I heard about this on our local talk radio show, WLS 890. At the border in Hudspeth county, the TV station was recording and saw the armed men, the site has pictures and the video from the incident. the hosts from 890 were down there just a few weeks ago. They are holding hearings in D.C. about this today, but I cannot find a link to that :paranoid, just heard abouti t on the radio station. Here's a plan, stop talking about it, and do something about it iceholes. :boom
some pictures from the radio hosts trip
http://www.wlsam.com/photoalbum.asp?DJID=23506
The KFOX tv report.
http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/6666879/detail.html#
We're totally being invaded.
yeah, I'm worried about the mexican military (insert PG I have nothing but sarcasm to contribute).
Don't we have a band of armed redneck idiot vigilantes down there, hopped up on meth and Bud, looking to shoot? What the hell good are they if they don't murder people??
Well if the government won't pay for supporting our borders, normal citizens tried to step up to do it. Too bad our press and others pasted them as rednecks/ racists /vigilantes, looking to kill illegal aliens. When all they did was set up lawn chairs (yes lawn chairs in the desert has a redneck feel) on the border area and advise the border patrol of what was going on.
Even Bush denounced these paramilitary (white supremecist supported) vigilantes border patrol idiots. They're not concerned citizens, they're fools with guns looking for trouble. I hope some dirty wetback drug smuggler blows their farging brains out with his own gun, teach them a lesson about messing around with Mexicans. Don't Mess with Mexico!
Quote from: Diomedes on February 07, 2006, 11:06:27 AM
Even Bush denounced these paramilitary (white supremecist supported) vigilantes border patrol idiots. They're not concerned citizens, they're fools with guns looking for trouble. I hope some dirty wetback drug smuggler blows their farging brains out with his own gun, teach them a lesson about messing around with Mexicans. Don't Mess with Mexico!
There can always be bad people in any kind of action, I wouldn't doubt there was support by white supremecist groups in the border patrol. Bush is a moron for not taking our border serious. How easy would it be (has been) for terrorists to enter this nation.
Well i for one think we should close our borders entirely. God forbid we allow people from other countries into this country that is populated entirely by non-indiginous people with non-indiginous ancestors. A country who's very foundation was designed to to be one of inclusion. Shut em all out! It's totally worth turning our back on centuries of opened arms because a few dozen criminals have crossed our borders.
Quote from: rjs246 on February 07, 2006, 01:04:45 PM
Well i for one think we should close our borders entirely. God forbid we allow people from other countries into this country that is populated entirely by non-indiginous people with non-indiginous ancestors. A country who's very foundation was designed to to be one of inclusion. Shut em all out! It's totally worth turning our back on centuries of opened arms because a few dozen criminals have crossed our borders.
Opened arms legally, I have no problem with people coming to this nation Legally. My work force is 30% mexican, and all legal. These people are breaking the law to get into this country, and we are supposed to welcome them with open arms? Would you rather have borders that are completely open, with no control?
Quote from: phillymic2000 on February 07, 2006, 03:07:06 PMWould you rather have borders that are completely open, with no control?
Sounds good to me. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You want to rape Mexican natural resources, using slave labor to do it, and reap the (unnatural) profits into the U.S., then you should take the same free market stance regarding immigration. Until our policy isn't directly responsible for the poverty these people flee, we cannot expect them to respect our laws. We're getting filthy rich on their land and labor. It's only fair to let them try the same.
Annex Mexico!
Mexican water gives me serious mud butt.
Quote from: Diomedes on February 07, 2006, 03:21:37 PM
Sounds good to me. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You want to rape Mexican natural resources, using slave labor to do it, and reap the (unnatural) profits into the U.S., then you should take the same free market stance regarding immigration. Until our policy isn't directly responsible for the poverty these people flee, we cannot expect them to respect our laws. We're getting filthy rich on their land and labor. It's only fair to let them try the same.
How are we raping natural resources? How are we using slave labor? The guys who work for me make $11.40 an hour to clean schools, and are part of a union. If you are talking about our corporations in Mexico, it could have something to do with our Governments high tax rate for companies and the cheaper labor down in Mexico, but that's not the union's faults up here in the states, nope that only falls on the big bad corporations. To blame the poverty of Mexico on us is just insane, Mexico's economy probably relies heavily on us for $$ that their people make up here and send home. But I understand it's almost always our fault isn't it. A couple of my guys send a lot of their money home, and are purchasing land & piling up cash so when they retire they have property in Mexico, and can live good.
Why can we not expect people to respect our laws? How do the illegal aliens get a pass, whenever you question the problem, you are labled as a racist or something along those lines, i am not picking on them, they violated our laws to get here that's the bottom line. I just want secure borders from illegal aliens, mexican or other.
Illegal aliens are definitely one of the most important things that we have to worry about. Definitely.
Treating borders as a major security problem is a joke. The truth is that no border would be able to prevent a terrorist organization with millions of dollars from infiltrating. Especially since all an illegal alien needs to do to get into the country is come in legally and overstay his visa. The Berlin Wall had armed guards all along it and was still unable to keep determined people from crossing. How many trillions would a manned or high-tech wall like that stretching thousands of miles across both of the nation's borders cost? Our entire military can't stop the regular infiltration of the Iraqi and Afghani borders, or two-bit dope smugglers from reaching the Florida coast by boat.
The security argument for pissing away money on a wall falls flat on its face. The main two reasons people are really concerned about the borders are economics of the protectionist stripe and racial/cultural problems with Mexicans and/or the Spanish language.
Quote from: QB Eagles on February 07, 2006, 07:23:07 PM
Treating borders as a major security problem is a joke. The truth is that no border would be able to prevent a terrorist organization with millions of dollars from infiltrating. Especially since all an illegal alien needs to do to get into the country is come in legally and overstay his visa. The Berlin Wall had armed guards all along it and was still unable to keep determined people from crossing. How many trillions would a manned or high-tech wall like that stretching thousands of miles across both of the nation's borders cost? Our entire military can't stop the regular infiltration of the Iraqi and Afghani borders, or two-bit dope smugglers from reaching the Florida coast by boat.
The security argument for pissing away money on a wall falls flat on its face. The main two reasons people are really concerned about the borders are economics of the protectionist stripe and racial/cultural problems with Mexicans and/or the Spanish language.
Well said. Of course I prefer sarcasm, but I think your method works too.
Quote from: QB Eagles on February 07, 2006, 07:23:07 PM
Treating borders as a major security problem is a joke. The truth is that no border would be able to prevent a terrorist organization with millions of dollars from infiltrating. Especially since all an illegal alien needs to do to get into the country is come in legally and overstay his visa. The Berlin Wall had armed guards all along it and was still unable to keep determined people from crossing. How many trillions would a manned or high-tech wall like that stretching thousands of miles across both of the nation's borders cost? Our entire military can't stop the regular infiltration of the Iraqi and Afghani borders, or two-bit dope smugglers from reaching the Florida coast by boat.
The security argument for pissing away money on a wall falls flat on its face. The main two reasons people are really concerned about the borders are economics of the protectionist stripe and racial/cultural problems with Mexicans and/or the Spanish language.
I understand your points, but if having the mexican military come 12 miles inside our border is not a concern to you then ok, it is to me. I am not looking at constructing a wall, but I do think our borders are too pourous. Your last point I don't agree with. I think having
legal immigrants in our work force is very healthy, it actually is a bargining tool when it comes to dealing with the union. the illegals are used and abused by mom and pop companies that undercut the larger firms following hiring procedures. The second part is probably true in a lot of areas of black and white america. But how about a third group that doesn't want to pay for sll the expenses of housing illegal immigrants in jail, in our schools and our healthcare system, and just asks for one thing, to come here by the rules.
Oh, yeah, what are you gonna do? Release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouth and when they bark, they shoot bees at you?
(yes sun mo....we all know thats from the simpsons)
Quote from: Wingspan on February 08, 2006, 12:18:47 PM
Oh, yeah, what are you gonna do? Release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouth and when they bark, they shoot bees at you?
(yes sun mo....we all know thats from the simpsons)
your right what w as i thinking, lets do nothing, then when something happens, we can blame the administration for doing nothing, yeah that sounds the coolest.
I just don't see at as the most pressing problem that faces the country. I mean really. How much of a tax is it on the system?
Plus there are other ways to curb illegal immigration that don't involve guns and cowboy hats. How about stiffer penalties against companies that hire illegals along with more on the ground enforcement of the laws that exist? Companies that hire illegal immigrants are getting away with slavery practically.
Nah we'd much rather keep those pesky Mexican terrorsts out... The whole thing is just strange...
from CNN:
QuoteCommentary: Minutemen have a right to be idiotic
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- When Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist sent me an angry e-mail calling me a racist a while back, I shrugged it off as a pot-kettle thing.
I'm not the one who formed a gang of misfits who have been labeled "vigilantes" by President Bush and a hate group by the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center. It's not my posse who has been known to hurl accusations of racism at one another whenever they have a spat and who prowl the U.S.-Mexico border chasing Mexicans -- admittedly, not an easy thing to do when you're carrying a lawn-chair and a cooler of beer.
If that sounds harsh, blame my upbringing. As the son of a retired law enforcement officer, I have little tolerance for wannabes who play cop and even less for those who play with fire by taking up a cause that appeals to nativists and hooligans.
Here you have grown men and women dressing up in fatigues, filling up pick-up trucks and driving to the U.S.-Mexico border from their homes in Iowa, Indiana or Idaho to hunt for illegal immigrants. As if there weren't illegal immigrants in those places, waiting in front of the big-box hardware store for folks to pull up and hire them. These yahoos could save the gas, and just crack down on their friends and neighbors back home.
It's not tough to win an argument with someone like Gilchrist. You just let him talk, and, before long, he'll say something inaccurate, intolerant, or idiotic.
Which is why it's so disappointing to read where protesters at Columbia University last week stormed the stage during a speech that Gilchrist was slated to give at the behest of a group of campus Republicans.
The incident, which was captured on tape and widely viewed on television and the Internet, has sparked a debate over free speech on the Ivy League campus and just how "free" it is.
The protesters admit that they planned to take the stage in a peaceful protest. But, they claim, things got out of hand when they were attacked by a pro-Minutemen contingent.
That's a lame excuse. What these protesters did was wrong, foolish and self-defeating. They could have helped inform the immigration dialogue on campus, but they chose intimidation over information and resorted to a heckler's veto to shut out speech that they found offensive. They forgot the first rule of free expression: that the answer to offensive speech is more speech, not less.
It is the same lesson we all learned in 1977 when a group of Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois, a mostly Jewish suburb of Chicago. The question of whether they should be allowed to march split the Jewish community, pitting civil libertarians against community activists. The Nazis won the right to march when the courts held they had a First Amendment right to express their views even if their message was vile and deliberately provocative.
That's a good standard. Good enough for the Nazis, good enough for the Minutemen.
I couldn't agree more.
QuoteHow President Obama Can Curb Deportations Now
President Obama is presiding over a broken immigration system that has deported two million human beings since he assumed office in 2009. It is a horrific figure that we too often forget represents incalculable human suffering, including an estimated 150,000 U.S. citizen children who had a parent deported in FY 2012 alone. In fact, the Obama administration has already deported more human beings than George W. Bush did in eight years and more than double the number of people Bill Clinton deported.
Actually, it's more than any president ever, which is why the president's immigration allies are fast becoming adversaries.
Two weeks ago, the president barely avoided a resolution from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which was about to formally criticize his administration's staggering number of deportations. In early March, Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)--three members of the Senate's Gang of Eight immigration reform negotiators--also criticized the president's deportation record by calling on him to slow down the pace of his administration's deportations. Things have gotten so bad that the National Council of La Raza has rightly dubbed President Obama the "deporter-in-chief."
In the face of this intense heat, the president has asked Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to undertake a review of the administration's deportation priorities and policies, so they can be executed in a more humane manner. To curb the record-level deportations, the president should immediately undertake the following actions to help fix America's disastrous immigration system.
First, the president should instruct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to prioritize only the deportation of individuals convicted of serious violent offenses in recent years. According to DHS's own fiscal year 2013 data, 67 percent of the 368,644 people deported have either no criminal history or have only been convicted of minor misdemeanors. Even this figure is misleading, as those with criminal histories include individuals convicted of low-level crimes, such as offenses based on immigration status like driving without a license. No one should be ripped away from their families and communities because of a traffic offense.
Second, the president should instruct DHS to cease asking state or local police to detain peaceful immigrants who pose no threat to public safety. Under Secure Communities and other DHS programs, state and local police submit fingerprint scans of anyone arrested to DHS. The scans are then run through a database to identify people without immigration status. If there's a "match," DHS can issue an immigration hold, asking state or local police to detain (often at their own expense) a person for 48 hours--but in practice can be much longer--until the individual can be transferred into DHS custody for deportation.
These immigration holds are issued regardless of why the individual was arrested or even whether the individual was ultimately convicted of a crime. In FY 2007, DHS issued roughly 80,000 of these holds; in 2012, this number jumped to over 270,000. Too often, mistakes are made, with U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, often of Latino descent, improperly detained by policies that invite racial profiling. By ensuring that only immigrants with recent conviction histories of serious, violent crimes are detained by state or local police, the president can partially alleviate the fear and devastation that has been wrought by Secure Communities.
Third, no one should be deported without being given the opportunity to see an immigration judge. Currently, the administration flouts the due process rights of immigrants by relying on deportation methods, such as expedited removal and reinstatements of old decisions, which bypass a judge. Judicial hearings ensure a judge can consider the impact a deportation will have on the individual's family or loved ones as well as any other mitigating circumstances.
In fiscal year 2013, over 260,000 people were deported without ever seeing a judge, nearly twice as many as in 2005. This is a disgrace to the due process rights the country was founded upon. The president should use his authority to limit the use of deportations without court hearings to the greatest extent possible. At a minimum, he should ensure that all individuals are screened to determine whether they are eligible for immigration relief or have other compelling factors that weigh in favor of them remaining in the United States.
In addition to implementing these reforms, President Obama should provide deportation relief and work authorization to people who have lived in the U.S. for five years and do not pose a current serious threat to the public. Instituting these changes would go a long way to curbing record-level deportations, keeping families together, protecting American communities, and safeguarding civil liberties.
The president already has the power to reverse his failed immigration and border security policies. Now he just needs the political will and moral courage.