Obama to send 1,200 National Guard troops to U.S.-Mexico border
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 8 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 2 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
43 Comments
Login to comment
0
manfromamerica
What a joke action by Obama. If he wants to do something, then support the Arizona law.
Can't wait until November... :-)
0
LFRAgain
manfromamerica,
Who would support a law that at its foundation is just plain dumb? People are gradually wising up to how truly ineffective and pointless the Arizona law will ultimately be. It’s political grandstanding at best.
Besides, how can sending more bodies to watch the Mexican border be qualitatively any different than deputizing 20,000 local Arizona law enforcement officials to root out illegals?
And doesn’t stopping illegals before they get across the boarder seem strategically more sound than trying to find them after they’ve already gotten in and taken that uninvited bite out of your precious American Pie?
It seems you’re more inclined to oppose this, not because you actually disagree with it, despite a boost in border patrols having BROAD conservative support, but rather because Obama’s behind it. Which would make your position, well, petty.
0
mayhem
LFRagain...The law isn't dumb in Arizona, they have to do something to stop the illegals. Need more than 1200 troops though. But being against something because Obaka (ha ha) is behind it is the best reason to be against anything!
0
Sarge
"a law that at its foundation is just plain dumb"
How so? Most Arizonans and Americans support it.
0
LFRAgain
mayhem,
Uhhh... Yeah.
0
LFRAgain
Sarge,
Because it does nothing serious to address the underlying problem of why illegals keep crossing the border, namely the wide availability of jobs, and the Arizona State government's apparently unwillingness to truly punish those who would continue to entice illegals to come to the U.S.
It's basically a law that goes only after the users, but not the pushers. In other words, pointless and dumb.
0
LFRAgain
As for what that says about those who support the law.... ;-)
0
Zenny11
Hitting the companies is good but slow.
I would start with no access to medical, renting apartments, schooling for kids, etc unless they can show a Green-Card or other legal USA ID/Visa.
That is how many countries I visited do it.
0
Hawkeye
To stop illegal immigration you need to severely penalize those that employ them. Dry up the money trail and shut down businesses that are found to be employing illegals. The cost to the infrastructure of the United States is huge with the US government turning a blind eye to the source of the problem which is the companies that recruit and employ illegal workers. You don't need law enforcement riding around and checking people's ID cards as much as you need ICE going to companies and checking the HR records and locking up the owners and freezing their assets and only then will you see the US/Mexico border crossings become a traffic jam as they all head back south.
0
Hawkeye
OOPs!, I forgot the post was about Obama sending 1200 national guard to protect the US/Mexico border. This is a BS political move that equates to a drop in the bucket. To really do it right, bring back all our troops in the middle east, line them up on the border and turn back the tide. Next increase ICE by about 100,000 employees and visit every restaurant, factory, hotel, auto body shop and Home Depot parking lot, round em up and ship them home. And for those bleeding hearts saying that we would be breaking up families, send the US born children of illegal aliens back with them because they will have no problem assimilating into the Mexican culture anyway.
0
jruaustralia
The move, by Democrats' calculation anyway, should mute independents' interests on the subject. It'll calm 'em-- and that's what this is all about. Naturally, the Democrats doesn't want immigration to be the prime issue come November. The Dem. party-machine wants it to wither and die!
But with the stubborn nature of the open-border folks and the growing impatience of Conservative voters-- the US might well get a bitterly contested midterm election base on border protection and immigration enforcements. It won't go away :|
0
skipthesong
send the US born children of illegal aliens back with them because they will have no problem assimilating into the Mexican culture anyway." I would like you to realize the Mexican make up 60% of illegal immigration, other cities got just as many issues with Irish, Middle Easterners, and Russians. Keep that mind. I know the number is much smaller, but they are flooding small NE cities, so the issue is just as big.
To stop illegal immigration you need to severely penalize those that employ them" problem with that is that you would be penalizing Suburban white kids who are buying the weed. Can you think a bit differently?
the US might well get a bitterly contested midterm election base on border protection and immigration enforcements. It won't go away :|" agreed and guess what both sides got it wrong in more ways than the got it right, so we will still be left with a problem.
0
jruaustralia
We'll see. Again, the open border folks have been in full mode lately, and the passing of SB1070 galvanized the Conservative base.
November will be a merry month for reckoning indeed :|
0
WhiteHawk
So is Obama sending the National Guard troops to Arizona, or will he skip that state? I know, I'm just kidding.
I also wonder if he's sending the troops to help enforce the federal immigration laws while being critical of Arizona's immigration laws? It would be ironic, since he can't point out how they differ.
0
PeaceWarrior
And would your next step include taking away their citizenship? Because that's what the next step would seem to be in the reality you live in.
0
jruaustralia
pfft, isn't he just being sarcastic. The fed. immigration law after all doesn't do that :|
0
PeaceWarrior
And if you'd like to hear what he (Russell Pearce) has to say about the email, here he is on FOX news:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/next-step-arizonas-nativists-ignore
Nice guy, eh?
0
PeaceWarrior
jruautralia, I was half-sarcastic and half not until I half-passed out reading this:
http://www.kpho.com/download/2010/0520/23624269.pdf
Then I just had to write about WhiteHawk's comments. The email is from the same guy who wrote the Arizona immigration law and in his reality, the next step is to take away their citizenship (no sarcasm here, just the beginnings of a bad headache).
0
PeaceWarrior
My second comment was posted first... strange.
0
Sarge
LFRAgain: "Because it ( the Arizona law ) does nothing serious to address the underlying problem of why illegals keep crossing the border, namely the wide availability of jobs..."
Heck, President Obama and the Democrats are doing their best to cut down the number of jobs available.
0
WhiteHawk
That still doesn't explain what's different about the current Arizona law and the federal law.
I wonder, how many other countries have an "anchor baby" law? Does anyone have a count?
Since Leftists around the world are quick to label anyone who wants to enforce America's existing immigration laws and secure the borders as "racist", I wonder if they'll stick to their principles and call Obama a racist now too.
0
PeaceWarrior
WhiteHawk,
I have not mentioned the word "racist", so I'll take it this part of your post wasn't referring to me. I think that a lot of "leftists" worldwide will agree with me when I say that the US has the right to enforce its existing immigration laws and secure their borders. I've never said otherwise, and I don't remember a single person on this board saying anything of the sort (but I haven't read all the posts so it is possible).
I am not sure you understand what taking away these kids' citizenship will do to your country, though. Birthright citizenship in embedded in your constitution and, at least in my opinion, you should be really proud of that. This is not just federal law, it is the constitution. So, will there be enough people to amend it to reflect your views? That will definitely be something worth following!
The New York times talked about how the US is already deporting hundreds of thousands of people (more than 100 000 in ten years) and it's quite tragic the way it happens. There is little known about what happens to the children of these people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/us/14immig.html?_r=1
0
jruaustralia
Peacewarrior, check out the latest hoodwink tactics of opportunists in the US:
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/25/michael-bloomberg/
It seems for people like Mayor Bloomberg-- the homeless votes are not as attractive enough as the feel-good open border lobby (hey, aliens don't vote, no??)
Now tell me, peacewarrior, aren't you ashamed that there are people inside the open-border wagon who are only there to cash-in the Latino votes? And isn't it time for community leaders, and other non-Racist-yelling people like you to support the sensible side-- and demand for a more honest and realistic debate on immigration reform? One with a glib timetable too :|
As I see it, the Arizona SB1070 (the LAW not news commentaries) hasn't superseded anything beyond what's legally available under the Fed laws. And as I read it, the other side hasn't given us anything other than unconvincing soundbites.
0
PeaceWarrior
Ahhh, jruaustralia, Where does the "non-racist" yelling comment come from?
And what is the sensible side? Is the sensible side to agree that the US has the right to enforce its existing immigration laws and secure its borders? Because I just mentioned it in my post at 1:24 today that I agreed with it! So you and I are on the same side, I guess, in this debate. I've never had a problem with that side of the debate.
The comment you are responding to wasn't about SB1070, it was about Birthright Citizenship being embedded in the constitution, so you'd need an amendment to change anything related to it. No mention of the Arizona law, just what the next step would be after the Arizona law is fully implemented. This next step, taking away these kids' citizenship has enormous ramifications. That's what I commented on. I posted the information earlier this morning in response to your "sarcastic" comment...
The last part of my post was to show the repercussions of deporting hundreds of thousands of people who have American children. The repercussions on the children... Not the people being sent back home. What do you take umbrage at?
About SB1070, I will repeat what I have said before. I am not in favour of the law because of the harm it will cause to "legal" Americans who, unfortunately for them, look different, speak with an accent, and such. My problems are with the abuse that will happen and the erosion of their freedom. Read all my posts, one by one, and you'll see that it was always my main concern. I think you are confusing me with one or two other posters here.
A more honest and realistic debate on immigration reform? With a timetable? Great! As long as you take into consideration the abuse the new law will bring. Even though, you say it is in the law that police officers are not to use racial profiling to do their job, you know it happens already and you're given them carte blanche to continue, making it potentially problematic for them if they don't.
About Bloomberg; no comment at this time. I have to get to a meeting so you'll have to give me time to read the information you posted. I'll get to it.
0
jruaustralia
For the record the 'sarcastic' comment is a retort to your response to another poster. And now that that's out of the way....
When you have the left chucking 'racial profiling' and the conservatives simply dismissing their points as ignorant, for folks who want a sensible debate on immigration enforcement the situation must be awkward.
Instead what you have are hapless, direction-less clowns hijacking the debate. It's unfair for folks who just want plain truth from their officials, and unbalanced for immigration, which you yourself may think a vital bolt of the US wealth engine.
It'll be good to rake what is sensible-- regardless of the confusion now, or everyone will have to go home empty-handed.
But as I said in my other post, sending Nat'l Guards, by Democrats' calculation, is a smart move to mute independents' interests on the subject. The truth is they don't care... they just want to appear incontrol.
0
PeaceWarrior
jruaustralia,
The funniest thing, if I may, is that I am not American, and from your handle, I don't think you are either and here we are debating this issue, which will never really touch us. That's entertaining!
No problem with the sarcastic comment, I understood where it came from and I *was *sarcastic (early morning problem for me these days).
I just read a few minutes ago, that Obama's sending these National Guards to stem the flow of guns and drugs across the border and not to enforce US immigration Laws. You are right in saying it is a smart move but this new development is going to make everyone, Dems and Reps alike, really, really angry.
Yep, it kind of puts restrictions on having a sensible debate... sigh! Nobody likes to be taught of as ignorant, and the left looks at the conservatives with wide-eyed disbelief that anyone could have such an opinion... I don't know if I agree with "May you live in interesting times." but it sure sounds more and more like a curse each day when people don't/can't talk to each other reasonably!
I'm going to give this one a rest for a while, busy weekend and all. I am sure you and I will get to debate this again and again. I'm looking forward to it. Until then, Peace, jruaustralia
0
WhiteHawk
Peacewarrior:
It wasn't. In fact, only the first sentence was a response to your post. My apologies for not clarifying.
Proud, until that law is exploited on a massive scale. Tens of millions of people using the law to get financial benefits is costing our country tens of billions of dollars annually now. Their parents, who came here illegally, should be sent back according to the rest of the laws, right? If you don't send the kid back too, that's "breaking up the family". If you do send the kid back too, that's violating their right to be here. And you can't leave the choice up to the parents, as they'll find some way to exploit that situation as well.
How about this: If the birth was part of a fraud scheme (as hundreds, if not thousands, are every month) the kid gets sent back. And how do you determine that? Well, how long does it take to legally apply and obtain citizenship? If the parents didn't apply within 90 days of the kid's birth, they all go back. Even if the kid is 17.
There's more to the illegal immigration problem than low wages and entitlement abuse. The increase in DUI accidents and deaths, hit-and-run accidents, violent crimes against adults and children, the increase in diseases, etc. Then there are the ones that really show how bad the problem is, and how simple deportation just isn't enough:
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Investigators-Edmonds-rape-suspect-deported-nine-times-94637479.html
At what point can Americans say "ENOUGH!" without being criticized?
0
jruaustralia
mmmm... yeah, people can be cunning and disingenuous at times with their retorts. /chuckles
but I sure am digressing :|
The truth is people do have opinions. You just won't hear it because of the nature of political spin both sides had been employing-- not just in Washington I suppose, and not just over border protection and immigration enforcements-- but you and others here will probably agree that cynicism killed it for the rest of us.
Cynicism and impatience too, but people do forget :|
0
jruaustralia
Good question. And can't wait for the kitchen sink :|
But let me add as well, at what stage will political leaders from India, E. Europe and Mexico say 'SLOW DOWN THE BRAIN DRAIN' without undermining their economies? And when should they change course?
(But, hey, they probably don't read JT)
0
jruaustralia
Very reasonable. Although you're looking at it with just one-eye. But I respect your comment, and it's a valid response to years of distorted answers from our politicians when it comes to the immigration debate.
Funny how people of opinion, such as you, are quickly silenced by the spins employed by professional lobbyists. And quite shameful how the libs tend to think that every time conservative folks will voice their concern about immigration and border protection-- they can just yell 'human rights' and bigots.
Happened here in Australia today when the O. Leader wanted to revive the previous conservative gov's border protection policies-- and surprise, surprise-- the other side just cried 'human rights'.
It's becoming tiresome when people can distinguish the BS from glib retorts, yet the left--when it comes to enforcing immigration laws-- practically snob the issue!
This is not just an American issue, as one respondent clearly thinks it is. Nor is it an us v them question. It's a western disease sustained by the lies that we're improving the world by increasing immigration intake willy-nilly from Third World countries.
I guess it's up to the Americans (and us in Australia) to decide this year-- through our ballot papers. :|
0
PeaceWarrior
WhiteHawk said:
Yes WhiteHawk, according to federal immigration laws, the US has the right to send these people back, but according to the US constitution, you cannot take away their citizenship. That’s what Arizona is going to try to do next.
0
PeaceWarrior
WhiteHawk said:
Well, ten police chiefs from cities across the country, including three from Arizona disagree with you WhiteHawk. Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law will make their jobs harder, erode working relationships built on mutual trust and cooperation between law enforcement and immigrants, and make communities less safe. They are supposed to know what they are doing, it’s their job. They say that the primary job of local law enforcement is not immigration, it is to protect the community from crime. This legislation does not do this. Their words, not mine.
0
PeaceWarrior
Jruaustralia said:
You must be a lot of fun at parties! Talking about disingenuous, the following comment was quite curious:
Please stop putting words in my mouth. This thread is called "Obama to send 1,200 National Guard troops to U.S.-Mexico border" and there is nothing here about world-wide immigration. My comment reflected that.
0
PeaceWarrior
Your comment really puts a new twist to: "Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free..."
Where would the US be without immigration? Where would Australia? Legal immigration is many things, a western disease it is not.
0
PeaceWarrior
WhiteHawk said:
I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure your suggestion goes against the US constitution! Maybe someone else can chime in on that subject.
0
Molenir
Heres the thing. Immigration has been good for the country. However who is to say it always will be? Furthermore is immigration from some countries better then immigration from others? For example, should the US allow people from Saudi Arabia who believe and practice Wahabism into the country, or should they give precedence to Catholics from say Mexico? So while immigration may have at one time been good, who is to say it always will be, or that we shouldn't restrict immigration from disruptive sources, while allowing immigration from areas that people can more easily assimilate.
Back on topic now. This idea of sending 1200 troops to the border is nothing but a cold political calculation. Obama wants to be able to claim he's doing something about immigration, and securing the border, without actually doing anything to fix immigration or secure the border. The fact that the troops aren't there to enforce the law, but rather help track down smugglers, says this more then anything I think.
0
jruaustralia
Please stop putting words in my mouth. This thread is called "Obama to send 1,200 National Guard troops to U.S.-Mexico border" and there is nothing here about world-wide immigration. My comment reflected that.
Ho-hoho
Do you need to answer to every passing remarks-- LOL
But let me re-iterate what I wrote:
It's becoming tiresome when people can distinguish the BS from glib retorts, yet the left when it comes to enforcing immigration laws-- practically ignores the issue.
And what's the leftist alternative??
Amnesty for 10 mil people! Good luck
0
jruaustralia
Perhaps you should ask these questions to the Prez south of the US border. I heard they have tougher immigration laws, no?
0
PeaceWarrior
Wasn't it Pat Buchanan who was talking about impeaching Bush (W) for his criminal failures regarding immigration?
He even credited Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Richardson and Napolitano. It's not JUST the left's problem, it's everyone's problem. That was in 2005.
Hmmm, Bush was the one who came up with this in 2007:
Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007
The bill would have provided legal status and a path to citizenship for the approximately 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States.
That bill included funding for 300 miles (480 km) of vehicle barriers, 105 camera and radar towers, and 20,000 more Border Patrol agents.
Republicans were the ones who stopped the bill from passing. The nativists were furious about Bush's efforts.
You would have a point if we were in 2007. But actually, they changed their immigration laws in 2008. Here's some more info:
http://www.nusd.k12.az.us/schools/nhs/gthomson.class/articles/mexico/Mexican%20Congress%20votes%20to%20decriminalize%20illegal%20immigration.pdf
In 2008, the Mexican Congress voted unanimously with 393 votes to decriminalize undocumented immigration to Mexico.
0
PeaceWarrior
Only the retorts I consider
and the ones I consider
0
jruaustralia
Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033), a bill proposed in May 2005 by Senators Ted Kennedy and John McCain, sometimes referred to as the "McCain-Kennedy or McKennedy Bill"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ComprehensiveImmigrationReformActof_2007
I'm afraid the discussion will be just between the two of us, this will be my last reply on the article.
0
PeaceWarrior
Yep, good idea! Cheers!
Back to top