»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Tough on Terror?
| The Alley |
|
Tough on Terror? |
|
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas 
|
Ok, so we got the UAE business deal regarding the ports and everyone is agog with turning it into a National Security fiasco. So I have to wonder what all those who are shouting about National Security at are ports are doing, willing to do, thinking of doing about our other borders. Namely the ones to the north and south, not just east and west. What has Pelosi and Boxer done to secure their Californian border with Mexico? How about Clinton and Rangle for New York ports controlled by China? If memory serves, it was her husband who allowed that one. And then I see footage from Arizona of illegal immigrants crossing onto private property and the aftermath. Slaughtered animals and livestock, vandalism, litter, attacks on home and property owners. Yet if a home or property owner tries to protect their property, family and livestock, they stand the very real possibility of being sued by Mexico, the ACLU, or Hispanic lobby groups and losing their property, livestock, and livelihood. It happened in Texas after a rancher found illegals on his property, gave them food and water, then got sued by them for abuses they inflicted on themselves. In Arizona, a rancher came across illegals on his property and detained them at gunpoint until Border Patrol could collect them. Guess it doesn't matter that they were on his land with posted 'No Trespassing' signs, that they outnumbered him 10-1, or that firearms are a necessity in rural Arizona, quite apart from armed drug/people smugglers. Another Arizonan, confined to a wheelchair, had rocks thrown at him by illegals after they harassed his family and vandalized his property. He fired a shot in the air to scare them off, got sued by the Mexican government and won. But his legal fees cost him his property. And then there's the Pro Immigration lobbies decrying the violence done to 'undocumented workers' while conveniently ignoring the violence done by 'undocumented workers' to Americans, wanting tougher laws on Americans but no laws for non-Americans while giving them all American rights. It's almost amusing. If you support legal immigration, national sovereignty, property rights, the Bill of Rights, and family protection, you're Anti Immigration. However, if you support completely open borders, full American rights, freedoms, and liberties for 'undocumented' workers, think that Americans should never defend their families, property or livelihood, and believe that once one sets foot on American soil they are an American citizen, then you get called Pro Immigration. I'm all for legal immigration, and think the immigration process should be streamlined. I also think the national language of the United States should be mandatory and that the Army and Air National Guard should be deployed along our borders. They aren't under the same strictures as Active or Reserve components under the Posse Comitatus Act, and can be borrowed by Governors from other states. And yes, I will continue to refer to those who enter this country illegally as illegal immigrants, not 'undocumented workers'. I do wonder if those 'Pro Immigration' folks who utilize 'undocumented workers' also place drug smugglers, people smugglers, and arms traffickers under the same umbrella. Maybe they refer to the Mexicans who keep entering Texas in Mexican military vehicles, wearing Mexican military uniforms, weilding Mexican military weapons, guarding Mexicans smuggling drugs into America as Temporary Americans. Honorary Americans? Undocumented Workers? They claimed to believe they were still in Mexico chasing illegal militants from America. 50 miles into Texas having crossed the Rio Grande River? Maybe their understanding of Mexico's geography and cartography stemmed from pre-1836 texts. So lets review. Many folks in government are against the port deal with that UAE company claiming National Security, but turn a blind eye and open hand to those crossing our national border illegally. If you protect and/or defend yourself, your family, your property, your business, or your livelihood, you will lose everything. If you want enforcement of the immigration laws already on the books, you're Anti Immigration. It does make me wonder though. If Mexico is as great as President Fox makes it out to be, then why in blue blazes are tens of thousands leaving his country monthly? If it's quite OK for Mexico to have their military forces patrolling their borders, why can't ours? |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Alastair Adamson - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm very confused, bro. Are you actually protesting and acknowledging inadaquencies of our residing Commander-In-Chief? If you are? I am both impressed and worried. After a full term in office, (rounded off in second term) it's kinda of casual to blame the current problems on an administration that is soooooooo six years ago. So really, do tell? Who are you pissed at? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
I don’t think anything short of someone bringing a nuke in over the Rio Grande and setting it off in San Francisco is going to overwhelm the obstructionism regarding this issue. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Me, too. I'm trying to learn Bodewadmi, the native language of the Potwawatomi here in Michigan, especially since there is a very real fear among local tribes that it will become extinct within the next fifty years. At my age, though, it's not easy learning a new language, and I have to admit I worry whether I should invest so much time. After all, with my luck, I expect our national language will end up being Sioux.  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
 It's okay Ron.I have watched "Dancing With Wolves" like, um, ug-ha mi hi me ta ma ta, (this means, roughly, 72, which means in Islam, as we woud say "thousands" which would mean innumerable. No kidding. So when they say, 72 virgins, they mean, inumerable purveyances of purity. I am so fluent in Sioux.   |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
ROTFL - This thread started out with a bang, then a boom, and gosh...any comment I could make would be pretty dull, I think. You guys crack me up. You've got a good point, Alicat, for sure...I'm in total agreement. Think the deal is the minority vote? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Believe me, Ron, our national language IS sue! |
||
Mysteria 
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Believe it or not Michael, I knew that was coming, just didn't know when. |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
This comment is intended to highlight one example of just how badly (and how quickly) circumstances could turn when a US port is controlled by any foreign government: Who remembers the attempted transfer by the Clinton Administration of the US Naval base at Long Beach, California to Chinese government control for exclusive use as a container terminal for import/export and as a free port for trans shipment? This plan collapsed in great part due to an attempt by the players to smuggle machine guns into the US. The players (excluding US politicians and US political parties): China Ocean Shipping Company, or COSCO ( not the Columbus Specialty Company), is officially part of the Chinese navy and has the responsibility of state sanctioned export smuggling. CITIC, the China International Trust and Investment Corp NORINCO China North Industries Corporation is China’s primary manufacturer of small arms and ammunition Poly Technologies, Ltd., a subsidiary of CITIC, is the primary commercial arm of the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) General Staff Department's Equipment Sub-Department The action: Poly Tech, COSCO and NORINCO conspired in 1996 to smuggle via the COSCO ship “Empress Phoenix” 2,000 AK-47 assault weapons (the fully automatic version) into the United States through the port in Oakland for sale to street gangs. In addition to the guns seized, the Chinese principals had offered to sell a variety of other weapons from grenade launchers to shoulder fired Red Parakeet surface to air missiles. The representatives of these Chinese government owned companies somehow managed to flee the country just prior to arrest. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Why didn’t they just ship into Mexico and then have the arms carried North? |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
Huan Yi - The shipment of weapons were turned up in a "sting" operation. COSCO was trying it as a test of their new approach to selling NORINCO products in the US. Obviously, it did not work, COSCO's long range plans, once they took over the Long Beach Naval Yard, included a freight barge line from Mexico to Long Beach in which they intended to ship both declared items and contraband. The amounts of weapons and drugs that were intended to be smuggled went way beyond the practical for old fashioned border smuggling. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I've been watching and hearing about all those pro-illegal protests and marches and a thought occurred to me. Now this may take some clarification and understanding, as I'm not totally sure myself, but is there a Statute of Limitations on Federal laws? If someone refused to pay their income taxes between 1980 and 1985, but paid their taxes before and after, are they still liable and responsible for breaking federal treasury law even 20 years later? Yes. If someone enters this country illegally 20 years ago, are they still responsible for breaking federal immigration law? That's why I'm curious as to whether or not there is a Statute of Limitations on Federal laws. If the answer is 'Yes, depending on the law', then each individual case must be weighed against federal law if said law applies. If the answer is 'No statute of limitations on federal law', then what's all the immigration debate about? If a committer of hate crimes can be arrested and tried 40 years after the fact, why not other breakers of federal law? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
