U.S. government now actively selling out its citizens [Archive]

wade moore

05-09-2006, 06:58 PM

Agreed... although there's a fine line between the people having a voice in government, and the government being dictated to by a small special interest group.

If the Minutemen were endorsed by the State of Arizona (or Texas, or New Mexico, etc) via popular or representative vote, then I'd say the Fed has overstepped its boundaries here. However, I don't believe the Minutemen have any such endorsement. They're very popular - but until they get some sort of state mandate, I don't know if there's much that can be done.

With that said, I really don't see the point in tipping off the Mexican government here. That seems to be an open endorsement of illegal immigration by both governments, and it certainly sends the wrong message.

Now, in some ways I support what the Minutemen do, but from the Government's perspective I can see where they are viewed as a very dangerous group to have around. I know there is a ton of background screening, blah blah blah, but still.. all it takes is one crazy to ignite things and you all of a sudden have a bunch of vigilantes warring with illegals.. not a good situation...

Glengoyne

05-09-2006, 07:21 PM

Lou Dobbs reports the U.S. Border Patrol admits to 'informing' the Mexican government on the location of U.S. citizen Minutemen posts in oder for illegals to 'go around' and avoid any possible contact. U.S. is saying it did this to 'accomodate' the Mexican governments 'concerns' about the Minutemen. How interesting.

This is what it has come to? The U.S. government is actively selling out its own citizens to accomodate the interests of a foreign government, one so corrupt its own citizens flee it in droves. This just gets better and better.

What a statement. The US works to undermine a bunch of vigillantes. I like it. I have no problem with it, at least with regard to the government "selling out" its citizens.

IwasHere

05-09-2006, 07:28 PM

Does this mean the Mexican Government is admitting to actively helping it's people illegally cross US Borders?

Joe

05-09-2006, 07:33 PM

the minutemen should all be thrown in jail anyway

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 07:33 PM

What a statement. The US works to undermine a bunch of vigillantes. I like it. I have no problem with it, at least with regard to the government "selling out" its citizens.

"Vigillantes?" Congrats, your idoctrination is complete. Minutemen are nothing more than a 'neighborhood watch' group. Not ONE documented case of 'vigillantism' has EVER been documented, although there are increasing reports of illegals coming over the border towards the minutemen armed with assault rifles and machetes. Probably just 'self-defense' moves against the unarmed 'vigillantes' in your mind.

Never has the U.S. government so exposed itself and its true motivations. Eighty percent of the U.S. wants border 'control and security.' To so obviously snub their nose at that 'mandate' shows what powerful lobbying measures must be really controlling this country.

BTW, this is the same U.S. government, actively notifying illegals on how to bypass law-abiding citizens doing nothing more than monitoring their homeland borders, that has also just announced to its citizens that if the bird-flu virus hits 'don't look for help from us.' Pretty clear message from Uncle Sam, be invaded and like it. If the bird-flu virus hits, kiss-off and die.

ISiddiqui

05-09-2006, 07:34 PM

Vigillantism has never been legal.

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 07:34 PM

the minutemen should all be thrown in jail anyway

Yes, law-abiding citizens that interfer with criminal invaders should ALWAYS be locked up! Good call, Castro.

ISiddiqui

05-09-2006, 07:36 PM

"Vigillantes?" Congrats, your idoctrination is complete. Minutemen are nothing more than a 'neighborhood watch' group. Not ONE documented case of 'vigillantism' has EVER been documented, although there are increasing reports of illegals coming over the border towards the minutemen armed with assault rifles and machetes. Probably just 'self-defense' moves against the unarmed 'vigillantes' in your mind.
Do you have any clue what vigilantes are?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vigilante

vig·i·lan·te http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dvigilante) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (vhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifjhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-lhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif)
n.
One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
A member of a vigilance committee.And these people are not taking law enforcement into their own hands? Isn't that the whole point? They feel the regular law enforcement isn't doing their jobs.

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 07:38 PM

Vigillantism has never been legal.

Hey Einstein, 'Vigillantes' is the term being used to suppress and censor law-abiding unarmed citizens following a mandate from 80% of the American people. Look up the term in the dictionary, Minutemen are not even close to that definition, and for you to use it shows your brain is just on cruise-control subject to whatever you need to be instructed by your government in.

Daimyo

05-09-2006, 07:39 PM

Yes, law-abiding citizens that interfer with criminal invaders should ALWAYS be locked up! Good call, Castro.
I don't think illegal immigration is a criminal offense... isn't it a civil offense?

ISiddiqui

05-09-2006, 07:40 PM

Look up the term in the dictionary, Minutemen are not even close to that definition, and for you to use it shows your brain is just on cruise-control subject to whatever you need to be instructed by your government in.

*points up*

How does it feel to constantly be shown to be wrong over and over?

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 07:40 PM

Do you have any clue what vigilantes are?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vigilante

vig·i·lan·te http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dvigilante) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (vhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ibreve.gifjhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-lhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/abreve.gifnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif)
n.
One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
A member of a vigilance committee.And these people are not taking law enforcement into their own hands? Isn't that the whole point? They feel the regular law enforcement isn't doing their jobs.

NO! That is the point! They are just monitoring, NOT enforcing!!! Not Armed!! Get it? Of course not, your too far gone.

ISiddiqui

05-09-2006, 07:41 PM

NO! That is the point! They are just monitoring, NOT enforcing!!! Not Armed!! Get it? Of course not, your too far gone.

:rolleyes:

Oh please... so they just look at illegals crossing and don't do anything about it? GIVE. ME. A. BREAK.

Daimyo

05-09-2006, 07:41 PM

NO! That is the point! They are just monitoring, NOT enforcing!!! Not Armed!! Get it? Of course not, your too far gone.
So they don't make any attempts to stop people from entering the country? They only watch them do it and take notes?

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 07:42 PM

*points up*

How does it feel to constantly be shown to be wrong over and over?

Check this one out Mr. Rocket Scientist. If Mexico makes it a felony to enter their country illegally, and immigrants are flowing thru Mexico from farther south into the U.S., then by their own definition aren't the Mexican authorities aiding and abetting the U.S. to be invaded by felons?

ISiddiqui

05-09-2006, 07:43 PM

Interestingly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Project

The Minutemen are seen as vigilantes by the Southern Poverty Law Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center) and ANSWER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSWER), and President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush).

The PRESIDENT considers them to be vigilantes! He's only in charge of the enforcement of US law.

st.cronin

05-09-2006, 07:43 PM

So they don't make any attempts to stop people from entering the country? They only watch them do it and take notes?

Actually, I think that's pretty much true.

dawgfan

05-09-2006, 07:44 PM

*points up*

How does it feel to constantly be shown to be wrong over and over?
Wait - you seriously expect logical thinking out of Bubba?

ISiddiqui

05-09-2006, 07:44 PM

Check this one out Mr. Rocket Scientist. If Mexico makes it a felony to enter their country illegally, and immigrants are flowing thru Mexico from farther south into the U.S., then by their own definition aren't the Mexican authorities aiding and abetting the U.S. to be invaded by felons?

File a law suit against Mexico then...

LOL

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 07:45 PM

So they don't make any attempts to stop people from entering the country? They only watch them do it and take notes?

They sit in their lawn chairs and vehicles and call border patrol when they see illegals. And of course they film them. All been well documented on news programs, Lou Dobbs in particular. Anyone telling you different is lying for their own interests. Again, not ONE documented case of ANY minuteman assaulting anyone.

Joe

05-09-2006, 07:46 PM

They sit in their lawn chairs and vehicles and call border patrol when they see illegals. And of course they film them. All been well documented on news programs, Lou Dobbs in particular. Anyone telling you different is lying for their own interests. Again, not ONE documented case of ANY minuteman assaulting anyone.

probably because they bury them in holes along the border

Daimyo

05-09-2006, 07:46 PM

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 07:46 PM

File a law suit against Mexico then...

LOL

Yes, that's the answer! Personally I would rather invade them, then turn the whole country over to Mexican nationals that would be friendly to our interests. Why not?

ISiddiqui

05-09-2006, 07:48 PM

Yes, that's the answer! Personally I would rather invade them, then turn the whole country over to Mexican nationals that would be friendly to our interests. Why not?

Because you are a moron with an IQ of 40?

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 07:49 PM

Interestingly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Project

The PRESIDENT considers them to be vigilantes! He's only in charge of the enforcement of US law.

And of course, as we have all seen...Bush is always right! Or maybe just another corporate stooge of special interests like most of congress.

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 07:50 PM

Because you are a moron with an IQ of 40?

Well friend, if I am you've shown yourself to be dumber than that. Out of the two of us your the mouthpiece for the propaganda.

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 07:54 PM

How about Bryan Barton?

Name is not familiar, but I know of at least one case that the media has attempted to link someone who assaulted an illegal with the Minutemen when in fact he was not associated with them.

ISiddiqui

05-09-2006, 07:56 PM

And of course, as we have all seen...Bush is always right! Or maybe just another corporate stooge of special interests like most of congress.

The President is in charge of enforcing the law. He is saying these people are conducting vilgilantism. The top law enforcement official in the country feels these groups are not simply a 'watch'.

I am you've shown yourself to be dumber than that

From you, I take that as a compliment, since you've shown yourself to not be able to speak the truth in anything you say.

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 07:57 PM

:rolleyes:

Oh please... so they just look at illegals crossing and don't do anything about it? GIVE. ME. A. BREAK.

Well, if you had a case to document you would have already done so. But baseless accusations are more your speed, aren't they?;)

See above, no facts...just accusations. Typical.

Swaggs

05-09-2006, 08:01 PM

I haven't read more than like 15 posts in this thread, but if anyone wants to guess who the only person is to get on my ignore list since mrs skippy left...

dawgfan

05-09-2006, 08:01 PM

Name is not familiar, but I know of at least one case that the media has attempted to link someone who assaulted an illegal with the Minutemen when in fact he was not associated with them.
How about you do a google search on him so you can find out that he was indeed part of the Minutemen Project until he was kicked out for his behavior.

ISiddiqui

05-09-2006, 08:03 PM

How about you do a google search on him so you can find out that he was indeed part of the Minutemen Project until he was kicked out for his behavior.

And it seems like Abu Ghraib, that he was booted because there were pictures of him doing it. I don't think what he did was rare... he was just the only one to take a picture doing so.

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 08:05 PM

How about you do a google search on him so you can find out that he was indeed part of the Minutemen Project until he was kicked out for his behavior.

Alright, so if that's true then the Minutemen have shown themselves capable and willing to police themselves so that they don't actually become the big, bad 'vigillantes' those like you are so afraid of. Unlike, say, congress. And that shows them to be bad in your book how?

ISiddiqui

05-09-2006, 08:06 PM

Btw, Bubba, as is his fashion misinterprets the article linked to on Drudge:

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3799653

According to three documents on the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site, the U.S. Border Patrol is to notify the Mexican government as to the location of Minutemen and other civilian border patrol groups when they participate in apprehending illegal immigrants -- and if and when violence is used against border crossers.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed the notification process, describing it as a standard procedure meant to reassure the Mexican government that migrants' rights are being observed.

"It's not a secret where the Minuteman volunteers are going to be," Mario Martinez said Monday.

"This ... simply makes two basic statements -- that we will not allow any lawlessness of any type, and that if an alien is encountered by a Minuteman or arrested by the Minuteman, then we will allow that government to interview the person."

Btw, the fact they say "or arrested by the Minuteman" seems to indicate that it happens fairly often.

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 08:08 PM

You might as well give it up, nothing to say but namecalling gets you booted off my reading list.

Galaxy

05-09-2006, 08:09 PM

just posting the over/under on the number of posts in this thread:

+/-76

Betting windows still open?

ISiddiqui

05-09-2006, 08:10 PM

Ooooh... what a threat! Ooooh, pleeease don't boot me off your "reading list". And go on and ignore the actual argument as if your fashion and pretend you actually have a point!

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 08:13 PM

I haven't read more than like 15 posts in this thread, but if anyone wants to guess who the only person is to get on my ignore list since mrs skippy left...

HA! Well I'm sure your fan club is all a'twitter that you've informed them of such, seeings how your so in demand and all.:)

Crapshoot

05-09-2006, 08:17 PM

Tis a shame that Bubba doesn't believe in Darwinism - he's clearly proof that a "missing link" exists. :D

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 08:20 PM

Tis a shame that Bubba doesn't believe in Darwinism - he's clearly proof that a "missing link" exists. :D

Well, maybe your monkey will think that was funny! Sorry, no slight intended to any of your relatives, you being the Darwinist and all!

dawgfan

05-09-2006, 08:22 PM

You might as well give it up, nothing to say but namecalling gets you booted off my reading list.
Let's see - he points out how you've misinterpreted the whole situation and doesn't call you any names in that post, yet you all of a sudden decide because he's a name-caller that you're ignoring him now. How very convenient - just as you're proven wrong, you pull a sob story of "He called me names!"

Oh, and who else wants to bet the primary reason Barton was kicked out of the Minutemen is because his actions were caught on video, not for what he did?

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 08:26 PM

Let's see - he points out how you've misinterpreted the whole situation and doesn't call you any names in that post, yet you all of a sudden decide because he's a name-caller that you're ignoring him now. How very convenient - just as you're proven wrong, you pull a sob story of "He called me names!"

Oh, and who else wants to bet the primary reason Barton was kicked out of the Minutemen is because his actions were caught on video, not for what he did?

Really don't see where you got that one at all. He makes alot of accusations with nothing to back them up with. That's pretty much 'name-calling.' If you think that constitutes rational argument then that pretty much indicts your own education.

Buccaneer

05-09-2006, 08:26 PM

Just a copy and paste

This was my second mission trip to Mexico. I want to tell you what kids can do on mission trips. I handed out Spanish Bibles to the Mexican people who accepted Christ. I also played basketball, blew bubbles, and played other games with the children. When they are having fun they will stay for the service with their parents and hear about Jesus.

Even though it was hot, God helped us do our work and He did not let the tires get over heated on our bus this year. I went on my first mission trip with my mom, dad, and really cool sister when I was 6 years old. I want to encourage other families to go because the more of us that go the more people who are led to Christ. It is real fun and when you go you get to make new friends with the Mexican children and with the people who go with you like the Pastor. God can help even kids like me share the love of Jesus to people who speak another language. I hope you can come to Mexico with us next summer.

st.cronin

05-09-2006, 08:29 PM

While I do not share Bubba's sentiments on immigration, nor do I object to the US government's sharing their location with the mexican gov't, I am troubled by folks willing to assign all sorts of wicked motives and deeds to them.

Bubba Wheels

05-09-2006, 08:31 PM

Just a copy and paste

I'm all for doing God's work. Read in the Bible where it says to submit yourself to the laws and justice system of the country you live in.

dawgfan

05-09-2006, 08:38 PM

Really don't see where you got that one at all. He makes alot of accusations with nothing to back them up with. That's pretty much 'name-calling.' If you think that constitutes rational argument then that pretty much indicts your own education.
Obviously you don't. Just as a refresher, here's what he posted:

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3799653

According to three documents on the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site, the U.S. Border Patrol is to notify the Mexican government as to the location of Minutemen and other civilian border patrol groups when they participate in apprehending illegal immigrants -- and if and when violence is used against border crossers.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed the notification process, describing it as a standard procedure meant to reassure the Mexican government that migrants' rights are being observed.

"It's not a secret where the Minuteman volunteers are going to be," Mario Martinez said Monday.

"This ... simply makes two basic statements -- that we will not allow any lawlessness of any type, and that if an alien is encountered by a Minuteman or arrested by the Minuteman, then we will allow that government to interview the person."
This is not at all what you claimed the U.S. Government was doing - that they were helping the Mexican government tell illegal immigrants how to avoid the Minutemen. And ISiddiqui was showing, with facts, how wrong you are on this subject. Not that I expect you to admit as such.

Shkspr

05-09-2006, 08:44 PM

Okay, after actually going to the Minutemen's website, and reading the manual, including standard operating procedure and suggested equipment lists, shockingly Bubba has a better idea of what the hell the Minutemen are about than most of the other folks in the thread.

Each post has an area, a couple hundred yards or so, in which a volunteer familiarizes himself with the particular area of the border. He checks to see where there are signs of roads, humans passing, or other spoor of border crossers, and then they go back to their camp and wait. And wait. They are encouraged to carry spotting scopes, night vision goggles, IR cameras, motion sensors, anything that will help them detect movement. And if they find movement from people crossing the border, they call Border Services. They do not engage. They do not carry "long guns" - rifles or automatic weapons. Practicing engagement will get you thrown out.

Bubba is wrong on one point, a very important one: Minutemen can be armed with legal sidearms, though sidearms are to be holstered except in life-threatening self-defense. The fact that there ARE firearms out there on the border, even if they are just small arms, means there is potential for incidents. On the other hand, it's just plain damn stupid to be out there where the coyotes (two legged kind) roam without some kind of piece.

The stance of the government that the Minutemen are vigilantes stems, I believe, from the notion that the very need for a volunteer-run organization to supplement the Border Patrol speaks ill of the current administration's ability to adequately cover the border. As I think may of those not currently enamored with the government can agree, this is an administration that is very quick to take umbrage at criticism of any kind.

I don't defend Bubba often...or at all, but I'm not worried about the Minutemen being a roving gang of thugs butchering illegals on the border. Their pledge and SOP indicate that Border Patrol, not the Minutemen, handle any apprehension of those crossing the border.

Maple Leafs

05-09-2006, 08:52 PM

Not ONE documented case of 'vigillantism' has EVER been documented
Interesting. How many undocumented cases have been documented?

Joe

05-09-2006, 08:52 PM

so what do these minutemen do all day? just sit there and wait and watch? are they employed? retired? is it a gig on the side? i'm curious as to this, it is volunteer or am I wrong and they get paid?

KWhit

05-09-2006, 08:59 PM

HA! Well I'm sure your fan club is all a'twitter that you've informed them of such, seeings how your so in demand and all.:)

If you make another post butchering the use of your/you're my head will explode.

stevew

05-09-2006, 09:21 PM

If you make another post butchering the use of your/you're my head will explode.

It's his trademarked finishing move.

FATALITY~!

Flasch186

05-09-2006, 09:30 PM

Actually, I think that's pretty much true.

I think so too, that they document it, call the authorities and then document via video what reaction the authorities take. Although im sure as tensions rise on the border it is a tinderbox.

Flasch186

05-09-2006, 09:34 PM

And it seems like Abu Ghraib, that he was booted because there were pictures of him doing it. I don't think what he did was rare... he was just the only one to take a picture doing so.

"He is just one bad apple born in the back woods and will be dealt with accordingly" I couldnt help it....

Im not for the minuteman per se although im not sure how you can stop a citizen from standing on the border...it likely will escalate from one side or the other though. A wall would do the trick though, expensive but homeland security should be.

Flasch186

05-09-2006, 09:36 PM

He makes alot of accusations with nothing to back them up with. That's pretty much 'name-calling.'

huh?

Flasch186

05-09-2006, 09:38 PM

I'm all for doing God's work. Read in the Bible where it says to submit yourself to the laws and justice system of the country you live in.

even if it represses christianity? supports the institutional mantra of birth control? supports stoning of shamed family members?

im just pointing out that you have to use the gray matter too.

Karlifornia

05-09-2006, 09:38 PM

cartman

05-09-2006, 09:42 PM

Whenever I've gone to a border town, I've always been alerted by the Mexican government, via pamphlets or verbal warnings, to places where it wouldn't be a good idea for a gringo to venture. I see this in much the same light. Sure there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration, but you don't need a green card or visa for day trips.

Flasch186

05-09-2006, 09:43 PM

The minutemen are a harmless group of racists with absolutely nothing better to do than to sit in the desert and guard what they feel is the American way. They sit in front of their shitheap Winnebagos in Wal Mart lawn chairs with cans of Milwaukee's Beast in their fat, hairy fingers. They use "upholding the law" as a thin veil to wear over the racism that they feel but are too chickenshit to admit. And if you don't feel that they are racist, then why aren't there any minutemen groups over at the canadian border? Their Winnebagos must not have snow chains.

The Minutemen: Harmless, ass-backwards people.

well keep in mind that border crossers on the south side of Mexico are treated as felons...I dont say that theyre racist so Im not sure a blanket generalization of the minute-men or border crossers is appropriate. However I see a lot of sly generalizations in your post that expose deeper feelings anyways so racism may be an easy red herring to hide other feelings. What if a wall was put up? Obviously the wall wouldnt be racist, it would keep Americans trying to go south and take advnatge of what may be easier drug laws and help keep Al Qaeda from crossing into America via the long southern border. The above can be applied to the Northern border as well, if it makes you feel better regarding the hypothesis.

Joe

05-09-2006, 09:43 PM

"He is just one bad apple born in the back woods and will be dealt with accordingly" I couldnt help it....

Im not for the minuteman per se although im not sure how you can stop a citizen from standing on the border...it likely will escalate from one side or the other though. A wall would do the trick though, expensive but homeland security should be.

Yeah, we'll see how well their fence building project goes:

On April 20, 2006, Jim Gilchrist and the Minutemen Project issued a public ultimatum to President Bush to "declare a state of emergency and deploy the National Guard and military reserves (and begin building a border security fence) by the 25th of May". If the President refuses to do so, "on Memorial Day weekend, we're going to break ground and we're going to start helping landowners (along the US-Mexico border) to build a double layer security fence along their properties, because the federal government refuses to protect them"

Flasch186

05-09-2006, 09:44 PM

Yeah, we'll see how well their fence building project goes:

On April 20, 2006, Jim Gilchrist and the Minutemen Project issued a public ultimatum to President Bush to "declare a state of emergency and deploy the National Guard and military reserves (and begin building a border security fence) by the 25th of May". If the President refuses to do so, "on Memorial Day weekend, we're going to break ground and we're going to start helping landowners (along the US-Mexico border) to build a double layer security fence along their properties, because the federal government refuses to protect them"

I didnt mean their personal fences, I meant a government wall.

BrianD

05-09-2006, 09:51 PM

I haven't read more than like 15 posts in this thread, but if anyone wants to guess who the only person is to get on my ignore list since mrs skippy left...

If you cast a fairly wide net on this thread you'd probably be alright.

saldana

05-09-2006, 10:01 PM

i guess we dont have to put POL in the titles of our threads anymore?

Flasch186

05-09-2006, 10:12 PM

i guess we dont have to put POL in the titles of our threads anymore?

I was thinking that to myself, im glad you said it out loud. I think that this should have POL in front of it.

Franklinnoble

05-09-2006, 10:31 PM

If the United States Government did a better job with border control, we'd have no need for the Minutemen. Personally, I agree with most of what Bubba has to say here - I think a lot of you would rather keep your heads in the sand over this matter, and I think the federal government ought to be embarassed that an organized group of mostly retirees has stepped up to show them what a lousy job their doing.

The fact that they're not patrolling the Canadian border has nothing to do with racism, and more to do with the fact that there's a whole lot of old retired folks living in the warm weather states along the Mexican border. But if you'd rather call a group of old WWII vets a bunch of fat, ignorant, racists, go ahead. It's always funny when the kind, sensitive, accepting liberals throw around vile generalizations - like it's OK to insult someone, so long as they're white.

Karlifornia

05-09-2006, 10:34 PM

The black minutemen are racist, too...there..ya happy?

Karlifornia

05-09-2006, 10:35 PM

Not to mention, I'd like to ask the minutemen how many of their parents and grandparents came to this country illegaly.

Swaggs

05-09-2006, 10:38 PM

But if you'd rather call a group of old WWII vets a bunch of fat, ignorant, racists, go ahead. It's always funny when the kind, sensitive, accepting liberals throw around vile generalizations - like it's OK to insult someone, so long as they're white.

What liberal leaders, or even prominent liberals, are calling old WWII vets a bunch of fat, ignorant, racists?

I'm not trying to hound here, but I this is the first I have heard of this accusation. Is it true or is this a case of you being a conservative and therefore assigning a concept to liberals because everything that goes against your beliefs must automatically be embraced by liberals?

Karlifornia

05-09-2006, 10:39 PM

Double dola, have you ever met anyone EVER that said to you: "I would have gotten that job if it weren't for that damned illegal and his qualifications"

st.cronin

05-09-2006, 10:40 PM

Double dola, have you ever met anyone EVER that said to you: "I would have gotten that job if it weren't for that damned illegal and his qualifications"

It is possible to see the immigration issue differently from the minutemen and still not assume that they are a bunch of ignorant racists.

WVUFAN

05-09-2006, 10:41 PM

Not to mention, I'd like to ask the minutemen how many of their parents and grandparents came to this country illegaly.

My guess would be very few.

I take it from how you're phrasing your words that you agree with the idea of millions of people illegally entering our country. So you're saying it's perfectly ok for these people to break our laws and enter our country illegally. What does that say to the people who entered our nation legally?

But since they're Mexican and not caucasian, any effort to stop them from breaking the law is "racist".

Gimme a break.

Flasch186

05-09-2006, 10:43 PM

you know what, I back the Minuteman...I was sitting here re-reading this, and went to their site and saw what they proclaim to be and I am all for their nonconfrontational" take on this. Until the wall gets built I am all for more eyes on the border to catch the next Ramsey Yusef crossing the border.

As for the ancestor line, this is now that was then. I dont believe in paying people for racism injustices 200 years ago and I dont believe in open borders. Siding with Bubba leaves me wretching in the toilet but I think that those crossing the border illegally today should be caught and returned.

Those here already I have not formulated a viable opinion on yet.

Illegal means illegal. How does one attack our immigration policies when it is more lax than Mexico's own immigration policies towards foreigners crossing their borders illegally. That is such a disconnect that it almost invalidates any arguments for open US borders or lax enforcement.

Franklinnoble

05-09-2006, 10:43 PM

What liberal leaders, or even prominent liberals, are calling old WWII vets a bunch of fat, ignorant, racists?

I'm not trying to hound here, but I this is the first I have heard of this accusation. Is it true or is this a case of you being a conservative and therefore assigning a concept to liberals because everything that goes against your beliefs must automatically be embraced by liberals?

I wasn't accusing any "leaders" of saying that... I was replying to this:

The minutemen are a harmless group of racists with absolutely nothing better to do than to sit in the desert and guard what they feel is the American way. They sit in front of their shitheap Winnebagos in Wal Mart lawn chairs with cans of Milwaukee's Beast in their fat, hairy fingers. They use "upholding the law" as a thin veil to wear over the racism that they feel but are too chickenshit to admit. And if you don't feel that they are racist, then why aren't there any minutemen groups over at the canadian border? Their Winnebagos must not have snow chains.

The Minutemen: Harmless, ass-backwards people.

Karlifornia

05-09-2006, 10:43 PM

It is possible to see the immigration issue differently from the minutemen and still not assume that they are a bunch of ignorant racists.

Maybe I'm being a bit too aggressive with my attack on the minutemen, but I really REALLY get a sense of a strong racial undercurrent. Are you telling me you don't get that sense at all? I'm not challenging you, I'm just asking :cool:

WVUFAN

05-09-2006, 10:45 PM

Maybe I'm being a bit too aggressive with my attack on the minutemen, but I really REALLY get a sense of a strong racial undercurrent. Are you telling me you don't get that sense at all? I'm not challenging you, I'm just asking :cool:

I don't. I don't think these people care who is coming over illegally, just the fact that they are. Not everything is racially motivated. If there were 12 million illegal Canadians here, I'll betcha there would be Minutemen up there as well.

st.cronin

05-09-2006, 10:47 PM

Maybe I'm being a bit too aggressive with my attack on the minutemen, but I really REALLY get a sense of a strong racial undercurrent. Are you telling me you don't get that sense at all?

Well, I don't actually know any of them, but I do live in a border state, so I've been witness to a good deal of their p.r. Their message is pretty much perfect for their point of view - they really leave no room for objections at any point other than the fundamental.

Flasch186

05-09-2006, 10:50 PM

Maybe I'm being a bit too aggressive with my attack on the minutemen, but I really REALLY get a sense of a strong racial undercurrent. Are you telling me you don't get that sense at all? I'm not challenging you, I'm just asking :cool:

honestly I am not scared of Mexicans coming here half as much as Im scared of Al Qaeda watching the news about our porous borders and start funneling their troops into the US through Mexico. I highly doubt a Coyote cares where the money is coming from and Al Qaeda certainly has the money to support a shotgun style approach to the border.

Franklinnoble

05-09-2006, 10:55 PM

honestly I am not scared of Mexicans coming here half as much as Im scared of Al Qaeda watching the news about our porous borders and start funneling their troops into the US through Mexico. I highly doubt a Coyote cares where the money is coming from and Al Qaeda certainly has the money to support a shotgun style approach to the border.

If they read Tom Clancy's last novel, that's exactly what they're doing.

Swaggs

05-09-2006, 10:56 PM

I wasn't accusing any "leaders" of saying that... I was replying to this:

Rather than point to liberals, you should probably call out Karlifornia specifically then. Particularly when you are making a post about vile generalizations.

Flasch186

05-09-2006, 11:01 PM

If they read Tom Clancy's last novel, that's exactly what they're doing.

I always wondered if his books ever came true down the line or at least portions of them?

Franklinnoble

05-09-2006, 11:01 PM

Rather than point to liberals, you should probably call out Karlifornia specifically then. Particularly when you are making a post about vile generalizations.

Fair enough.

Easy Mac

05-09-2006, 11:05 PM

I don't. I don't think these people care who is coming over illegally, just the fact that they are. Not everything is racially motivated. If there were 12 million illegal Canadians here, I'll betcha there would be Minutemen up there as well.

Yeah, but Canadians have free health care, so there's no reason for them to come.:D

Actually, I don't know if Canadians would have an easy time coming over anyway. I think the US has a mullet quota that it strictly adheres to, so I don't see the federal government sitting by while that gets violated. Conversely, if anything there are far too few chimmy changas being served as it is.

WVUFAN

05-09-2006, 11:09 PM

Yeah, but Canadians have free health care, so there's no reason for them to come.:D

Actually, I don't know if Canadians would have an easy time coming over anyway. I think the US has a mullet quota that it strictly adheres to, so I don't see the federal government sitting by while that gets violated. Conversely, if anything there are far too few chimmy changas being served as it is.

Mullet Quota -- that's awesome! Hell, we meet the quota here in West Virginia alone!

:)

duckman

05-09-2006, 11:09 PM

Tom Brady is a bitch! Long live Troy Aikman!

st.cronin

05-09-2006, 11:10 PM

Tom Brady is a bitch! Long live Troy Aikman!

woot

DaddyTorgo

05-09-2006, 11:12 PM

pro-minuteman here as well. hell if i didn't have a FT job I think i'd be down there advocating it. more just because of the absolute mess that the southern border has become. I mean you might as well throw the whole thing open and abolish the concept of "illegal immigrants" at this point unless you do something to stem the flow in from Mexico. And what that would be...I dunno. Personally I guess I support a ginormous wall. Monitored and too tall/strong to be climbed/busted. I guess that's the best solution. Without that, why bother to regulate ANYONE coming into the country, it's just totally hypocritical. Hell if I was a Cuban who wanted to come to the US I'd try to afford a vacation to Mexico and sneak over from there. Seems you'd have a better chance of getting in!

MrBigglesworth

05-09-2006, 11:44 PM

Hell if I was a Cuban who wanted to come to the US I'd try to afford a vacation to Mexico and sneak over from there. Seems you'd have a better chance of getting in!
I don't know, seems to me that a person that would do that is just the type of industrious person that I would want to eventually become a citizen of the United States.

The Minutemen are going about it all wrong. The easiest way to get rid of illegal immigration is to enforce the laws we already have -- against businesses. Make it more costly to hire illegals by punishing businesses that do, and eventually the jobs will dry up and the illegals will stop coming. But the number of federal workers charged with finding illegals on the job has gone from 240 in 1999 to 90 in 2003.

I'd want to pair that with an increase in the amount of legal immigrants.

WVUFAN

05-09-2006, 11:54 PM

I don't know, seems to me that a person that would do that is just the type of industrious person that I would want to eventually become a citizen of the United States.

The Minutemen are going about it all wrong. The easiest way to get rid of illegal immigration is to enforce the laws we already have -- against businesses. Make it more costly to hire illegals by punishing businesses that do, and eventually the jobs will dry up and the illegals will stop coming. But the number of federal workers charged with finding illegals on the job has gone from 240 in 1999 to 90 in 2003.

I'd want to pair that with an increase in the amount of legal immigrants.

I agree totally, but expanded. You attack the businesses who hires illegals. You give INS the power to actually do checks on filed I-9 forms (right now it's a worthless piece of paper). You hire more people to enforce the border.

Vinatieri for Prez

05-10-2006, 12:17 AM

Couple of points. I am pretty sure that there is in fact a small contingent of minutemen that have done periodic rounds at the Canadian Border. And there is talk anyways about expanding them to the Canadian border (as an aside, this could be really dangerous because people crossing the Canadian border are NOT trying to immigrate illegally - why? because they are drug smugglers who plan on returning to Canada but who would just as easily kill a minuteman as be reported by him).

Now, believe me I can't stand Bubba at all. Period. He possesses the worst form of intolerance ever exhibited in a self-professed Christian. He trolls. He namecalls. He won't listen to any reason. And so on.

I also believe he misquoted the story -- not unusual for him.

With all that said, I frankly do not have a problem with citizens who want to help enforce the law, PROVIDED they do not take the law into their own hands (if that makes sense). And I don't believe the minutemen do -- at least until its discovered to the contrary. So, I am ok with the minutemen. But I am also ok with the U.S. government identifying their location for the reason of avoiding what could potentially one day be a violent and fatal confrontation that could have a disasterous and inflammatory impact in the immigration debate (which could go either way depending on who gets killed), relations with Mexico and illegal immigrants living in this country amongst legal citizens and immigrants. So, I say go ahead and patrol, but don't you dare assault anyone, and leave the firearm behind. If you don't want to patrol without the sidearm then I'm sorry, you're out of luck.

Glengoyne

05-10-2006, 01:53 AM

Hey Einstein, 'Vigillantes' is the term being used to suppress and censor law-abiding unarmed citizens following a mandate from 80% of the American people. Look up the term in the dictionary, Minutemen are not even close to that definition, and for you to use it shows your brain is just on cruise-control subject to whatever you need to be instructed by your government in.

I don't think your 80% number means what you think it means.

Sure I want a secure border. Sure I want illegal aliens to be stopped from trying to get into this country. I don't want a bunch of private citizens to get together and attempt to enforce laws on their own. That is what a vigilante is, you know?

Their mission is one I might admire, their rhetoric is essentially that of hatred with a good sized dose of denial, and that I'm not ready to get behind.

WVUFAN

05-10-2006, 03:40 AM

I don't think your 80% number means what you think it means.

Sure I want a secure border. Sure I want illegal aliens to be stopped from trying to get into this country. I don't want a bunch of private citizens to get together and attempt to enforce laws on their own. That is what a vigilante is, you know?

Their mission is one I might admire, their rhetoric is essentially that of hatred with a good sized dose of denial, and that I'm not ready to get behind.

I think their rhetoric isn't one of hatred or racism, but one of frustration. The government isn't providing the funds needed to patrol the border, so they're going to do whateve they can to help -- to do something productive rather than sit and complain. It's not vigilantism ... it's citizenship in action.

BishopMVP

05-10-2006, 06:06 AM

Does this mean the Mexican Government is admitting to actively helping it's people illegally cross US Borders?At the risk of giving Bubba more ammunition, the Mexican government regularly publishes guides, pamphlets and comic books on how best to cross the border - ostensibly to protect those who make the decision from dying but in reality providing a handy guide on how to do it and blend into the US afterward.

cartman

05-10-2006, 08:23 AM

For those advocating a wall, be aware it will not stop illegal immigration. It will reduce it, but it will not stop it. A majority (~60%) of illegal immigrants entered this country legally, usually with a visa. They became illegal once they overstayed the length of their visa. No wall is going to stop that.

The image of the illegal immigrants all entering this country via a clandestine border crossing is a pervasive one because it is the easiest to document. There isn't a camera crew there ready when a visa expires, and if there were, it doesn't make for good television.

Flasch186

05-10-2006, 09:06 AM

sachmo71

05-10-2006, 09:28 AM

sachmo71

05-10-2006, 09:32 AM

Dola...who did this used to be?

Karlifornia

SirFozzie

05-10-2006, 10:13 AM

Interesting, the Minutemen aren't having a good week..

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-minuteman4may04,0,4537036.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The Minuteman Project, the self-proclaimed citizen border patrol that has emerged as a vocal opponent of illegal immigration, arrived in the heart of South Los Angeles Wednesday hoping to recruit blacks to their cause.

But instead, they were met by protesters, most of them black, who compared the group to the Ku Klux Klan and urged them to take their campaign elsewhere.

The event, billed as the Minuteman Project's launch of a cross-country caravan to Washington, D.C., quickly devolved into a series of shouting matches between two sides punctuated by honking horns and howls from a megaphone.

And the newspaper, radio and TV reporters far outnumbered the participants.

"The Minuteman organization has never had any concern with the black Americans," said Najee Ali, a South L.A. community activist who led the protest. "They don't come into our community and give any assistance to help reduce gang violence, create employment opportunities."

The Minutemen, who gained national attention for their patrols of the U.S.-Mexican border last year, had hoped to gain a sympathetic audience in L.A.'s black community for their message of tighter border controls and stricter laws against illegal immigration.

They argue that illegal immigration strips jobs from blacks.

"Illegal immigration has had and is having a devastating effect on the black community," said Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a Minuteman Project supporter and founder of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, during the event in Leimert Park. "Black Americans are being put out of jobs, they're put out of their own homes," he said.

Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist cited high unemployment rates, particularly among black teenagers, to make the same case.

But Ali and others said they don't buy the message or the motives of the Minutemen.

"The same system that wants to criminalize immigration is the same system that disproportionately imprisons black men," yelled Monica Morant, a Los Angeles area resident who decided to protest the event after hearing about it on the radio.

The event had less the feel of a dialogue than of counter-protests.

As Ali chanted "Minutemen go home!" through the bullhorn, Gilchrist treated his message as a metaphorical call to arms.

"Minutemen, stand your ground. Do not fire unless fired upon, and if it's war he wants, then let it begin here," Gilchrist cried.

Gilchrist then yelled "Let's roll," and the Minutemen boarded a fleet of RVs, campers and cars to begin their cross-country trek aimed at raising awareness of their cause.

The caravan plans to visit rural and urban communities in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Virginia. The group will have rallies in Phoenix, and Crawford, Texas, before ending at Capitol Hill.

At the rally points, Gilchrist will be wearing a bullet-proof vest in addition to having three to four private bodyguards, Minuteman Project spokesman Tim Bueler said.

"We're not going to take any chances," Bueler said. "Mr. Gilchrist gets threatened all the time."

The spokesman said the group expects many more supporters to join the caravan along its route. He blamed Wednesday's small turnout -- far below his earlier prediction of 400 people -- on the caravan starting on a workday.

But Minutemen critics argue the turnout shows the group doesn't have popular support.

"As an organizer, you have to be able to produce people who actually care about the issue," said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.

The Minutemen did receive some support Wednesday.

Ted Hayes, a longtime L.A. homeless advocate and now a vocal critic of illegal immigration, was on hand to support Gilchrist.

Glengoyne

05-10-2006, 11:29 AM

i guess we dont have to put POL in the titles of our threads anymore?

Yeah because this thread is SO poorly titled that there would be no other indication that it pertained to Politics. :rolleyes:

Not really aimed at you, but I don't think there is any real benefit to "POL"

Flasch186

05-10-2006, 11:32 AM

Not really aimed at you, but I don't think there is any real benefit to "POL"

on this particular thread or in general?

cartman

05-10-2006, 11:39 AM

Yeah because this thread is SO poorly titled that there would be no other indication that it pertained to Politics.

I guess we were just passively sold out before...

:D

Glengoyne

05-10-2006, 11:59 AM

on this particular thread or in general?

In General. Not that I mind seeing the tag. I just really don't think it is all that useful or necessary. We're almost all adults here. We can click the back arrow if we get into a thread regarding a topic that we don't want to deal with.

Karlifornia

05-10-2006, 12:31 PM

"Minutemen, stand your ground. Do not fire unless fired upon, and if it's war he wants, then let it begin here," Gilchrist cried.

Gilchrist then yelled "Let's roll," and the Minutemen boarded a fleet of RVs, campers and cars to begin their cross-country trek aimed at raising awareness of their cause.

lmao..I'm in pain from laughing so hard. Just picture this in your head.

SirFozzie

05-10-2006, 12:40 PM

yeah. Bonus points for the gratuitous Flight 93 reference.

I mean, at that point, you might as well completely go all out and yell

"Autobots, Transform and roll out!" :D

stevew

05-10-2006, 12:52 PM

Dola...who did this used to be?

Karlifornia

RFUS

sachmo71

05-10-2006, 01:22 PM

RFUS

Karlifornia is Rufus?

Huckleberry

05-10-2006, 01:59 PM

Karlifornia

05-10-2006, 02:17 PM

I assume Karlifornia would accuse me of being racist against my own "race" because I'm an Hispanic of Mexican descent that supports tighter border control and has no problem with non-confrontational citizen efforts such as the Minutemen. In theory.

I'm not going to lie. My first post in this thread made a sweeping generalization. I guess what I should have said was: There area lot of latent racists in the minutemen, but racism and the minutemen don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Anyway, I still think the minutemen are doing more harm than good. If they want to stop illegals from pouring into America, they find ways to make living in Mexico more appealing. In the off chance that one of their phone calls results in someone getting deported, chances are the deported will be back at some point. There's no real reason to stay in Mexico.

Flasch186

05-10-2006, 02:34 PM

Anyway, I still think the minutemen are doing more harm than good. If they want to stop illegals from pouring into America, they find ways to make living in Mexico more appealing.

Isnt it Mexicans job and Mexico's gov't job to make life more appealing in their own country? certainly not an American citizens job, right?

Karlifornia

05-10-2006, 02:36 PM

Isnt it Mexicans job and Mexico's gov't job to make life more appealing in their own country? certainly not an American citizens job, right?

I didn't say it was our JOB to do that. Just like it's not the minutemen's JOB to patrol the border. If they want to succeed in having no more mexicans coming into the country, then that seems like it would be a good way to do it.

Flasch186

05-10-2006, 02:47 PM

sorry thats what I thought you meant when you said:

If they want to stop illegals from pouring into America, they find ways to make living in Mexico more appealing.

Raiders Army

05-10-2006, 03:22 PM

I'm not going to lie. My first post in this thread made a sweeping generalization. I guess what I should have said was: There area lot of latent racists in the minutemen, but racism and the minutemen don't necessarily go hand in hand.
How do you qualify the statement that there are a lot of latent racists in the minutemen?

If they want to succeed in having no more mexicans coming into the country, then that seems like it would be a good way to do it.
Who's they? The minutemen? Why should they make Mexico better?

Mustang

05-10-2006, 03:34 PM

I think the solution is simple..

Switch the names of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to North Dakota, Delaware, Montana and Idaho.

I mean, really.. who the hell would want to intentionally go to those states anyways?

:D

rexallllsc

05-10-2006, 03:34 PM

The sad thing to me isn't so much what's going on with The Minutemen - but more that our guv'ment hasn't stepped up and protected our borders.

Nothing has changed.

Karlifornia

05-10-2006, 03:53 PM

How do you qualify the statement that there are a lot of latent racists in the minutemen?

Who's they? The minutemen? Why should they make Mexico better?
What is the goal of the minutemen? To stop illegal immigrants from coming into the country, right? Well, improving Mexico could get their mission accomplished. I guess the idea of the minutemen stopping illegal immigration by making Mexico a better place to leave sounds impossible, but what they/re doing now ain't gonna solve everything, unless the millions join them.

Why are they called the minutemen, anyway? They can be ready to dial up INS in under a minute?

rexallllsc

05-10-2006, 04:04 PM

I didn't say it was our JOB to do that. Just like it's not the minutemen's JOB to patrol the border.

It's our governments job - but they're asleep at the wheel.

st.cronin

05-10-2006, 04:11 PM

Anyway, I still think the minutemen are doing more harm than good.

See, this is where I get lost. What harm are the minutemen doing, exactly? As far as I can tell, they are either doing some good (stemming the tide of illegals) or else they are just hanging out around the border, wasting everybody's time.

IwasHere

05-10-2006, 05:11 PM

LOL... I love this t-shirt.
http://www.apricothomeservices.com/ebay/images/73.jpg

WVUFAN

05-10-2006, 05:20 PM

See, this is where I get lost. What harm are the minutemen doing, exactly? As far as I can tell, they are either doing some good (stemming the tide of illegals) or else they are just hanging out around the border, wasting everybody's time.

It's obvious -- in Kalifornia's mind, he doesn't have any issue with illegals coming in from Mexico, and any effort from anyone to prevent them is racist. Because our intention isn't trying to curtail illegal immigration, but rather trying to bring down the Latino culture.

Raiders Army

05-10-2006, 05:58 PM

What is the goal of the minutemen? To stop illegal immigrants from coming into the country, right? Well, improving Mexico could get their mission accomplished. I guess the idea of the minutemen stopping illegal immigration by making Mexico a better place to leave sounds impossible, but what they/re doing now ain't gonna solve everything, unless the millions join them.

Why are they called the minutemen, anyway? They can be ready to dial up INS in under a minute?
I'm sorry, but you have some very different ideas than I. Also, you didn't answer the first question I had:

I'm not going to lie. My first post in this thread made a sweeping generalization. I guess what I should have said was: There area lot of latent racists in the minutemen, but racism and the minutemen don't necessarily go hand in hand.
How do you qualify the statement that there are a lot of latent racists in the minutemen?

RendeR

05-10-2006, 10:01 PM

Wow, quite a read this read is....

Karlifornia has some serious racist issues he needs to work through.

Bubba, while still an asshat, is on the right side of this discussion. God it pains me to say that....He needs to read a bit more carefully and use restraint when he gets attacked, because his retorts to said attacks just remind everyone that he's an asshat.

Issiquidi(sp?) was really out of line in this thread. His comments were both uneducated and directed only at riling up bubba, not impressed dude.

The blacks reacting badly in LA, based only on what I read in the thread, seem to be a bunch of sniveling "what have you done for us?" kind of people. THe minutement haven't done shit for them, they don't need to. They're simply looking to build support for their cause. This isn't a black issue, it isn't a race issue, its a pathetic excuse for the Amrecican Government issue. But based on the comments and reaction of the LA protestors, they are oblivious.

The Minutemen should have realized going to LA was a bad idea. LA is all about LA, they don't give a rats ass about anything thats not LA. (this is bit of a generalization based on personal experience, please keep teh flames to a low simmer)

My nickel.

As for my opinion, no-one care about my opinion so I'll save it.

MrBigglesworth

05-10-2006, 10:24 PM

Karlifornia has some serious racist issues he needs to work through.

...

The blacks reacting badly in LA, based only on what I read in the thread, seem to be a bunch of sniveling "what have you done for us?" kind of people. THe minutement haven't done shit for them, they don't need to. They're simply looking to build support for their cause. This isn't a black issue, it isn't a race issue, its a pathetic excuse for the Amrecican Government issue. But based on the comments and reaction of the LA protestors, they are oblivious.

The Minutemen should have realized going to LA was a bad idea. LA is all about LA, they don't give a rats ass about anything thats not LA. (this is bit of a generalization based on personal experience, please keep teh flames to a low simmer)
So you say someone has issues for making generalizations, so you procede to make two generalizations? There is definitely racism behind a lot of the reaction to illegal immigrants, not all of it, but a lot.

RendeR

05-10-2006, 10:36 PM

So you say someone has issues for making generalizations, so you procede to make two generalizations? There is definitely racism behind a lot of the reaction to illegal immigrants, not all of it, but a lot.

Actually I only made one generalization. I formed an opinion of the people in the stories based on the information within those articles posted here, thats not generalizing, thats taking the available evidence and forming a conclusion. it may not be the RIGHT one, but thats the one I came to based on what was given.

The LA part? yeah, I generalized. I lived south of LA for years, hate that city with much passion.

The problem with the race issue is this:

People who have racial issues love using the illegal immigrant issue as they're staging point. they can push their personal hate issues under the cover of immagration etc etc.

The immagration issue itself is a NON racial issue. There are illegals coming into this country of damned near every race/creed/color/belief etc etc... so no true "immagration" arguement is a racial one, if people use it to further their racial issues, then thats a whole other problem indeed.

st.cronin

05-10-2006, 10:40 PM

The problem with the race issue is this:

People who have racial issues love using the illegal immigrant issue as they're staging point. they can push their personal hate issues under the cover of immagration etc etc.

The immagration issue itself is a NON racial issue. There are illegals coming into this country of damned near every race/creed/color/belief etc etc... so no true "immagration" arguement is a racial one, if people use it to further their racial issues, then thats a whole other problem indeed.

wow, there have actually been some insightful political posts lately ... i have hope for you folks

Kobeck

05-10-2006, 10:52 PM

Interestingly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Project

The PRESIDENT considers them to be vigilantes! He's only in charge of the enforcement of US law.

Having the Southern Poverty Law Center take your side automatically makes you wrong.

"Martinez said Mexico's official perception of the civilian groups is that they are vigilantes, a belief the Border Patrol hoped to allay by entering into the cooperative agreement." - dailybulletin.com "U.S. tipping Mexico to Minuteman patrols"

Apparently it is the Mexican government, and the SPLC, who think the minutemen are vigilantes not the U.S. Government.

Kobeck

05-10-2006, 11:02 PM

The President is in charge of enforcing the law. He is saying these people are conducting vilgilantism. The top law enforcement official in the country feels these groups are not simply a 'watch'.

Attorney Generall Ashcroft is in charge of enforcing the laws of the United States. The President nominates the Attorney General and the Senate? confirms.

Repeat - the ATTORNEY GENERAL is the top law enforcement official in the U.S.

Klinglerware

05-10-2006, 11:03 PM

wow, there have actually been some insightful political posts lately ... i have hope for you folks

Having the Southern Poverty Law Center take your side automatically makes you wrong.

Some are more insightful than others, I suppose...

Edit: Psst Kobeck, something needs editing in your post above...

Kobeck

05-10-2006, 11:06 PM

Vigillantism has never been legal.

lots of horse theives were deterred from a lifetime of crime by vigillantism when the western U.S. was being civilized.

Kobeck

05-10-2006, 11:14 PM

ISiddiqui

05-10-2006, 11:19 PM

[quote=ISiddiqui]The President is in charge of enforcing the law. He is saying these people are conducting vilgilantism. The top law enforcement official in the country feels these groups are not simply a 'watch'.
QUOTE]

Attorney Generall Ashcroft is in charge of enforcing the laws of the United States. The President nominates the Attorney General and the Senate? confirms.

Repeat - the ATTORNEY GENERAL is the top law enforcement official in the U.S.

LOLOLOLOLOL!

There is one obvious mistake in this, which is just priceless.

But, who is the Attorney General's boss? Who does he answer to? Who can fire him at any moment? I know it is chic to say the AG is the top law enforcement official in the US, but it isn't entirely accurate. The President is the ultimate arbitrar. After all, the executive branch is responsible for enforcing the laws. If the AG believes a certain criminal law should be enforced in a certain way and the President disagrees, who do you think wins out?

Kobeck

05-10-2006, 11:23 PM

Tell it to Nixon

ISiddiqui

05-10-2006, 11:31 PM

Tell it to Nixon

You mean the President who fired his Attorney General (and then his deputy) when his AG refused to order the special investigator to quit his investigation? Until he finally settled on an AG who would (Robert Bork)?

Kobeck

05-10-2006, 11:34 PM

The easiest way to get rid of illegal immigration is to enforce the laws we already have -- against businesses. Make it more costly to hire illegals by punishing businesses that do, and eventually the jobs will dry up and the illegals will stop coming.

Exctly

Kobeck

05-10-2006, 11:40 PM

You mean the President who fired his Attorney General (and then his deputy) when his AG refused to order the special investigator to quit his investigation? Until he finally settled on an AG who would (Robert Bork)?

Exactly proving that in fact it was the AG who was the top law enforcement officer in the U.S. and not the President.

You do remember the resignation of Nixon don't you? His attempted circumvention of the law was a big part of his downfall, that and he was actually ashamed of his failings.

Your conspiracy theories about the AG being a puppet of the President are ammusing but incorrect.

ISiddiqui

05-10-2006, 11:43 PM

Exactly proving that in fact it was the AG who was the top law enforcement officer in the U.S. and not the President.

You do remember the resignation of Nixon don't you? His attempted circumvention of the law was a big part of his downfall, that and he was actually ashamed of his failings.

Your conspiracy theories about the AG being a puppet of the President are ammusing but incorrect.

You are fucking kidding me! So, the AG is the top law enforcement officer in the country, but the President can easily fire him and decides what that position works on.

I love this idea that the AG is supposed to be NOT a 'puppet of the President'. He is part of the President's cabinet, right? Subject to being fired by the President at any moment and replaced by someone else who will accept the President's commands.

The fact that Nixon resigned had nothing to do with his AG... aside from the fact that firing his AG was a horrible public relations move.

st.cronin

05-10-2006, 11:49 PM

This is easily the dumbest argument ever. Which, given my above comment, must be some manifestation of Newton's mechanics.

WVUFAN

05-10-2006, 11:50 PM

I love this idea that the AG is supposed to be NOT a 'puppet of the President'. He is part of the President's cabinet, right? Subject to being fired by the President at any moment and replaced by someone else who will accept the President's commands.

I'm finding it tiring that everything you don't like about this country is Bush's and/or Republican's fault. Some things, and some problems, like immigration, existed LONG before either Bush came along. You seem to be blinded by your hatred of this adminstration to see that.

His point is that the President can issue orders, but cannot order a legitimate AG to supervent the law. (yeah, here comes the "illegal wiretapping" comment, I'm sure).

Example: You own a NFL football team. You have control and are responsible for that team, but are still answerable to the NFL Commissioner in many respects. It doesn't make you any less "in charge" of the team.

ISiddiqui

05-10-2006, 11:56 PM

I'm finding it tiring that everything you don't like about this country is Bush's and/or Republican's fault. Some things, and some problems, like immigration, existed LONG before either Bush came along. You seem to be blinded by your hatred of this adminstration to see that.

His point is that the President can issue orders, but cannot order a legitimate AG to supervent the law. (yeah, here comes the "illegal wiretapping" comment, I'm sure).

Example: You own a NFL football team. You have control and are responsible for that team, but are still answerable to the NFL Commissioner in many respects. It doesn't make you any less "in charge" of the team.

The NFL Commissioner appoints you to a team? He can get rid of you at will? Sorry, that's a horrid analogy.

And Nixon did indeed order Bork to supervent the law. Congress considered the Saturday Night Massacre as an obstruction of justice.

And PSSSST... I AGREE with the President here. In your blinding hate for me and anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh, you somehow failed to see that.

ISiddiqui

05-10-2006, 11:58 PM

The firing of the AG was the point of no return for Nixon.

Presidents are not Kings and you are totally wrong about the AG, although it is ammusing.

Yeah, the firing of the AG was a PR move and the end result pissed Congress off, because Nixon wanted an AG who'd fire the special prosecutor.

I never insinuated Presidents being Kings. However, they ARE in charge of their branch (the executive if you need help on that) and their subordinantes must heed their bosses wishes or else you'll be out on your ass. And yes, that includes the Attorney General, a CABINET position.

WVUFAN

05-10-2006, 11:59 PM

The NFL Commissioner appoints you to a team? He can get rid of you at will? Sorry, that's a horrid analogy.

And Nixon did indeed order Bork to supervent the law. Congress considered the Saturday Night Massacre as an obstruction of justice.

And PSSSST... I AGREE with the President here. In your blinding hate for me and anyone to the left of Rush Limbaugh, you somehow failed to see that.

For what it's worth, I don't hate you or your beliefs. You've actually convinced me more than a few times with your arguments, and made me rethink quite a number of my issues.

The NFL Commissioner doesn't appoint you to a team, but without his approval, you won't get one. It's similar.

Just because the President hires the AG doesn't make the AG a puppet, nor does it make the President the person who enforces the law.

Kobeck

05-11-2006, 12:00 AM

You are fucking kidding me! So, the AG is the top law enforcement officer in the country, but the President can easily fire him and decides what that position works on.

I love this idea that the AG is supposed to be NOT a 'puppet of the President'. He is part of the President's cabinet, right? Subject to being fired by the President at any moment and replaced by someone else who will accept the President's commands.

The fact that Nixon resigned had nothing to do with his AG... aside from the fact that firing his AG was a horrible public relations move.

what kind of aluminum foil hat do you wear?

The firing of the AG was the point of no return for Nixon.

Presidents are not Kings and you are totally wrong about the AG, although it is ammusing.

ISiddiqui

05-11-2006, 12:05 AM

The NFL Commissioner doesn't appoint you to a team, but without his approval, you won't get one. It's similar.

And without the owners approval you won't get a team either. Doesn't mean that other cabinet officials have a vote on one of their fellow members.

Just because the President hires the AG doesn't make the AG a puppet, nor does it make the President the person who enforces the law.

There are three branches listed in the Constitution: the legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive enforces the laws, and the judicial interprets the laws. The President is the HEAD of the executive branch, the one that enforces the laws. His entire job description is the guy who enforces the law.

And I'd say that someone who can be fired at will by his boss is a puppet to him. Ie, if he tells you to do something, you do it or else you may (and probably will) be fired.

Kobeck

05-11-2006, 12:06 AM

Yeah, the firing of the AG was a PR move and the end result pissed Congress off, because Nixon wanted an AG who'd fire the special prosecutor.

I never insinuated Presidents being Kings. However, they ARE in charge of their branch (the executive if you need help on that) and their subordinantes must heed their bosses wishes or else you'll be out on your ass. And yes, that includes the Attorney General, a CABINET position.

you are familiar with a couple of concepts called responsibility and division of labor correct?

The King reference was because apparently you think the U.S. President is not answerable to anyone for anything and orders everybody around and they have to do it or it will be their a$$.

The President nominates people who he believes will further his agenda, he does not dictate their every decision.

Kobeck

05-11-2006, 12:08 AM

And I'd say that someone who can be fired at will by his boss is a puppet to him. Ie, if he tells you to do something, you do it or else you may (and probably will) be fired.

Again how did that work out for Nixon?

ISiddiqui

05-11-2006, 12:09 AM

you are familiar with a couple of concepts called responsibility and division of labor correct?

The King reference was because apparently you think the U.S. President is not answerable to anyone for anything and orders everybody around and they have to do it or it will be their a$$.

The President nominates people who he believes will further his agenda, he does not dictate their every decision.

Who said the President dictates every decision made by the AG? He is, however, the head.

And technically, the President is only answerable to the people (in elections), Congress (impeachment powers), or to the courts (cases against him). He is NOT answerable to his AG.

ISiddiqui

05-11-2006, 12:10 AM

Again how did that work out for Nixon?

He fired his AG who disagreed with him, and his deputy. I wonder why you keep bringing up a point that totally destroys your argument.

MrBigglesworth

05-11-2006, 12:15 AM

His point is that the President can issue orders, but cannot order a legitimate AG to supervent the law. (yeah, here comes the "illegal wiretapping" comment, I'm sure).
Really though: Bush has asserted his right to break any law in the name of national security. What prevents him from ordering an AG to supervent the law?

ISiddiqui

05-11-2006, 12:18 AM

What prevents him from ordering an AG to supervent the law?

Strip away the President Bush concerns (at least in my argument) and look at the above sentance by itself. What DOES prevent the President from ordering an AG to supervent the law? Three factors: the public (elections), Congress (impeachment), and the courts (cases). Nothing else. So then how can the President NOT be in charge of 'enforcing' the laws of the US?

Kobeck

05-11-2006, 12:23 AM

He fired his AG who disagreed with him, and his deputy. I wonder why you keep bringing up a point that totally destroys your argument.

Possibly I mentioned it again because his use of this tactic, that you apparently believe is common, was the event that assured he would have to leave the Presidency - one way or another.

According to you, and your alluminum hat, this should have been a successful ploy as it is appreantly the way the constitution was created

Although a King could freely operate in this manner it has proven to be unsuccessful for a President.

And Goodnight.

ISiddiqui

05-11-2006, 12:28 AM

Possibly I mentioned it again because his use of this tactic, that you apparently believe is common, was the event that assured he would have to leave the Presidency - one way or another.
It only caused him to leave the Presidency because public opinion turned on him and it pissed Congress off because of how he handled it.

But somehow that makes the AG independant.... because the President can fire him, but has to contend with public opinion? I'm not entirely sure how you can say that with a straight face.

And where did I say it was common for a President to fire his AG? Are you on a personal trek to include a strawman per post? Is there some Guiness World Record you are trying to break?

The President has the power to do so and the AG knows that and knows the President is the boss. He obeys the President. During Nixon's Administration you had a really rare situation where a cabinet member openly defied the President. Most people that work realize that they have to follow their boss' orders or else they won't be working there long.

this should have been a successful ploy as it is appreantly the way the constitution was created

It WAS successful! The AG WAS FIRED!

However, it caused a public backlash. So Nixon fell due to the opinion of the public and Congress. Doesn't change the fact that he was successful in firing his AG for failure to carry out his direct order.

Franklinnoble

05-11-2006, 01:02 AM

Wow... anyone have "Richard Nixon" in the threadjack pool? That one totally came outta nowhere...

Flasch186

05-11-2006, 07:41 AM

The AG is supposed to enforce the laws, whatever they may be.

The immigration Czar in Tampa a year ago said ina speech that the current laws are unenforcable. Im sorry, but it is not his job to determine that. He is supposed to, robotically, enforce them. If something is failing, he is supposed to try and get the resources to fix it.

This applies to whatever law is on the books regarding any matter. It is not for the foot soldiers to determine, unless it is an individual question regarding the morallity of the order, which laws to enforce and which not to.

Riggins44

05-11-2006, 10:08 AM

Kobeck

05-11-2006, 12:51 PM

It only caused him to leave the Presidency because public opinion turned on him and it pissed Congress off because of how he handled it.

But somehow that makes the AG independant.... because the President can fire him, but has to contend with public opinion? I'm not entirely sure how you can say that with a straight face.

And where did I say it was common for a President to fire his AG? Are you on a personal trek to include a strawman per post? Is there some Guiness World Record you are trying to break?

The President has the power to do so and the AG knows that and knows the President is the boss. He obeys the President. During Nixon's Administration you had a really rare situation where a cabinet member openly defied the President. Most people that work realize that they have to follow their boss' orders or else they won't be working there long.

It WAS successful! The AG WAS FIRED!

However, it caused a public backlash. So Nixon fell due to the opinion of the public and Congress. Doesn't change the fact that he was successful in firing his AG for failure to carry out his direct order.

lol - your a piece of work.

Nixon was so successful he had to resign or be impeached. If you call that success good for you.

Now if he fired the AG and obtained a more compliant one without having the unfortunate side effect of losing his life long dream that would have been success.

you still haven't figured out those responsibility and division of labor thingys huh?

Do you really think that the U.S. President personally signs off on and controls every single thing that the executative branch is responsible for? You obviously think the AG just collects a check while the President does his job for him.

Kobeck

05-11-2006, 12:57 PM

It's painfully obvious that the US government has no interest in stopping illegal immigration. Your thoughts on the reason(s) may vary.

My question is what do we do with the 20,000 illegals in prisons here in CA. (billion dollars a year)? Not all illegals are here for the "american dream". We could ship them back to whichever country they're from... but a majority are from Mexico and they'd surely skip across the border again (or another criminal would).

Seems to me you HAVE to protect the border for the safety of the American people (and not just from terrorism). If the government won't do it... then go minutemen!

Agree. Did not realize California ponied up 1b for incarcation alone. Bet the welfare, for those hard working families, and education costs are multiples of 1b. Pitiful

RendeR

05-11-2006, 01:32 PM

The NFL Commissioner doesn't appoint you to a team, but without his approval, you won't get one.

EDITED to remove assinine comment that was unneeded.

The Commissioner cannot, by himself keep anyone from owning a team, that power lies only with the full ownership committee, the commissionor, I believe, gets a vote in that should it become a tie, he would then break the tie.

The president is NOT the premier law enforcer in this country, he leads the Legislative Branch and has within his power to create and persue legislation to MANAGE laws and legalities within this country, it is not his job or responsibility at all to ENFORCE those laws.

No matter who his job falls below in the chain of command the Attorney General is in fact the highest position of Law Enforcement in this nation, He has the power to charge people with crimes, the President does not.

RendeR

05-11-2006, 01:37 PM

Wow... anyone have "Richard Nixon" in the threadjack pool? That one totally came outta nowhere...

Yeah, I took Nixon and Clinton, figured one of them would cause a huge breakdown in this discussion ;):D:D:D

John Galt

05-11-2006, 01:40 PM

The president is NOT the premier law enforcer in this country, he leads the Legislative Branch and has within his power to create and persue legislation to MANAGE laws and legalities within this country, it is not his job or responsibility at all to ENFORCE those laws.

I really have no interest in getting into the rest of this ugly discussion, but this is a bizarre statement. The president does not "lead[] the Legislative Branch." The Executive Branch, of which the president is the head is charged with enforcing (not managing?!?!?) the laws of America. Your description of the American governmental structure is just wrong.

RendeR

05-11-2006, 01:51 PM

I really have no interest in getting into the rest of this ugly discussion, but this is a bizarre statement. The president does not "lead[] the Legislative Branch." The Executive Branch, of which the president is the head is charged with enforcing (not managing?!?!?) the laws of America. Your description of the American governmental structure is just wrong.

My sincere apologies, I did in fact use the wrong term, it should be executive, and while that branch may be charged with enforcement, it is still af act that the president is not an enforcement officer, he cannot of his own accord charge people with crimes. The top position that CAN do this is the attorney general, he is therefore the highest enforcement officer in this country, NOT the president.

Again, I apologize for my own confusion.

MrBigglesworth

05-11-2006, 01:56 PM

It's painfully obvious that the US government has no interest in stopping illegal immigration. Your thoughts on the reason(s) may vary.

My question is what do we do with the 20,000 illegals in prisons here in CA. (billion dollars a year)? Not all illegals are here for the "american dream". We could ship them back to whichever country they're from... but a majority are from Mexico and they'd surely skip across the border again (or another criminal would).
Studies show that over time, illegal immigrants are a net gain for the economy.

Seems to me you HAVE to protect the border for the safety of the American people (and not just from terrorism). If the government won't do it... then go minutemen!
Like Bill Bennett recently said, if you abort all black babies in CA, crime would go down and you would stop the state of CA from having to pay for their incarceration. Is that something that needs to be done for the safety of the American people?

Raiders Army

05-11-2006, 02:00 PM

Studies show that over time, illegal immigrants are a net gain for the economy.
Whose gain? What about negative effects? What studies?

Like Bill Bennett recently said, if you abort all black babies in CA, crime would go down and you would stop the state of CA from having to pay for their incarceration. Is that something that needs to be done for the safety of the American people?
What does that have to do with this? Involuntary abortions does not equal illegal immigration.

Klinglerware

05-11-2006, 02:14 PM

Whose gain? What about negative effects? What studies?

The equation is pretty simple -- if hiring illegal immigrants saves more on labor costs (which are likely to be passed on to consumers) than what illegals consume in services, then illegal immigration is a net win. For me, as crass it may seem, that's what it boils down to.

I suspect that this is currently the case, but I would be interested in seeing what studies are actually out there...

dawgfan

05-11-2006, 02:22 PM

The equation is pretty simple -- if hiring illegal immigrants saves more on labor costs (which are likely to be passed on to consumers) than what illegals consume in services, then illegal immigration is a net win. For me, as crass it may seem, that's what it boils down to.

I suspect that this is currently the case, but I would be interested in seeing what studies are actually out there...
I'd like to see the studies as well, but the idea doesn't sound unreasonable (that the net gain in lower labor costs leading to lower consumer prices offsets the lack of taxation on their labor and the drain on governmental services that cost taxpayers' money).

If this is indeed true, it would be logical to conclude this is the primary reason why the immigration enforcement issue isn't more strictly enforced.

MrBigglesworth

05-11-2006, 02:33 PM

What does that have to do with this? Involuntary abortions does not equal illegal immigration.
New immigrant families tend to cost more at the beginning as they work their way into society, and once they become established they start to pay in more than they get out.

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309063566?OpenDocument

What does that have to do with this? Involuntary abortions does not equal illegal immigration.
Because the point was that we would be safer without illegal immigration like we would without having black people, and the same fallacy applies to both.

Raiders Army

05-11-2006, 03:09 PM

New immigrant families tend to cost more at the beginning as they work their way into society, and once they become established they start to pay in more than they get out.

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309063566?OpenDocument

That study does not differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants in terms of what you're saying. Additionally, it says:

Each year about 800,000 people immigrate legally to the United States. In addition, between 200,000 and 300,000 new illegal immigrants stay in the country each year.

I would hazard a guess that the 800,000 legal immigrants' contributions to the economy outweigh the negative effects of the illegal immigrants. You have proved nothing at all.

Raiders Army

05-11-2006, 03:11 PM

As I quoted earlier:

Like Bill Bennett recently said, if you abort all black babies in CA, crime would go down and you would stop the state of CA from having to pay for their incarceration. Is that something that needs to be done for the safety of the American people?
Like I said, you're whacked in the head if you think that illegal abortions (i.e. abortions without the consent of the parents) are the same thing as preventing people from immigrating here illegally.

Vinatieri for Prez

05-12-2006, 01:53 AM

I gotta weigh in on the whole AG thing because it's hilarious.

First, did anyone not even notice that when Kobeck started on his claim that the AG is the top law enforcement officer, he mentioned it was John Ashcroft?? Man, get up to date will you? I won't tell you who it is, but it isn't Ashcroft. So that's a quiz for you. Can you figure that one out? It's hard to get credibility for your argument when you start out on the wrong foot like that.

As for who truly is the top "law enforcement officer" in the U.S. (in terms of federal law - like immigration-- and not state law), let's first realize there is no actual position/title that exists. However, the answer as to who most closely fits that description is really quite easy if you actually read the Constitution.

Try reading Article II of the Constitution: " The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Article II also states however that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." It is well-settled that from this duty to enforce the criminal statutes of the United States (as stated in the second quote) stems his power as the individual with the ultimate authority to enforce U.S. law.

Since we are throwing around the term "top law enforcement officer," I don't think you can come to any other conclusion that the President is the top law enforcement officer in the United States with respect to federal law.

Now that last phrase does not say that he shall actually execute U.S. law but to make sure the laws are executed. As such, this is done through delegation to subordinates, including the AG

So, sorry Kobeck and Render, et al. but I think it is fairly clear that the person with the ultimate authority to ensure the laws are properly executed (and most aptly fits the definition of "top law enforcement officer") must be considered to be the president.

Frankly, since the NFL is not governed by the U.S. Constitution for its delegation of powers, that is a HORRIBLE analogy by whomever threw that out there.

For those really wanting to learn more, the exact relationship between the president and the AG is stated as such (via a 1903 opinion by the AG himself): "If it should be said that, the District Attorney having the power to discontinue the prosecution, there is no necessity for inferring a right in the President to direct him to exercise it--I answer that the direction of the President is not required to communicate any new authority to the District Attorney, but to direct him in the execution of a power he is admitted to possess. The most valuable and proper measure may often be for the President to order the District Attorney to discontinue prosecution. The District Attorney might refuse to obey the President's order; and if he did refuse, the prosecution, while he remained in office, would still go on; because the President himself could give no order to the court or to the clerk to make any particular entry. He could only act through his subordinate officer, the District Attorney, who is responsible to him and who holds his office at his pleasure. And if that officer still continues a prosecution which the President is satisfied ought not to continue, the removal of the disobedient officer and the substitution of one more worthy in his place would enable the President through him faithfully to execute the law. And it is for this among other reasons that the power of removing the District Attorney resides in the President.''

And from the Supreme Court which has held numerous times as a general rule that when any duty is cast by law upon the President [like here to ensure U.S. laws are faithfully executed], it may be exercised by him through the head of the appropriate department, whose acts, if performed within the law, thus become the President’s acts: "The President, in the exercise of his executive power under the Constitution, 'speaks and acts through the heads of the several departments in relation to subjects which appertain to their respective duties.' The heads of the departments are his authorized assistants in the performance of his executive duties, and their official acts, promulgated in the regular course of business, are presumptively his acts." Wilcox v. McConnel, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 498, 513 (1839). See also United States v. Eliason, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 291 (1842); Williams v. United States, 42 U.S. (1 How.) 290, 297 (1843); United States v. Jones, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 92, 95 (1856); The Confiscation Cases, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 92 (1874); United States v. Farden, 99 U.S. 10 (1879); Wolsey v. Chapman, 101 U.S. 755 (1880).

I think you're getting the picture. If U.S. laws are not being faithfully executed (like the immigration laws) it is the president's (and not the AG) duty under the Constitution to ensure they are, and he does this by getting another AG, which I think was the real reason this issue was brought up -- who to blame for not enforcing immigration laws. Isid said blame the president, and Kobeck said no, blame Ashcroft.

I fail to see how any individual who attempted to "enforce" a law could be considered the top law enforcer when he could be replaced at the whim of the president for doing so.

And goodnight Kobeck.

Flasch186

05-12-2006, 08:07 AM

big news today:

the authority has been given to send troops to the border

Pentagon eyes ways to use military for border security

Friday, May 12, 2006; Posted: 4:33 a.m. EDT (08:33 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Faced with growing pressure from Southern states, the Bush administration wants the military to come up with ideas to help solve security problems along the U.S. border with Mexico.

In back-to-back moves this week, the Pentagon began exploring ways to lend support at the Southern border, while the House on Thursday voted to allow the Homeland Security Department in limited cases to use soldiers in that region.

At the Pentagon, Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, asked officials to offer options for the use of military resources and troops -- particularly the National Guard -- along the border with Mexico, according to defense officials familiar with the discussions.

The officials, who requested anonymity because the matter has not been made public, said there were no details yet on a defense strategy.

Thursday's House vote allowed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to assign military personnel under certain circumstances to help the Homeland Security Department with border security. The vote was 252-171, and the provision was added to a larger military measure.

The actions underscored the importance of the border and immigration issues, yet were tentative enough to reflect worries about drawing the nation's armed forces into a politically sensitive domestic role.

Southern lawmakers met this week with White House strategist Karl Rove for a discussion that included making greater use of National Guard troops to shore up border control.

The Senate is poised to pass legislation this month that would call for additional border security, a new guest worker program and provisions opening the way to eventual citizenship for many of the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the country.

"The Texas delegation is very concerned about the border and are pushing urgency," said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, who joined other Texas Republicans in a meeting with Rove this week. He said Rove was "very forthright" about border projects that Homeland Security is starting up, its current projects and what the needs are.

Rep. Ken Marchant, R-Texas, who also attended the meeting, said the lawmakers left "very encouraged."

The search for a military solution strikes a familiar chord. After Hurricane Katrina, President Bush pushed for a stronger military role in disasters, saying the Pentagon was best able to launch massive operations on a moments notice.

Currently, the military plays a very limited role along the borders, but some armed forces have been used in the past to help battle drug traffickers. National Guard units, meanwhile, have been used at times by Southern and Western governors to provide assistance at border crossings.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano said the military help "is basically what she has been asking for," spokeswoman Jeanine L'Ecuyer said. Napolitano has been asking the Pentagon to send more National Guard troops -- but not regular military -- to confront illegal immigration from Mexico. About 170 National Guard troops are helping in such efforts in the state now.

Similarly, Texas Gov. Rick Perry hadn't specifically requested assistance from the military, but he liked the idea, according to spokeswoman Kathy Walt. "The assets are stretched thin, at least in Texas, because of the war on terror," she said. "The governor would welcome any effort by the federal government in meeting its responsibility to secure our border."

Defense officials said they have been asked to map out what military resources could be made available if needed, including options for using the National Guard under either state or federal control. The strategy also would explore the legal guidelines for use of the military on U.S. soil, the officials said.

The National Guard is generally under the control of the state governors, but Guard units can be federalized by the president, such as those sent to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Active duty military may not be used for law enforcement unless the president authorizes it.

Officials wrangled over the use of the active military during Hurricane Katrina, with some suggesting that troops be used for law enforcement to quell violence and looters in New Orleans. There were also suggestions that Bush federalize the National Guard there, but state officials opposed that proposal. In the end, neither move was made.

At its peak during Katrina, the military had about 22,000 active-duty troops in the Gulf region, along with about 50,000 National Guard troops operating under the state governors' command. The active-duty military provided ships, helicopters, search-and-rescue aid, evacuations and other assistance.

Afterward, Bush asked Pentagon officials to review ways to give the military a bigger role in responding to major disasters.

Under the Civil War-era Posse Comitatus Act, federal troops are prohibited from performing law enforcement actions, such as making arrests, seizing property or searching people. In extreme cases, however, the president can invoke the Insurrection Act, also from the Civil War, which allows him to use active-duty or National Guard troops for law enforcement.

Riggins44

05-12-2006, 06:28 PM

Studies show that over time, illegal immigrants are a net gain for the economy.

Like Bill Bennett recently said, if you abort all black babies in CA, crime would go down and you would stop the state of CA from having to pay for their incarceration. Is that something that needs to be done for the safety of the American people?

What studies? Does that take into account the number of lives the criminal element has wrecked? Or even the cost of jailing them?

You're going to compare killing babies to booting criminals (who have also illegally entered the country)? Dumb. :confused:

"Mrs. Johnson, sorry your son had to die at the hands of an illegal immigrant during that robbery... but we've been told that keeping out the illegals for your safety would be like killing black babies."

MrBigglesworth

05-12-2006, 06:44 PM

What studies? Does that take into account the number of lives the criminal element has wrecked? Or even the cost of jailing them?
Yes, over time, immigration grows the country and economy and even illegal immigrants are a net gain for society once they get assimilated. And then their children have children, etc. And then there is the immediate benefit of cheaper vegetables for me. Think of it like kids: they are a drain on society for 18 years, but we take care of kids and feed them and school them because it is an investment for the future. Same with immigrants.

I don't know how you are quantifying 'lives the criminal element has wrecked', but there are many more lives of immigrants better off for coming to the country, and eventually many more American citizen lives better off than are ever 'wrecked'.

You're going to compare killing babies to booting criminals (who have also illegally entered the country)? Dumb. :confused:
Like I mentioned before, it's based off of the same false premise. Yes, there will be less crime if all the illegals are deported, just as there will be less crime if all the black babies are aborted. But there would be less crime if all the poor people were killed, or all white people were killed. Less people means less crime.

Riggins44

05-12-2006, 07:24 PM

Yes, over time, immigration grows the country and economy and even illegal immigrants are a net gain for society once they get assimilated. And then their children have children, etc. And then there is the immediate benefit of cheaper vegetables for me. Think of it like kids: they are a drain on society for 18 years, but we take care of kids and feed them and school them because it is an investment for the future. Same with immigrants.

I don't know how you are quantifying 'lives the criminal element has wrecked', but there are many more lives of immigrants better off for coming to the country, and eventually many more American citizen lives better off than are ever 'wrecked'.

Like I mentioned before, it's based off of the same false premise. Yes, there will be less crime if all the illegals are deported, just as there will be less crime if all the black babies are aborted. But there would be less crime if all the poor people were killed, or all white people were killed. Less people means less crime.

We have enough people. There are no shortages. These people are breaking the law by entering. Some are breaking additional laws that costs a lot of money (and harm people in some cases). Most of their wages are not taxable (under the table). Most do not learn our country's history, customs & language. Most don't really know what freedom is or understand the principles of our government. You get enough of these people and things are going to change. I'd argue not in a positive way. And I'd also argue on the economic side being worse as well (see CA. hospitals & schools).

We'll agree to disagree. Perhaps if you move out to CA. you'll see things differently.

Bubba Wheels

05-12-2006, 07:58 PM

Studies show that over time, illegal immigrants are a net gain for the economy.

So what? Studies would also probably prove that over time, those getting rich from illegal activities (like the Kennedy's getting rich by bootlegging during prohibition) want to 'go straight' later on in life so they can be considered 'legitimate' for themselves and their families. Does that make the initial illegal activities any more right or acceptable?

And studies also show that one in ten incarcerated in California State Prisions is an illegal immigrant/alien. So how many innocent folks in this country will have to pay the price from illegal immigrant criminals preying on them before we can sort out who should be allowed into this country and who should not.

That last statement I make seems to be the biggest point lost on those advocating 'open borders.' Those advocating such never seem to mind that while U.S. citizens convicted of, say, sexual offenses have to register with state authorities there is no way of tracking illegal sex offenders or others until some legal U.S. resident pays the price for it first.

Control of the borders means just that...allowing the good folks in and keeping the bad folks out. That is perogative of the U.S. and its citizens, not that of foreign governments like Mexico.

Bubba Wheels

05-12-2006, 08:05 PM

Really though: Bush has asserted his right to break any law in the name of national security. What prevents him from ordering an AG to supervent the law?

Bush wants to track Al Quedda by intercepting phone calls going to and coming from known or suspected associates. The phone calls are going into and out of the country.

You want to see a real curtail of individual rights in this country? Let another attack happen here that could have been prevented from measures like this and, if enough people get hurt or damage is done, we may someday see the military taking charge of everything in the name of security. Good luck crying about you're rights when that happens.

MrBigglesworth

05-12-2006, 08:33 PM

Bush wants to track Al Quedda by intercepting phone calls going to and coming from known or suspected associates. The phone calls are going into and out of the country.
Bubba, answer this for me: if they are known Al-Q associates, why aren't they just being arrested? If they are suspected Al-Q associates, why can't they get a warrant for the phone taps?

/actively awaits 'liberal activist judges' comment

You want to see a real curtail of individual rights in this country? Let another attack happen here that could have been prevented from measures like this and, if enough people get hurt or damage is done, we may someday see the military taking charge of everything in the name of security. Good luck crying about you're rights when that happens.
So you think we should give away our rights because if we don't, in the future they might take away our rights?

MrBigglesworth

05-12-2006, 08:41 PM

We have enough people. There are no shortages.
This one is easy to answer: if there are no shortages, why are people coming in? Immigration works just like any other economic system, supply and demand.

These people are breaking the law by entering.
I agree, the laws need to be changed (allowing more people in legally) or enforced (punishing businesses that hire illegals). I would prefer the former.

Some are breaking additional laws that costs a lot of money (and harm people in some cases).
A vast majority are just trying to make a living.

Most of their wages are not taxable (under the table).
Simple fix. Create a system that legalizes them and/or cracks down on businesses that hire them.

Most do not learn our country's history, customs & language. Most don't really know what freedom is or understand the principles of our government. You get enough of these people and things are going to change. I'd argue not in a positive way.
This same old story was said about the blacks, the Irish, the Chinese, the Germans, etc. They all assimilated fine, what would make hispanics any different? They have already been assimilated over the past 200 years without any problems.

And I'd also argue on the economic side being worse as well (see CA. hospitals & schools).
If you are worried about health care, a much more effective solution would be to lobby for universal health care, not kicking out brown people.

WVUFAN

05-12-2006, 09:15 PM

Bubba, answer this for me: if they are known Al-Q associates, why aren't they just being arrested? If they are suspected Al-Q associates, why can't they get a warrant for the phone taps?

/actively awaits 'liberal activist judges' comment

Because, much like arresting low level drug dealers, you sometimes just track what they're doing to go after the higher level providers. It's sometimes not in the best interest to arrest or detain one or two operatives, when tracking them leads to a larger number found and taken care of.

I will say this again -- no rights are being abused by these phone records. No one, NO ONE is "entitled" to a right to protect your phone records.

So you think we should give away our rights because if we don't, in the future they might take away our rights?

No one's taking your rights away by this, so your question is moot.

dawgfan

05-12-2006, 09:35 PM

So what? Studies would also probably prove that over time, those getting rich from illegal activities (like the Kennedy's getting rich by bootlegging during prohibition) want to 'go straight' later on in life so they can be considered 'legitimate' for themselves and their families. Does that make the initial illegal activities any more right or acceptable?
I don't think you're quite getting the point of the study (assuming the study is correct) - that there is a net gain to the economy from illegal immigrants in that their lower labor costs translate into enough of a savings for consumers that this outweighs the loss of income tax and the drain on state and federal services.

If this is indeed true, it paints a pretty clear picture of why there doesn't seem to be a high priority placed on combating the number of illegal aliens in the country.

I think it's quite a stretch to compare the crimes of entering the country illegally with things you're suggesting, such as drug smuggling and gangster activities like extortion, theft, racketeering, etc.

MrBigglesworth

05-12-2006, 09:37 PM

Because, much like arresting low level drug dealers, you sometimes just track what they're doing to go after the higher level providers. It's sometimes not in the best interest to arrest or detain one or two operatives, when tracking them leads to a larger number found and taken care of.

I will say this again -- no rights are being abused by these phone records. No one, NO ONE is "entitled" to a right to protect your phone records.

No one's taking your rights away by this, so your question is moot.
Bubba was actually talking about intercepting phone calls, not datamining the numbers, so your rebuttal is mostly moot. And according to the law, I do have a right to not have my phone records go right to the government without a court order. Weird, you seem to be all about the law in regards to immigration, but don't seem to care one way or the other when it comes to the NSA.

Because, much like arresting low level drug dealers, you sometimes just track what they're doing to go after the higher level providers. It's sometimes not in the best interest to arrest or detain one or two operatives, when tracking them leads to a larger number found and taken care of.
Fair enough, but when the FBI or DEA looks at low level drug dealers, they get a warrant first. Why doesn't the NSA just get a warrant to look at these low-level Al-Q evildoers?

WVUFAN

05-12-2006, 09:50 PM

And according to the law, I do have a right to not have my phone records go right to the government without a court order.

No, you do not.

Smith v Maryland -- http://supreme.justia.com/us/442/735/

From the decision:

First, we doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills."

"Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not "one that society is prepared to recognize as `reasonable.'" Katz v. United States, 389 U.S., at 361. This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he
voluntarily turns over to third parties. E. g., United States v. Miller, 425 U.S., at 442-444; Couch v. United States, 409 U.S., at 335-336; United States v. White, 401 U.S., at 752 (plurality opinion); Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 302 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/385/293/case.html#302) (1966); Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/373/427/case.html) (1963). In Miller, for example, the Court held that a bank depositor has no "legitimate `expectation of privacy'" in financial information "voluntarily conveyed to . . . banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business."

Basically, you do not have a right to keep your phone records private, because by using the phone, you are knowingly allowing the information about that call to be kept by the phone company. It's not an privacy issue, and hense a court order is NOT required.

MrBigglesworth

05-12-2006, 10:00 PM

No, you do not.

Smith v Maryland -- http://supreme.justia.com/us/442/735/

From the decision:

Basically, you do not have a right to keep your phone records private, because by using the phone, you are knowingly allowing the information about that call to be kept by the phone company. It's not an privacy issue, and hense a court order is NOT required.
You need to update your talking points. That case said that phone records could be used without a warrant, which nobody denies. However, the Stored Communications Act, Section 2703(c) (http://www.cybercrime.gov/ECPA2701_2712.htm), provides exactly five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber: (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.” Since none of these 5 apply, the telco's can most likely be held liable.

Besides, if it was legal, why didn't the NSA comply to Qwest's requests for an order from the FISA court or for a letter from the AG? The fact is, the Bush administration has had countless opportunities to test the legalities of their theories, but have chosen not to. I wonder why?

Vinatieri for Prez

05-12-2006, 10:11 PM

Yep. WVUFan is dead wrong. It's not unconstitutional (as he points out), but it clearly violates the Stored Comm. Act, the federal statute which absolutely does require a court order, warrant, subpoena to get the records. So get your facts right, please.

Interestingly, however, it is the telephone companies that broke the law. With respect to the government, one could argue they conspired with the telephone companies to break the statute.

I fully expect a class action against the phone companies on this. All except Qwest of course, who actually decided to follow the law here. At $1,000/person for 10 million citizens, that is a lot of coin.

And yes, the fact the government would not go to FISA or get a letter from the AG speaks volumes. It takes nothing but a phone call to either to get the authority, so you have to ask yourself why they didn't. The answer is quite obvious.

IwasHere

05-12-2006, 10:56 PM

I think it's quite a stretch to compare the crimes of entering the country illegally with things you're suggesting, such as drug smuggling and gangster activities like extortion, theft, racketeering, etc.
Are you trying to say that none of the illegals entering this country have any type of criminal record?

I am pretty sure that some of the illegal aliens are entering this country because of their criminal records in the country they are fleeing from.

Riggins44

05-12-2006, 11:11 PM

This one is easy to answer: if there are no shortages, why are people coming in? Immigration works just like any other economic system, supply and demand.

I agree, the laws need to be changed (allowing more people in legally) or enforced (punishing businesses that hire illegals). I would prefer the former.

A vast majority are just trying to make a living.

Simple fix. Create a system that legalizes them and/or cracks down on businesses that hire them.

This same old story was said about the blacks, the Irish, the Chinese, the Germans, etc. They all assimilated fine, what would make hispanics any different? They have already been assimilated over the past 200 years without any problems.

If you are worried about health care, a much more effective solution would be to lobby for universal health care, not kicking out brown people.

Let's recap your points:

- If you want secure borders you have a thing against brown people.

- If the illegals are coming... make them legal. Problem solved.

- If the flood of illegals (err. legals now) is too much for the hospitals... socialize it. Makes sense since the government can't protect the border..surely they can manage a universal health care. Maybe take another 10% of our pay for the schools while we're at it.

- The 29% of the prison pop. is justified because we shouldn't discriminate against people that shouldn't even be here...???? Oh no, because black people commit crimes too...that's right. :rolleyes:

- You will soon be waiting at the border with a gift basket and a "thanks for invading" letter. :p

Perhaps if PA bordered a third world country, you'd have a different perspective. The flow has to be regulated.

WVUFAN

05-12-2006, 11:12 PM

Yep. WVUFan is dead wrong. It's not unconstitutional (as he points out), but it clearly violates the Stored Comm. Act, the federal statute which absolutely does require a court order, warrant, subpoena to get the records. So get your facts right, please.

No, you're still wrong. The Stored Communications Act applied only to PHYSICAL records of calls and reports, ie, names, addresses, ect of customers. As the USA Today report noted, and I quote (since I read the article): "Phone customers’ names, addresses and other personal information are not being collected as part of this program"

The SCA does not apply, and this is solely under the premise of Smith v Maryland, which was cited specifically by the Administration.

And to answer Mr. Bigglesworth's question as to why the government wouldn't just asked for a FISA warrant -- why would they get a warrant when none is required? The information being processed does not require a warrant, and certainly isn't protected under the Constitution.

Riggins44

05-12-2006, 11:14 PM

Bush wants to track Al Quedda by intercepting phone calls going to and coming from known or suspected associates. The phone calls are going into and out of the country.

You want to see a real curtail of individual rights in this country? Let another attack happen here that could have been prevented from measures like this and, if enough people get hurt or damage is done, we may someday see the military taking charge of everything in the name of security. Good luck crying about you're rights when that happens.

If Bush had any great concern about terrorism he'd protect the borders. Makes no sense to be stripping away our rights when he (government) doesn't even protect our borders with Mexico and Canada.

ISiddiqui

05-12-2006, 11:27 PM

No, you're still wrong. The Stored Communications Act applied only to PHYSICAL records of calls and reports, ie, names, addresses, ect of customers. As the USA Today report noted, and I quote (since I read the article): "Phone customers’ names, addresses and other personal information are not being collected as part of this program"

The SCA does not apply, and this is solely under the premise of Smith v Maryland, which was cited specifically by the Administration.

Wrong. Look at (c)(2)(c). The NSA is undoubtably collecting "connection records" from the providers. Since it is listed as something to be given up in response to a exemption in (c)(1), it seems clear that it is considered a 'record' as falls under the statute:

<center> (c) Records concerning electronic communication service or remote computing service.--(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications) only when the governmental entity--

</center> <center> (A) obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant;
</center> <center>
(B) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;
</center> <center>
(C) has the consent of the subscriber or customer to such disclosure; or
</center> <center>
(D) submits a formal written request relevant to a law enforcement investigation concerning telemarketing fraud for the name, address, and place of business of a subscriber or customer of such provider, which subscriber or customer is engaged in telemarketing (as such term is defined in section 2325 of this title); or
</center> <center>
(E) seeks information under paragraph (2).

</center> <center> </center> <center> (2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the--

</center> <center> (A) name;
</center> <center>
(B) address;
</center> <center>
(C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;
</center> <center>
(D) length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;
</center> <center>
(E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and
</center> <center>
(F) means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number),
</center> <center>
of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1).

</center>

ISiddiqui

05-12-2006, 11:29 PM

And to answer Mr. Bigglesworth's question as to why the government wouldn't just asked for a FISA warrant -- why would they get a warrant when none is required? The information being processed does not require a warrant, and certainly isn't protected under the Constitution.

Then why aren't they suing Qwest in that case?

MrBigglesworth

05-12-2006, 11:32 PM

WVUFAN

05-12-2006, 11:33 PM

Where did you get this from? Cite the source, please.

ISiddiqui

05-12-2006, 11:35 PM

Oh please :rolleyes:. Now you are questioning the source?

It's from the link in Mr. Bigglesworth's post, you know, from the US DOJ?

MrBigglesworth

05-12-2006, 11:43 PM

Let's recap your points:
Don't quit your day job and become a recapper, because you are very bad at it. Unless FoxNews is hiring.

- If you want secure borders you have a thing against brown people.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that, but talking about how all brown people are criminals doesn't really help your case much.

- If the illegals are coming... make them legal. Problem solved.
Maybe you haven't been keeping up with the debate here, so I'll cut you some slack and explain it again: they are here to say. We have neither the funds, nor the manpower, nor the ability, nor the desire to kick out however many million illegals there are. Therefore we are faced with a problem. The easiest way to solve it is to put those that are here on a fast track to citizenship, allow more legal immigration, and punish businesses that engage in hiring illegals.

- If the flood of illegals (err. legals now) is too much for the hospitals... socialize it. Makes sense since the government can't protect the border..surely they can manage a universal health care. Maybe take another 10% of our pay for the schools while we're at it.
I'm not sure where I said anything about socializing anything. I did say that you would get more of a benefit to the health care system by turning it into a universal system than you would by letting the illegals die. The VA is a single payer system managed by the government, and it is the best medical system in the country.

- The 29% of the prison pop. is justified because we shouldn't discriminate against people that shouldn't even be here...???? Oh no, because black people commit crimes too...that's right. :rolleyes:
I believe you pulled that 29% number out of your ass. California's is only 1/10, and the highest national rate I found was 11%. Being that studies have put the illegal immigrant population as high as 20 million, that is just about what I would expect it to be.

- You will soon be waiting at the border with a gift basket and a "thanks for invading" letter. :p
Hmmm, that doesn't sound like my plan at all.

WVUFAN

05-12-2006, 11:43 PM

The courts have held that a phone number is an indentifying piece of information, the reason being obvious: you can trace a number back to a name and address using any of several widely available services. So you are still wrong.

So, you're saying phone books are illegal? Phone numbers, or "records" as you would like to say, are listed there, and hense can be traceable. My phone number is listed, but I never gave permission for it to be. As a matter of fact, you have to PAY to get it unlisted. If this is such a "right" as you say, this wouldn't be possible.

Or does the government and law enforcement actually have LESS rights than normal citizens do?

By the way, I know this for a FACT since I have a brother and an uncle in law enforcement, that a police officer may get a full customer phone report without a warrant. It's not considered a search.

We've already established that we need (i) a warrant; (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.”. But suppose you are right, then why couldn't they be bothered to get a letter from the AG to satisfy Qwest's laywers' concerns?

Again, it's not established, since you're wrong, and 2)if a warrant isn't required, it's wasteful to try and get one.

The libs will cry to the heavens about this, much like the wiretapping "scandal" a few months ago. We know how much came of that ... nothing.

MrBigglesworth

05-12-2006, 11:46 PM

Where did you get this from? Cite the source, please.
Link was in my first post on the act:

http://www.cybercrime.gov/ECPA2701_2712.htm

Section 2703.

WVUFAN

05-12-2006, 11:52 PM

Don't quit your day job and become a recapper, because you are very bad at it. Unless FoxNews is hiring.

Better than CNN, or the Clinton News Network, as it used to be called. At least now there's a balance for it.

Maybe you haven't been keeping up with the debate here, so I'll cut you some slack and explain it again: they are here to say. We have neither the funds, nor the manpower, nor the ability, nor the desire to kick out however many million illegals there are.

Who's "we"? 78% of the American people, according to the most recent CNN poll, think the solution is to use the funds, hire the manpower, and HAVE the ability and the desire to kick out the illegals. What they don't want is for us to raise our hands in the air, give up and accept that these people are here illegally.

Therefore we are faced with a problem. The easiest way to solve it is to put those that are here on a fast track to citizenship, allow more legal immigration, and punish businesses that engage in hiring illegals.

One out of 3 is right. I agree that punishing business that hire illegals is absolutely right. Illegals aliens should NEVER, NEVER be rewarded with citizenship under any circumstances, nor should there be any more immigration than there is right now.

Hell, there's too much right now.

I'm not sure where I said anything about socializing anything. I did say that you would get more of a benefit to the health care system by turning it into a universal system than you would by letting the illegals die. The VA is a single payer system managed by the government, and it is the best medical system in the country.

Except that a universal health care, as proved by the Canadian system, lowers the quality of health care for everyone. I have a good health care plan -- I don't see why my standards should be lowered for someone else's benefit.

Being that studies have put the illegal immigrant population as high as 20 million, that is just about what I would expect it to be.

Which is ... oh, 20 million too many.

MrBigglesworth

05-12-2006, 11:54 PM

So, you're saying phone books are illegal? Phone numbers, or "records" as you would like to say, are listed there, and hense can be traceable. My phone number is listed, but I never gave permission for it to be. As a matter of fact, you have to PAY to get it unlisted. If this is such a "right" as you say, this wouldn't be possible.

Or does the government and law enforcement actually have LESS rights than normal citizens do?

By the way, I know this for a FACT since I have a brother and an uncle in law enforcement, that a police officer may get a full customer phone report without a warrant. It's not considered a search.
Ummm...I don't think you understand what is going on here. The government has asked for phone records, which include both sides of a phone call and when the calls were. AT&T isn't just sending phone numbers. They are sending who that phone number called and when. That is not something that is public domain available in the phone book. I do not think you have a full understanding of this situation.

Again, it's not established, since you're wrong, and 2)if a warrant isn't required, it's wasteful to try and get one.
You are right, a warrant is not required. They could also get (ii) a court order; (iii) the customer’s consent; (iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or (v) by “administrative subpoena.” Get it?

The libs will cry to the heavens about this, much like the wiretapping "scandal" a few months ago. We know how much came of that ... nothing.
Nothing came of that...except Bush's popularity heading into the twenties and his disapproval approaching Nixonian levels. And investigations launched by his own party, currently ongoing but being obstructed. And more revelations coming early next week. Nothing besides that.

Why did the NSA deny the request from Qwest's lawyer to get a letter from the AG? I mean, this is integral to the national security of the country, and the program has been going on for almost 5 years, certainly in that time, for the safety of the nation, they would have gotten a simple letter explaining to Qwest the legality of the program, right? What possible reason would they not get that letter?

WVUFAN

05-12-2006, 11:55 PM

Oh please :rolleyes:. Now you are questioning the source?

It's from the link in Mr. Bigglesworth's post, you know, from the US DOJ?

Cool. Thought you were quoting a separate thing.

MrBigglesworth

05-13-2006, 12:02 AM

Except that a universal health care, as proved by the Canadian system, lowers the quality of health care for everyone. I have a good health care plan -- I don't see why my standards should be lowered for someone else's benefit.
I'm beginning to think you have no grasp of facts. Canada is better on pretty much every health care stat:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm

And they spend 10% of their GDP on healthcare, compared to 14% for us. That obviously does not support your contention that the Canadians system lowers the quality of health care for everyone. Canada's government spends less per capita than our government does, and we don't even cover 60% of the population.

Furthermore, why would we even need the Canadian system? The French system has a universal single payer floor with the ability to pay for better service. They keep competition in the system, and it performs great at half the cost.

Grammaticus

05-13-2006, 01:48 AM

I'm beginning to think you have no grasp of facts. Canada is better on pretty much every health care stat:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm

And they spend 10% of their GDP on healthcare, compared to 14% for us. That obviously does not support your contention that the Canadians system lowers the quality of health care for everyone. Canada's government spends less per capita than our government does, and we don't even cover 60% of the population.

Furthermore, why would we even need the Canadian system? The French system has a universal single payer floor with the ability to pay for better service. They keep competition in the system, and it performs great at half the cost.
For starters, I have no idea if these stats are even correct. The CDC lists the average life expectancy in the U.S. as 77.3 years. Your link shows a blended avg. of male and female as 75.1 years. The CDC shows the Infant Mortality Rate as 7.0 deaths per 1,000 live births and your site shows it as 10. The correct number of 7 would be better than most of the nations listed on your link. Even if your stats are correct, who says those stats are what defines quality health care?

Grammaticus

05-13-2006, 02:07 AM

Dola, additionally the CDC tracked data for adolescents as 15-19, where your data tracked that group as 15-24. Either way, the rate per 100,000 was 67.8. Which trasnslates to 135.6 per 200,000. Your data said it was 203. Way off and the 135 puts the US in better shape than most of the countries on your list. The top three reason in the US for deaths in this age group were from Accidents (unintentional injuries), Homicide and Suicide. All three of which do not have much to do with the quality of health care. An argument could be made for suicide, but that can also be argued to have as much to do with screwed up social policy, amongst many other things.

Grammaticus

05-13-2006, 02:09 AM

Dola,

Here is the CDC link for reference

hxxp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/Default.htm

MrBigglesworth

05-13-2006, 02:12 AM

For starters, I have no idea if these stats are even correct. The CDC lists the average life expectancy in the U.S. as 77.3 years. Your link shows a blended avg. of male and female as 75.1 years. The CDC shows the Infant Mortality Rate as 7.0 deaths per 1,000 live births and your site shows it as 10. The correct number of 7 would be better than most of the nations listed on your link. Even if your stats are correct, who says those stats are what defines quality health care?
These stats actually change every year.

Infant Mortality
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

Life Expectancy
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Do you have a better way to measure healthcare?

Vinatieri for Prez

05-13-2006, 11:26 AM

WVU, C'mon and open your eyes, please. Quit defending for the sake of doing it. And you really must be careful of your sources, and actually review the opposing ones. You may disagree that the Act should have been passed to prevent this, but that is a different story. Think about this for a second:

A simple phone call is all that was needed to FISA or the AG to get the records - I mean a simple phone call is all the gov't had to do in the last 5 years to satisfy Qwest's concerns. And they don't do that (regardless as you say whether it was needed). As said above, if it was so important to national security, they couldn't do that? Instead, they go without the records for 5 years. There is only one explanation for this. The gov't knew the Act prevented it. It doesn't get any simpler than that. And if they didn't like the Act, they could have asked Congress to change it (like they did a lot of other things in the Patriot Act), I mean why not if the Republicans controlled it. Well, it's because they knew Congress and the public would go nuts. I don't know why you can't grasp the incongruities in the gov't's actions here.