petition for troops on our borders

bullet44 · June 20, 2002, 04:45 PM

If you think we should use troops on our
borders please go the the following website
and sign congressman Tom Tancredo's
petition.

http://www.house.gov/tancredo/

Ledbetter · June 20, 2002, 05:30 PM

Next?

sling · June 21, 2002, 07:36 PM

KSFreeman · June 21, 2002, 08:20 PM

So the talk about the militarization of the police is out the window, huh?

HntnFsh · June 21, 2002, 09:08 PM

Done.Thanks for the reminder.

2nd Amendment · June 21, 2002, 09:30 PM

Think I'll have to pass on this one.

**Marko Kloos** · June 22, 2002, 12:22 PM

At the risk of repeating myself: the combat divisions of the United States Army and Marine Corps are there to fight wars, not to play traffic cop in Absurdistan, or border guard at the Mexican border to satisfy the emotions of either liberal or conservative do-gooder desk warriors. If you think the border needs more guards, apply for a job with the U.S.Border Patrol.

**Tamara** · June 22, 2002, 12:26 PM

Nothing degrades a combat unit's effectiveness faster than garrison duty...

KSFreeman · June 22, 2002, 12:31 PM

Tamara, tsk, tsk, the militree does not exist to fight. It exists to make vote rich states feel better about themselves without solving any problems. Come now, you should know that!

MeekAndMild · June 22, 2002, 12:51 PM

British generals Gage, Clinton and Cornwallis would have been proud of you. I hope you step proudly forward to offer to quarter troops at your house, lil44.

KSFreeman · June 22, 2002, 01:13 PM

Now, now, M&M, look what a bang up job the Brits did with garrisoning Boston!

People always think they feel safer with the soldati all lined up shoulder to shoulder, but that's not what wins wars. The militree must have the proper intel to go and find the new Barbary pirates and kill them. We must protect ourselves and that includes those rugged individualists in the hairy-chested West. Of course, this task is made harder by the morons in D.C. and Sacramento.

Of course, history is replete with examples of the "protectors" being used to tyrannize the "protectees" as M&M pointed out.

Fraser · June 22, 2002, 01:39 PM

No thanks.

I would support some anti-aircraft artillery set up at Ft. Hancock, Sandy Hook. Also reactivate the New York Harbor mines to take care of pirated LPG tankers.

bullet44 · June 23, 2002, 02:28 PM

Like it or not border "control", legal and
illegal immigration is an important issue
and will become in a few short years
critical, those of you less then 30 will
will see a time of no cars for the average
working guy, as in mass transit, homes
and 2 car garage gone, much due to over
population.
Right now each day approx. 1900+ illegals
enter the country(low est. I think) combine this with legal immigration and you can see the problem we face. All of the southwest has school funding problems, hospitals can't stay open, etc Not enough property owners to fund
it all.

We have more and more un-skilled workers coming in and more factories
going out of country, at some point
system will fail..

How can we speak of homeland security
and not protect our borders, by army,
border patrol take your choice but it
needs to be done.!

KSFreeman · June 23, 2002, 03:10 PM

So, now you want the militree to enforce domestic law?

The country is not "full." The entire earf's population could move to Tejas and it would have the same density as New York City.

No cars for the "average man." Why would that be? Will Algore be elected president?

Skul funding problems? Easy, if you do not pay, you cannot go to skul.

All the Erlichesque "problems" you claim are best addressed with more freedom, not more government.

Troops on the borders is a soccermommie feel good remedy for politically powerful sunbelt states. The government maintains a miltree to control its people, not protect them.

Immigrants come here to work to build better lives for themselves. They do because the native born will not.

Immigrants are more productive and patriotic than the native born on the couch waiting for WIC vouchers. If you wish to reduce the incentives for immigrants to come here, all it takes is a stroke of a pen, not troops on the border or other window dressing.

MeekAndMild · June 23, 2002, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Like it or not border "control", legal and illegal immigration is an important issue

Sure it is. But the US is like a big pot of honey with nothing over it but a thin screen full of holes. Border control is just a wast of time, cause if nothing else fungus will come through the screen.

So the best way to fix it is to use the Saudi method. No citizens perks at all for noncitizens. No children of noncitizens get citizenship. No welfare no food stamps no health care no property rights no nuthin. Not even a job except for specific indenture contracts. Ain't noboddy gonna stay in Saudi territory when their job runs out!

Libertarian · June 23, 2002, 09:28 PM

Done and shared the link.

**Mike Irwin** · June 23, 2002, 09:43 PM

Bullet,

That looks like something I read in history class in college back in mid-1980s.

It was originally penned in the 1890s...

**Art Eatman** · June 23, 2002, 10:13 PM

More control of the Borders, yes. Using the military, no way, no how!

Don't need any more dead teenagers, among other problems.

Texas, by the way, needs an extra 100 guys in the Border Patrol, as well as additional BPs; that's how many are leaving the BP, here, to become Air Marshalls.

Art

**Mike Irwin** · June 24, 2002, 12:20 AM

"leaving to become Air Marshalls..."

US Capitol Police is down 265 people, and hemmohraging more every day.

US Park Police is down, nationwide, something like 400. Ditto.

Secret Service Uniformed isn't in much better shape.

Pinky · June 24, 2002, 12:27 AM

I agree with those above that say expand the Border Patrol and Immigration staffs. We shouldn't use our military for work like that, it will only complicate their training since law enforcement and border control training is a whole different ball game than military combat training ie. escalation of force guidlines etc.

Anybody remember what happened on one of the JTF-6 missions?

S/F

KSFreeman · June 24, 2002, 10:56 AM

Pinky, I hear you. What I don't understand is that the same persons crying about the "militarization" of the police and the use of the military at such places as Waco where the Dreaded D was shooting citizens are continually whining for the militree to guard the border. It seems inconsistent, no?

mdlowry · June 24, 2002, 12:01 PM

I don't think this would be as big of a problem as it is if we were to just reverse our march towards Socialism. Won't happen though.

Will Beararms · June 24, 2002, 12:36 PM

No military for the borders. In this context, the constitution is violated. More BP agents with the right tools to get the job done.

ahenry · June 24, 2002, 12:57 PM

I’d be happy to support and even petition for, troops on the border once six things have been met (BTW the first three apply to every instance where gov’t intervention is considered as an option).
1) Gov’t is granted the authority to do such things (check)
2) There is a true and necessary need for such gov’t intervention (debatable, but possibly check)
3) The private sector cannot acceptably solve the problem (again debatable but I’ll give it to you, check)
4) Other, less intrusive solutions have failed (no way has this been done)
5) The initial measures are at the lowest level of gov’t and the lowest level of intervention possible (definitely no check)
6) Escalation of gov’t involvement (i.e. from Border Patrol to military) only happens when the lesser methods cannot handle the problem (again no check)

If those six things were satisfied then I would be willing to consider the extremely dangerous (to our liberty) measure of putting troops on the border as a viable option to solving the “problem of illegal immigration”. Since it could easily be argued that only one of those six have been met (constitutional authority) then you sure will not get me to support such a move. In fact I’d do everything within my power to keep it from happening. Troops on the border is a very, very dangerous move by the gov’t. It sets all sorts of precedents that I would just as soon not have set. The actual housing of troops down there in and of itself isn’t necessarily so dangerous (note the word necessarily), but it puts us on a road that I don’t want to tell my kids 20 or 30 years from now that I helped start. Ideas and actions have consequences and I don’t like the consequences of this idea.

Pinky · June 25, 2002, 01:00 AM

ROFLMAO

You are 100% correct in my opinion, it is inconsistant. It just goes to show you that the most vocal (in our society) have a tendancy to forget to engage brain before opening spew hole (unfortunately me included sometimes). Either that or they don't really understand the mission of the military and just how difficult it is to re-train for what Tamara aptly calls garrison duty.

Don't get me wrong, the guys I served with were a great bunch of human beings, but to not put too fine a point on it, some of them were "one trick ponys" and I would not want them checking my paperwork at the Canadian or Mexican border.

June 20, 2002, 04:45 PM	#1
bullet44 Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2000 Posts: 819	petition for troops on our borders If you think we should use troops on our borders please go the the following website and sign congressman Tom Tancredo's petition. http://www.house.gov/tancredo/

June 20, 2002, 05:30 PM	#2
Ledbetter Senior Member Join Date: February 23, 2000 Location: California USA Posts: 4,473	Done Next?

June 21, 2002, 07:36 PM	#3
sling Member Join Date: May 1, 2002 Location: Arkansas Posts: 26	Done!! Next

June 21, 2002, 08:20 PM	#4
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,389	So the talk about the militarization of the police is out the window, huh? __________________ "Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).

June 21, 2002, 09:30 PM	#6
2nd Amendment Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2000 Location: B.F.E. Posts: 1,720	Think I'll have to pass on this one. __________________ Scott Conklin We now live in a nation that is Post Rule-of-Law. The government makes the rules by decree as needed and if you run afoul of them you'll eventually be run over by them. - Me www.obastard.com

June 21, 2002, 09:08 PM	#5
HntnFsh Member Join Date: May 19, 2002 Location: California Posts: 17	Done.Thanks for the reminder.

June 22, 2002, 12:22 PM	#7
Marko Kloos Staff Lead Join Date: January 12, 2000 Location: Enfield, NH Posts: 5,448	At the risk of repeating myself: the combat divisions of the United States Army and Marine Corps are there to fight wars, not to play traffic cop in Absurdistan, or border guard at the Mexican border to satisfy the emotions of either liberal or conservative do-gooder desk warriors. If you think the border needs more guards, apply for a job with the U.S.Border Patrol. __________________ "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." --A.E. Van Vogt, The Weapon Shops of Isher the munchkin wrangler.

June 22, 2002, 12:26 PM	#8
Tamara Staff Join Date: March 11, 2000 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 15,243	Nothing degrades a combat unit's effectiveness faster than garrison duty... __________________ MOLON LABE! 2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium. The Arms Room: An Online Museum.

June 22, 2002, 12:31 PM	#9
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,389	Tamara, tsk, tsk, the militree does not exist to fight. It exists to make vote rich states feel better about themselves without solving any problems. Come now, you should know that! __________________ "Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).

June 22, 2002, 12:51 PM	#10
MeekAndMild Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2001 Posts: 4,992	British generals Gage, Clinton and Cornwallis would have been proud of you. I hope you step proudly forward to offer to quarter troops at your house, lil44.

June 22, 2002, 01:13 PM	#11
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,389	Now, now, M&M, look what a bang up job the Brits did with garrisoning Boston! People always think they feel safer with the soldati all lined up shoulder to shoulder, but that's not what wins wars. The militree must have the proper intel to go and find the new Barbary pirates and kill them. We must protect ourselves and that includes those rugged individualists in the hairy-chested West. Of course, this task is made harder by the morons in D.C. and Sacramento. Of course, history is replete with examples of the "protectors" being used to tyrannize the "protectees" as M&M pointed out. __________________ "Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).

June 22, 2002, 01:39 PM	#12
Fraser Senior Member Join Date: April 22, 2000 Posts: 230	No thanks. I would support some anti-aircraft artillery set up at Ft. Hancock, Sandy Hook. Also reactivate the New York Harbor mines to take care of pirated LPG tankers.

June 23, 2002, 02:28 PM	#13
bullet44 Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2000 Posts: 819	Like it or not border "control", legal and illegal immigration is an important issue and will become in a few short years critical, those of you less then 30 will will see a time of no cars for the average working guy, as in mass transit, homes and 2 car garage gone, much due to over population. Right now each day approx. 1900+ illegals enter the country(low est. I think) combine this with legal immigration and you can see the problem we face. All of the southwest has school funding problems, hospitals can't stay open, etc Not enough property owners to fund it all. We have more and more un-skilled workers coming in and more factories going out of country, at some point system will fail.. How can we speak of homeland security and not protect our borders, by army, border patrol take your choice but it needs to be done.!

June 23, 2002, 03:10 PM	#14
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,389	So, now you want the militree to enforce domestic law? The country is not "full." The entire earf's population could move to Tejas and it would have the same density as New York City. No cars for the "average man." Why would that be? Will Algore be elected president? Skul funding problems? Easy, if you do not pay, you cannot go to skul. All the Erlichesque "problems" you claim are best addressed with more freedom, not more government. Troops on the borders is a soccermommie feel good remedy for politically powerful sunbelt states. The government maintains a miltree to control its people, not protect them. Immigrants come here to work to build better lives for themselves. They do because the native born will not. Immigrants are more productive and patriotic than the native born on the couch waiting for WIC vouchers. If you wish to reduce the incentives for immigrants to come here, all it takes is a stroke of a pen, not troops on the border or other window dressing. __________________ "Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).

June 23, 2002, 09:28 PM	#16
Libertarian Senior Member Join Date: October 26, 1999 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 2,123	Done and shared the link. __________________ "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." JFK My other favorite forum is The Armed Citizen My PGP key is 0x780B7C0A

June 23, 2002, 09:43 PM	#17
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 21,167	Bullet, That looks like something I read in history class in college back in mid-1980s. It was originally penned in the 1890s... __________________ Coworkers. A convenient source of food in a post apocalyptic world.

June 23, 2002, 10:13 PM	#18
Art Eatman Staff Join Date: November 13, 1998 Location: Terlingua, TX, USA Posts: 16,443	More control of the Borders, yes. Using the military, no way, no how! Don't need any more dead teenagers, among other problems. Texas, by the way, needs an extra 100 guys in the Border Patrol, as well as additional BPs; that's how many are leaving the BP, here, to become Air Marshalls. Art __________________ "You're from BATFE? Hey, great! I use all your fine products!"

June 24, 2002, 12:20 AM	#19
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 21,167	"leaving to become Air Marshalls..." US Capitol Police is down 265 people, and hemmohraging more every day. US Park Police is down, nationwide, something like 400. Ditto. Secret Service Uniformed isn't in much better shape. __________________ Coworkers. A convenient source of food in a post apocalyptic world.

June 24, 2002, 12:27 AM	#20
Pinky Member Join Date: June 17, 2002 Location: Back and forth between MT and NE Posts: 22	Agree I agree with those above that say expand the Border Patrol and Immigration staffs. We shouldn't use our military for work like that, it will only complicate their training since law enforcement and border control training is a whole different ball game than military combat training ie. escalation of force guidlines etc. Anybody remember what happened on one of the JTF-6 missions? S/F

June 24, 2002, 10:56 AM	#21
KSFreeman Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2001 Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America Posts: 5,389	Pinky, I hear you. What I don't understand is that the same persons crying about the "militarization" of the police and the use of the military at such places as Waco where the Dreaded D was shooting citizens are continually whining for the militree to guard the border. It seems inconsistent, no? __________________ "Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).

June 24, 2002, 12:01 PM	#22
mdlowry Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2001 Location: New Hampshire Posts: 417	I don't think this would be as big of a problem as it is if we were to just reverse our march towards Socialism. Won't happen though. __________________ My PGP key

June 24, 2002, 12:36 PM	#23
Will Beararms Senior Member Join Date: October 12, 1999 Location: Parts Unknown Posts: 1,919	No military for the borders. In this context, the constitution is violated. More BP agents with the right tools to get the job done. __________________ LET'S ROLL

June 24, 2002, 12:57 PM	#24
ahenry Senior Member Join Date: January 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 1,764	I’d be happy to support and even petition for, troops on the border once six things have been met (BTW the first three apply to every instance where gov’t intervention is considered as an option). 1) Gov’t is granted the authority to do such things (check) 2) There is a true and necessary need for such gov’t intervention (debatable, but possibly check) 3) The private sector cannot acceptably solve the problem (again debatable but I’ll give it to you, check) 4) Other, less intrusive solutions have failed (no way has this been done) 5) The initial measures are at the lowest level of gov’t and the lowest level of intervention possible (definitely no check) 6) Escalation of gov’t involvement (i.e. from Border Patrol to military) only happens when the lesser methods cannot handle the problem (again no check) If those six things were satisfied then I would be willing to consider the extremely dangerous (to our liberty) measure of putting troops on the border as a viable option to solving the “problem of illegal immigration”. Since it could easily be argued that only one of those six have been met (constitutional authority) then you sure will not get me to support such a move. In fact I’d do everything within my power to keep it from happening. Troops on the border is a very, very dangerous move by the gov’t. It sets all sorts of precedents that I would just as soon not have set. The actual housing of troops down there in and of itself isn’t necessarily so dangerous (note the word necessarily), but it puts us on a road that I don’t want to tell my kids 20 or 30 years from now that I helped start. Ideas and actions have consequences and I don’t like the consequences of this idea. __________________ Doing what you've done, gets you what you've got.

June 25, 2002, 01:00 AM	#25
Pinky Member Join Date: June 17, 2002 Location: Back and forth between MT and NE Posts: 22	KSFreeman ROFLMAO You are 100% correct in my opinion, it is inconsistant. It just goes to show you that the most vocal (in our society) have a tendancy to forget to engage brain before opening spew hole (unfortunately me included sometimes). Either that or they don't really understand the mission of the military and just how difficult it is to re-train for what Tamara aptly calls garrison duty. Don't get me wrong, the guys I served with were a great bunch of human beings, but to not put too fine a point on it, some of them were "one trick ponys" and I would not want them checking my paperwork at the Canadian or Mexican border.