U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-26-2010, 11:28 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,691 posts, read 86,825,558 times
Reputation: 29355

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bambam0084 View Post
Agreed. Honestly, but I still feel like the argument can be made that if they are fighting over seas, in what appears to be a policing capacity, why can they not do it here? With the national security lapse involved with random people crossing I think it should receive more attention. I am personally far more worried about that than Osama Bin Hiden half way around the world. Ya know?

I do see your point tho.
The policing action In Iraq and Afghanistan is incidental to the military mission. The military has a degree of authority and autonomy over there that they would never have on American soil in peacetime -- nor should they unless we're prepared to get cozy with a police state. If the true basis of your complaint that we don't take border security seriously, then the answer is to increase staffing of Border Patrol agents, as they are an agency trained for the very different mission of dealing with non-combatants and therefore better suited for the task.

 
Old 01-26-2010, 11:32 PM
 
Location: Texas
470 posts, read 508,277 times
Reputation: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
The policing action In Iraq and Afghanistan is incidental to the military mission. The military has a degree of authority and autonomy over there that they would never have on American soil in peacetime -- nor should they unless we're prepared to get cozy with a police state. If the true basis of your complaint that we don't take border security seriously, then the answer is to increase staffing of Border Patrol agents, as they are an agency trained for the very different mission of dealing with non-combatants and therefore better suited for the job.
How is the Border patrol funded? Are they included in defense spending? If so could it really be as simple as redirecting funds that direction? If so that may be an easy fix. That way we don't have to increase spending, but we get the results.

Edit: just found it, it's the DHS.
 
Old 01-26-2010, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,691 posts, read 86,825,558 times
Reputation: 29355
Border Patrol is part of DHS.
 
Old 01-26-2010, 11:38 PM
 
Location: Texas
470 posts, read 508,277 times
Reputation: 135
No I wish I hadn't searched for this..

We spend just over 10 billion annually on securing our borders.

That number seems oddly low in the era of bank and auto bailouts.
 
Old 01-26-2010, 11:41 PM
 
1,807 posts, read 2,791,627 times
Reputation: 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambam0084 View Post
1- I agree with this part except for the end. No one expects the fed to deal with local and state issues. Unless they are way lefties. This is a national issue though due to its international implications.
2-Crimes of opportunity are still crimes. If you leave your car unlocked and I steal it does that make it YOUR fault? I think not.
it would be partly my fault in my opinion.. however i see your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambam0084 View Post
3-I think the collective "our" that was used was to include members of this illegal immigration forum more so than people in general. We are in the illegal immigration forum after all.
i doubt it, and even if it were true, i'd find it odd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bambam0084 View Post
4-This is an invasion. Whether or not it is passive is up for debate. It was best stated by Edward J. Erler who said, "A radical change in the character of the citizens would be tantamount to a regime change just a surely as a revolution in its political principals."
according to this logic the irish were also invaders.. boston had a population of around 100k and during the first year of the potato famine there were 37k irish arriving in boston, accounting for 32% of the population. was that an "invasion?"
12 million "invaders" came to the eastern united states between 1870 and 1900.
Normandy in ww2 to me seems like a more appropriate use of the word "invasion." Or the US invading Panama, Cuba.. iraq invading kuwait.. etc

---
despite all of this, i would fully agree with you that putting troops on the border (BOTH borders, as a poster previously mentioned) would be a better usage of my tax money in my opinion than sending soldiers to iraq and afghanistan.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 08:10 AM
 
1,150 posts, read 991,320 times
Reputation: 369
Due to the Posse Comitatus Act, the regular army can't operate within the borders of the US except with a special authorization from Congress. The National Guard was created to operate within the borders, but only under the authority of the individual states, not the federal government. This was done to keep the federal government from becoming too powerful.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 08:24 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,152,437 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by expect View Post
it would be partly my fault in my opinion.. however i see your point.


i doubt it, and even if it were true, i'd find it odd.



according to this logic the irish were also invaders.. boston had a population of around 100k and during the first year of the potato famine there were 37k irish arriving in boston, accounting for 32% of the population. was that an "invasion?"
12 million "invaders" came to the eastern united states between 1870 and 1900.
Normandy in ww2 to me seems like a more appropriate use of the word "invasion." Or the US invading Panama, Cuba.. iraq invading kuwait.. etc

---
despite all of this, i would fully agree with you that putting troops on the border (BOTH borders, as a poster previously mentioned) would be a better usage of my tax money in my opinion than sending soldiers to iraq and afghanistan.
According to the dictionary an invasion is an uninvited intrusion. To my knowledge the Irish didn't come here uninvited by the U.S. government so no, they weren't invaders.
 
Old 01-27-2010, 08:28 AM
Status: "Make America the Great Joke Again" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: Denver
9,060 posts, read 15,472,876 times
Reputation: 5288
Quote:
Originally Posted by LZKay1 View Post
I Why won't the U.S. Army fight off illegal Mexicans?
Because they haven't been ordered to.

(Easy question...next)
 
Old 01-27-2010, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,816,809 times
Reputation: 3028
Apparently, even the Mexican military can cross our borders without a response from our government.

Quote:
In August 2008, a Mexican military contingent held at gunpoint a U.S. Border Patrol agent. The incident occurred well inside the U.S. border, about 100 miles southwest of Tucson. The Mexican soldier eventually released the agent and returned to Mexico.

Shortly after the standoff, union Local 2544 of the National Border Patrol Council posted the following statement on their website: "Unfortunately, this sort of behavior by Mexican military personnel has been going on for years. They are never held accountable, and the United States government will undoubtedly brush this off as another case of 'Oh well, they didn't know they were in the United States.'

In January 2008, the Department of Homeland Security reported that since 1996, there had been 278 known incursions by the Mexican military into the United States. They are often seen providing armed escort to drug smugglers. Incredibly, the Mexican military now enters our nation at will, with no response from the U.S. government.
The Mexican military regularly enters this country on behalf of drug dealers

Quote:
On March 14, Mexican Army troops entered U.S. territory in New Mexico and fired their weapons as they pursued U.S. Border Patrol agents.

Border Patrol union officials claim that the episode was an attempt by Mexican troops to collect on the $200,000 bounty that the Juarez drug cartel has put on the heads of U.S. Border Patrol agents. The local Border Patrol chief, however, thwarted an investigation of the incident by releasing the Mexicans back across the border without ever informing the FBI that they had been captured and detained.
Mexican Army enters U.S. and fires on border patrol - Human Events | Encyclopedia.com (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P3-52162095.html - broken link)

Quote:
Four Mexican army soldiers entered southern Arizona and pointed their rifles at a U.S. Border Patrol agent early this week, the Border Patrol said.

The incident Sunday was the Mexican military's 43rd incursion across the U.S. border since October, the agency said. However, it was unusual because firearms were involved. The Border Patrol and the Mexican government are investigating, Border Patrol spokesman Mike Scioli said.

The soldiers held their weapons on the agent for several minutes until he identified himself in Spanish, whereupon they lowered their guns and walked back across a gap in the fence, Scioli said.

In Washington, D.C., State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said the encounter "stemmed from a momentary misunderstanding as to the exact location of the U.S.-Mexican border."
Mexican soldiers enter state, hold border agent at gunpoint
 
Old 01-27-2010, 11:41 AM
 
Location: California
706 posts, read 796,367 times
Reputation: 179
[quote=Jayarcy;12632993]Due to the Posse Comitatus Act, the regular army can't operate within the borders of the US except with a special authorization from Congress. The National Guard was created to operate within the borders, but only under the authority of the individual states, not the federal government. This was done to keep the federal government from becoming too powerful.[/quote]


I wonder how the "Council Of Governors" fits into the equation ?

BL

"Responding to an executive order by President Obama, a new push is under way for states to adopt laws limiting the use of their National Guard units unless there is an invasion, insurrection or other limited circumstance.

The recent order, posted on the White House website, was accompanied by the explanation that the group is to work "to protect our nation against all types of hazards."
The White House said the new council is to include governors and administration officials to review "such matters as involving the National Guard of the various states; homeland defense, civil support; synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."
However, there was no definition of the group's authority. Can the council recommend "military activities" and can the governors, who already are in command of their own state guard units, mandate activities outside of their areas of jurisdiction? "

States' rights rebellion over National Guard
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top