I have said and not what you "think" I might "think". BTW.. my name is Charles... You have misspelled it "Charels" twice now. I am no great speller, so I don't pay much attention to spelling errors, but you should get a fellows name right.

Take care and God Bless.. Charles

[FWiedner]

While sactioning those who hire illegals, is a good start, drying up jobs does not do enough to force illegal aliens with criminal intentions nor potential terrorists to pack up their trash and go home.

What it does is prompt them to relocate to other "sanctuary" communities, and to ramp up their other more harmful criminal activities.

They need to be stopped before they get here. They need to be thrown out when they are found. Anchor-baby immigration needs to be stopped. Birth-right citizenship for the children of illegal aliens need to be ended.

[El Mac]

I am anti-fence and anti-free fire zone. I don't believe the fence is a workable solution and the shoot on sight is immoral. If I thought the fence would one of the key pieces in a solution I would be pro-fence. I don't consider the fence to be a moral issue..it is just a waste of money that requires the taking of folks land who have worked for it.

So that is your belief, more power to you. It is not however FACT and that is where you and I differ.

I will never be in favor of shoot to kill illegals. That is just plain wrong, no matter how you slice it. If somebody thinks shooting to kill unarmed men, women and children is right, correct, and moral, then I just don't know what to say to them. All I can do is pray for their souls.

I don't believe shooting someone that intends to come into our country and do harm to her citizens is in the least bit immoral. Just the opposite, it is immoral to NOT stop them.

Now I know its hard for an academician to think in terms of black and white, right and wrong. Academicians just love to live in grey areas and jaw about all the "what ifs". Their lack of spine, stance and MORALITY sicken me.

[gon2shoot]

El Mac
I have been places where there is a border fence, it didn't work.
We have places in Az. where tunnels have been found from one side of the border to the other. It's hard to fence a secret tunnel.

I don't know if you have had the chance to be on the border, there are hundreds of miles of open land, and the Border Patrol simply cannot be everywhere, It would take a large army to man our border since I'm not aware of a type of fence that can't be breached.

The idea of fences is some of the "more of the same ". IMO

My thinking is, lets put our efforts and dollars into finding somthing more effective. This problem didn't appear overnight and it wont go away overnight.

[Grizz]

Charles,

I told you I'd notice if you changed the subject. You lumped my comments about SCOTUS in with all courts and judges. I tried very hard to differentiate between the normal run of the mill judges and the supremes. I think the supremes are a special case, and we agree about roe and there are a host of other decisions that they pulled out of their cracks...

So we actually agree about some things. I might have fun taking the course you teach after all. Not that everyone has to agree with me, just that I have to be able to get the dots connected honestly, and I detect some of that going on in your last post towards me.

In the state of WA their supreme court, in the last ballot box stuffing debacle, actually allowed votes that were specifically illegal to be included in the count for the governor election. Illegal votes. They said go ahead and count them. It was state supreme court ballot stuffing, every bit as agregious as the Florida debacle during the presidential election. They got away with it.

They also affirmed that a politician has a legal right to lie and deceive people, and is under no obligation to tell the truth when running for office. Truly. This is a state supreme court decision. Whether or not it hangs on a subminiature technicality it violates every decent impulse anyone might have. So, considering how dishonerable the courts are, it's not surprising that some Americans are willing to nullify them. Since I won't swear an oath I am free to vote my conscience should I be accepted for jury duty.

In fact, the one time I sat on a jury the court, the prosecuter, and the cop bringing drunk driving charges against a citizen tried to buffalo the jury by falsly rigging the evidence against him. I happened to notice that the guy had one leg nearly 2 inches shorter than the other, a fact they concealed in the video they taped at the station. The man could not walk straight if he wanted to. I told the prosecuter to his face what I thought about him, after he had to eat the loss. The cop who arrested him hated his guts and this was a thinly disguised abuse of the legal system at the lowest level. So no, it's not dishonerable to put a stop to the crazy immoral powerlusting fundtionaries who don't deserve their positions by reason of abusing citizens.

And by my life's experience, multiplied by a couple hundred million other citizen's experiences, from bottom to top the judicial system is full of rotten creeps who abuse their offices. I have zero faith in their trustwortyiness. I think their right decisions and actions are vastly outnumbered by their abuses. Martha Stuart. Scooter Libby. Bill Clinton. Can you really say the punishment fitted the crime? Sorry, it's rotten, rotten, rotten to the core..,

[Charles]

[quote="El Mac"]Well lets see...we've never had a true fence. But we have all the high and mightly smarter than thou gents saying it wouldn't work.

We've never had true hiring of illegals enforcement. But we have all of the above telling us it will never work.

Ya. Makes good sense to me too. How could I have ever been so stupid!

So the solution is just more of the same, which will most certainly work - about as well as its always worked."

Come on Mac be fair. You are not stupid, but possibly uniformed about the realities of the US/Mexico border. Someone with 60 plus years experience on the border trying to lay out some facts as they see them is not trying to be smarter than thou or high and mighty. That is not correct nor fair.

Never have I said doing nothing is an option. That is not correct nor fair.

You really do need to try and be at least fair and not sarcastic.

Take care and God bless!

[Charles]

Grizz... I was not trying to change the subject. My whole point was that SCOTUS really is not a "special case". All courts have the same job of interpreting and apply the law to the case at hand. SCOTUS does it at the highest level from which there is no appeal.

I have seen trial judges also trying and make up law from the bench. Whether it is done in your local Justice of the Peace court or in the chamber of SCOTUS, judges making up the law is wrong.

It is fun to catch some trial judge sucking eggs and getting his butt spanked on appeal. Happens all the time. You just can't appeal the funky SCOTUS decisions and they get by with sucking eggs.

Sorry, if I was not clear

Now about your jury duty. What you did was not jury nullification. The jury is the decider of the facts and in deciding the facts they can use their obervations and common sense. If you don't believe the state proved their case with credible witnesses, the jury is supposed to find the person "not guilty". That is the proper function of a jury.

Refusing to buy the states case is in no way jury nullification.

Jury nullification is when the state has proved it's case with credible witnesses and there is no doubt the fellow is guilty as charged, but the jury refuses to convict because they don't like what the law says. Not the same thing at all to what your jury did.

[El Mac]

Yes, I've been on the border. And I've been in the tunnels. And yes, I still believe a fence system with teeth will work. Did I say with 100% perfection? No, not once. But I do believe it will shut things down to a far more manageable level almost instantly.

Charles, I bow to your 60 years of border experience with one caveat: sometimes you can be too close to the problem to see the solution. Another way of putting it, you can't see the forrest for the trees.

The bottom line is this: Until such time as the American public raises enough hell with our legislators nothing will ever get done. The political turds in DC want more wets in this country for one main reason - it strengthens their hands without having to stick their necks out and risk losing their precious jobs. The longer they wait to do anything substantial, the more wets get in, the more they end up becoming a voting force to reckon with and the sooner voices and attitudes like my own get watered down and irrelevant. The retardicans love 'em for cheap labor and business. The dimbulbocraps love 'em for the votes and the bigger government sponsored social programs that are needed to fund them - and the more they can redistribute wealth.

[Grizz]

Charles,

You're a gentleman and a scholar. I have a feeling you're fun to argue/debate/discuss/bs the issues with. But what's YOUR SOLUTION to keeping the transgressors out?

What if we just rewrite our laws to state that crossing the border illegaly is an act of war and will be treated as such. Then it will be entirely LEGAL to exert whatever force is necessary to change the will of the trespassors. Because the law will make it so...

If I understand your position clearly, you will then be mollified and accept that no effort is too too to prevent the acts of war from continuing.

The faster I type the worse my spelling gets; what's up with that?

[Charles]

Mac... I do agree that the people should raise hell with the politicians to do something about the problem. Without that pressure, nothing will ever be done.. on this we agree

I just wish folks would raise the hell to dry up jobs and social services and strengthen border security with more Border Patrol and extensive electronic observation.

Where we disagree is on the value of the fence. I think the fence offers very little, if anything over more Border Patrol and electronic observation.

Perhaps in Arizona, New Mexico and California where the border is just a line in the sand, a fence might be of some value as a physical barrier to slow them down. There are places where a fence is a workable notion.

In Texas we have a pretty strong winding river for a phsical barrier and we have no tunnels in Texas. They don't tunnel under the Rio Grande River.

By becoming fixated on the fence the entire length of the border , we use available resources on something that doesn't work and defer for years doing what will work and perpetuate the problem for another generation. It will take years to build the fence, and then more years trying to fix it's flaws and the at last we will figure out it has no value, and by that time there will be another ten million here.

I just don't see how advocating the above makes the a liberal or an object of scorn by you guys. I don't get my feelings hurt, but I do think the unfairness is palapble.

[El Mac]

Mac... I do agree that the people should raise hell with the politicians to do something about the problem. Without that pressure, nothing will ever be done.. on this we agree

I just wish folks would raise the hell to dry up jobs and social services and strengthen border security with more Border Patrol and extensive electronic observation.

Where we disagree is on the value of the fence. I think the fence offers very little, if anything over more Border Patrol and electronic observation.

Perhaps in Arizona, New Mexico and California where the border is just a line in the sand, a fence might be of some value as a physical barrier to slow them down. There are places where a fence is a workable notion.

In Texas we have a pretty strong winding river for a phsical barrier and we have no tunnels in Texas. They don't tunnel under the Rio Grande River.

By becoming fixated on the fence the entire length of the border , we use available resources on something that doesn't work and defer for years doing what will work and perpetuate the problem for another generation. It will take years to build the fence, and then more years trying to fix it's flaws and the at last we will figure out it has no value, and by that time there will be another ten million here.

I just don't see how advocating the above makes the a liberal or an object of scorn by you guys. I don't get my feelings hurt, but I do think the unfairness is palapble.

No sir. This post makes a lot of sense, and on that we agree. Fence where it can be done appropriately. Put teeth in the fence. Use as much electronic surveillance as necessary. Pay the BP better and hire more of 'em. Crush the employers that perpetuate the coyotes. Kill the coyotes either in the act or through the courts. Work the wets that get across in chain gangs before deporting them. End the baby = citizenship. Stop the free money flowing from our corrupt government to their corrupt government.

This will go a long way to ending the crisis.

Too bad it will never happen.

[Charles]

Well Grizz... being a wetback does not in my understanding rise to the standard of a hostile invader. But, let assume you get such a law passed and by law illegals are become invaders. I would bow to the new law.

You would still have to deal with the Geneva Convention and the shooting of unarmed men, women and children would be a war crime. We hung lots of Germans and Japs for doing that very thing.

The most you could do is round them up, put them in camps, which must meet Red CRoss standard and eventualy repatriate them to their homeland. Now much different from what we do now.

So, I don't see your notion as having any real effect on the status quo.

[Charles]

Mac..

Ending the "baby citizenship" is a thorny problem. It has been a real problem on the border for generations. When a Mexican woman starts labor she heads across the river to a Brownsville Hospital where she go crying and screaming into the Emergency Room.

Sometimes they come over before they start hard labor and wait in cars in the hosital parking lot until hard labor starts, because until then the Hospital can deny them services.

Brownsville hospitals are so swamped with this stuff, that women from Brownsville often use hositals in Harlingen ( 30 miles north) because they know they can get a room and delivery services when their time comes. My neice did that when her daughter Jordon was born eight years ago.

Now..how do you stop that? Most likely it would take a Constutional Admendment defining who is or is not a citizen by birth within the United States, it's territories and possessions. If it was easy to stop it would have been stoped years ago. It has been a serious problem as long as I can remember, that has just recently become an issue for folks not on the border.

The fence on the Texas/Mexico border presents many issues not experienced in the others states that do not have a river. In Texas, the fence requires the taking of many thousands of acres of land because of the meandering of the river and the feds want to build in a more or less straight line. Farmer and Ranchers also use the river water for agri-business. The river is also a fragile eco-system for wildlife.

I don't give a $%&@ is they build a fence in New Mexico, Arizona or California. I think it would be pretty much ineffective, but I really don't care. Other than the cost, I don't see much of a downside.

However the fence in Texas will cause extensive damage to land owners, cities, agri-business and other business on the river. Here the fence is very harmful as well as being ineffective. This I do care about!

[Old Time Hunter]

Kudo's to Arizona on the anti-illegal immigrant working law....now make it stronger!

1. Change the Constitution to only allow children born of legal residents of the US automatic citizenship...or just keep the kid and send the parents packing back across the border.

2. Make English the only LEGAL language, do not allow businesses to advertise in any language other than English. No push 1 for English stuff.

3. Disallow transfer of private US funds from individuals to foreign lands unless with proof of citizenship and approved paper trail. Suppose gifts to a certain extent could be allowed, like a max of $1k annually from any one family. Like Gramps always said...follow the money, well that is just what the illegals are doing. Their compatriots send 'em money and they follow it back up. Shut of the spigot and the moss will stop growing.

[Caco]

Where in the constitution does it say a non citizen giving birth in the US gives citizen status to the new born?? Just a non informed wanting to know where the H--- this exists
Dave

[Leverdude]

If your born here your a citizen. Thats the only reason most of us are citizens. My grandparents were naturalized or whatever but I was just born here. I doubt you'll see that changed, it would hurt too many good people.
Charles does make alot of good points. Its mostly an enforcement issue I think. I also need to remind myself that the fence situation in Texas is different than most of the border but most of the oposition seems to stem from putting it there. If its not feasable along the river use it elsewhere where it is, use whatever resources at our disposal in the most efficient way to solve the problem.
Us, we're just talking, we can write letters but not actually do it.
The problem I see is thats what those who could do something are doing as well, theyre talking to each other & trying to make a difficult thing painless, once its painless its useless tho.
No pain no gain eh?

[Caco]

Leverdude;
What part of the constitution is that written?
Dave

[H_Talon]

hmmmmm

I see charles didn't comment about a "workable plan" just caps on any
other suggestions ...

and as for the "Baby" problem ...

at the end of the War between States aka Civil War ... the law on
citizenship was changed to give citizenship, to the newly freed slaves,
and should have been repealed the next day since they were now citzens.

we should do like most countries, you have to be born with at least
one parent who is a citizen.

we could do that .. and get rid of those pesky "anchor babies"

The proposed work permit program will allow workers to harvest
crops and "anchor babies".

while I don't advocate the shooting of people running across the fronter,
they do shoot people for crossing their border, I've seen it ..

I sill think we should stop being "defensive" and make mexico stop
them from crossing !!!!!!!

the Maginot Line shows you can't just defend and do nothing else; the
armies just went around and what did you have ??? A bunch of
resources just sitting and of no use ...

the fence is a important part of the big picture but not the only answer ..

Hey !!!! how about we treat them like mexico treats their illegals,
or better yet adopt their citizenship and immigration polices/laws ...



but what do I know ....

Talon

[H_Talon]

Oh !!! funds sent out of the country ... require a permit or tax to send money out of the country ...

big business would pay 200.00 or so per transaction and it would curb the small transactions .. you could do both a permit and tax ... we pay
why not them !!!!!

but as before .. what do I know !!!!

Talon

[Caco]

"at the end of the War between States aka Civil War ... the law on
citizenship was changed to give citizenship, to the newly freed slaves,
and should have been repealed the next day since they were now citzens. "


Not familiar with this or how it applies to children of illegals. What and where is the language explaining this?? If it is a law, what is the wording??
Dave

[H_Talon]

"at the end of the War between States aka Civil War ... the law on
citizenship was changed to give citizenship, to the newly freed slaves,
and should have been repealed the next day since they were now citzens. "


Not familiar with this or how it applies to children of illegals. What and where is the language explaining this?? If it is a law, what is the wording??
Dave

check out the 14th amendment ....

Children born on U.S. soil automatically acquire American citizenship for
life. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees USA
citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the U.S. or in U.S.
jurisdictions, according to the principle of Jus Soli.

there were 3 post civil war amendments .. 13th, 14th, 15th ...

all applied to the freed slave issue ... so any child born on us soil is a
us citizen and due all benefits and protections the us has to offer ..

welfare, medical, you name it ... and can immigrate their parents and
siblings at age 14, I think that's the age. I think the family, up to about
20 or 30 family members would be able to it immigrate.

so when you think about the workers program, think of how many
would get pregnant and the process starts ..


Talon

Jus soli (Latin for "right of the soil" or, somewhat figuratively, "right of the
territory"), or birthright citizenship, is a right by which nationality or
citizenship can be recognised to any individual born in the territory of the
related state.[1] At the turn of the nineteenth century, nation-states
commonly divided themselves between those granting nationality on the
grounds of jus soli (France, for example) and those granting it on the
grounds of jus sanguinis (right of blood) (Germany, for example).

However, most European countries chose the German conception of an
"objective nationality", based on blood, race or language (as in Fichte's
classical definition of a nation), opposing themselves to republican Ernest
Renan's "subjective nationality", based on an every-day plebiscite of one's
appurtenance to his Fatherland. This non-essentialist conception of
nationality allowed the implementation of jus soli, against the essentialist
jus sanguinis. However, today's massive increase of refugees has
somewhat blurred the lines between these two antagonistic sources of
right.

[Greg807]

Lets face it Charles is a Mexican by heart and Oklahoma is the real boarder state.

[Caco]

Charles My apology for spelling Also didn't go back for last posts on page 4 -just whipped up to 5 to follow after some chores.
Fact - You said people who did not share your view of not trying to control the border were clueless as thier only knowledge came from hearing TV. Clueless in my response might not have been the best choice of words, but only repeated your term to try discribe the impression you give of futility in the face of neccessety.
The fact is we are living the sad realities of the present rather than the enchanted past when the consiquences did not out weigh the advantages. Things have changed and it will have to be dealt with one way or another regardless of how fond some are of a lifestyle that is becoming bygone. there are many-myself included who feel it will be neccassary to gain some control on the border, and I belive there is will to do it.
Your thoughts on why it won't work from past experience might be helpful in adjustments to make it work in future efforts. The advance of technology will be helpful, but determination or lack thereof is what will make the biggest difference. I am shure there are approaches that will have affect in some areas that would not work in others,
On second thought what will make the biggest difference is if Obama or Hillary are elected as they would entice this mass of people with unearned freedoms and programs to get their support.
Dave