Posted on 05/25/2005 3:58:46 PM PDT by lonewacko_dot_com
Google H.R. 1986
I think it's good news, how about you bayo?
I not aware of anyone who ever said that.
The issue has always been what you have to do to seal, close, control the border and how long do you have to do it. And of course, what about the canadian border with 1000 agents only?
Authorize or appropriate?
Read bayourod's post #7, if that's not saying the borders can't be sealed than I don't know what is.
As far as the Canadian border: put the military up there too, we're vulnerable from terrorists and illegals entering there as well.
For now it's authorize.
Could you subtract that number from the total of illegals coming in per year and arrive at the number that will still come in illegally should the legislation pass? Or, possibly, more, since there would be a population of "legal" workers that look just like them to hide among, making it much harder to to spot an employer that hires them? 
Sure it was. /sarcasm
I have no problem with any legislation that Virgil Goode proposes, he ain't the grandstander backstabber like Tom Tancredo is.
he ain't the grandstander backstabber like Tom Tancredo is.
I'm sure congressman Goode is very pleased to know that Dane doesn't think he's a backstabber. How about the other 244 congressmen who voted for it, do you think they're backstabbers or is it only Tom Tancredo?
If you throw enough men and money at the border, you could stop every thing. The question is how many and how much.
There is a law of diminishing returns.
You can read the bill. If the assigned military can't arrest, search, etc, what will they be doing and who will be doing the arresting and searching.
As the bill states, there is a fine line on posse comitatus.
I doubt the other backstabber Shays voted for it.
It's not going to take millions of troops, their presence alone will be a deterrent to would be illegals, drug smugglers and terrorists. We'll always need a civilian force and hopefully as their ranks increase the military can be taken off.
Using the military as border guards is managerial foolishness. You must have a very low regard for our professional military personnel.
We don't have enough soldiers now to have normal rotations in Iraq. Every budgeted slot in the military exists because there is a need for a person in that slot.
If someone said "Let's use teachers and firemen to guard the border", wouldn't you immediately ask who would teach school and put out fires? Why do you assume that our military personnel are any less necessary in the jobs they are currently performing?
Besides, there aren't enough men and women in all our armed forces to seal the borders.
Perhaps you can find an answer to your question in the bill.
Quite the opposite, I've got a very high regard for their ability to take on whatever mission is requested of them and do it well. And judging by the hostility in your post you're also quite aware they will succeed in keeping illegals out, which is definitely not part of your agenda.
We especially need more inspections at ports.
Although there's nothing I can do about your obsession Tom Tancredo is a backstabber if you're happy that this amendment passed then for once we agree.
Couldn't agree more, if we just used the military for that purpose it would be of great benefit.
LOL! I wasn't the one who has the obsesseion of kicking a good conservative when he's getting kicked by the demos and press, as Tom Tancredo does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.