Immigration dance: the Texas side-step -- No border = no country

Sierra Times ^ | 5/14/2006 | Tom Kovach

[FerdieMurphy]

I grew up in south Texas, before moving to Upstate NY as a teenager. I learned to dance the "Cotton-Eyed Joe" long before I learned that it had ethnic roots in the mountains of eastern Europe. (That's where my grandparents came from — as legal immigrants.) And, one doesn't need to grow up in Texas to learn how to dance the "Texas two-step."

But, this coming Monday (15 May 2006), y'all better get ready for a new political dance: the "Texas side-step." (How I wish that I could take credit for that concept. But, for those that aren't old enough to remember, it comes from the Broadway musical, and later movie, "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas." Charles Durning's version of the side-step was absolutely side-splitting.)

My campaign for Congress is based upon many conservative principles. I have never been a single-issue voter, and am not a single-issue candidate. But, there is one issue that has voters totally focused right now. To condense the argument down to a sound bite that might actually make it into the broadcast news, I've learned to simply say, "No border equals no country."

Illegal immigration is the number-one hot-button issue in American politics today. News reports that our own government has leaked the locations of Minuteman volunteers to the Mexican government has made the situation far worse for President Bush than he seems to realize. Now, he plans to address the nation with his "plans" to deal with this issue. Get ready for the Texas side-step! And, this time, there's nothing funny about it.

In an apparent trial balloon, the Bush administration has recently "leaked" the idea that perhaps the president would consider putting the military along our borders. Oddly, both the news media and even members of Congress have echoed the mantra that it is "currently illegal" to put the military along the borders. Thus, these "experts" claim, new legislation would be necessary to "allow" troops to be stationed along the borders. Hello?! Doesn't anyone read the Constitution anymore?

Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 14 of the Constitution empowers the Congress for "calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." Only an idiot can convert that into "currently illegal" to put troops along our borders! And, the term "idiot" would also apply to anyone that doesn't view 15 to 20 million people sneaking into our country as an "invasion." Minuteman co-founder Jim Gilchrist refers to it as a "stealth invasion."

As I've written before, if invoked in its purest sense, "calling forth the Militia" would mean that our Congress would actually provide money to the states to pay the Minutemen that currently volunteer "to do the jobs that our government won't do." Although the purest sense would also be the best sense, I'll settle for active duty troops from our Regular branches of the Armed Forces, supplemented by Guard and Reserve forces, stationed full-time along the entire length of our borders. And, let's put some troops at all of our ports of entry, including international airports, while we're at it.

Would such a program be expensive? Yes. Would it be cheaper than another "9-11"? Definitely. And, if we can afford to secure the border between South Korea and North Korea, then why can't we seem to afford to secure our own borders? If we can afford to send troops into the Balkans to defend the Muslims in a religious war (so that they can attack us), then why can't we seem to afford to secure our own borders? If we can afford to send troops into Haiti, to install and support a Leftist madman, then why can't we seem to afford to secure our own borders? If we can send our Special Operations Forces to train with those of Communist China (a nation that wants to destroy America), then why can't we seem to afford to secure our own borders? If we can send our troops for recurring training exercises with the Egyptian military, which then bombs and burns ancient churches, then why can't we seem to afford to secure our own borders? So, if anyone says that we don't have enough troops to do the job, then I can quickly suggest some locations where we can find some. (Of the above, the only location where keeping our troops might be justified is the Korean Peninsula. The DMZ between the North and the South is the most heavily guarded border in the world. Doesn't it make sense to train our troops for foreign border service by first guarding our own borders?)

I try to take my task of writing very seriously. And, I'm regularly disappointed with the coarseness of discussions in modern America. Thus, I know that we (and I) should avoid using naughty words. In several years of published columns, I think that I've only done it once before. But, if any elected official — especially the President of the United States — comes before the public to tell us that it is "illegal" to station troops on our borders, or that waves of invaders are our "guests," then there is only one proper reply left. "Don't piss on my shoes and then tell me it's raining!"

Our military is half the size that it was at the end of Desert Storm in 1991. At the start of Desert Storm, it was half the size that it was at the end of the Vietnam War in 1975. And, at that time, it was half the size that it was in 1961, when our own US State Department published a little pamphlet called "Freedom From War."

That pamphlet contained the concept of a plan, which has been followed by both Democrats and Republicans, to shrink our American military, while expanding the power and "authority" of the United Nations. Too many of our citizens have sat idly by and let it happen. But, now that our very security — perhaps even our existence as a nation — is being threatened, perhaps more people will wake up. Globalism is a real threat to American sovereignty and security. And, many of our elected officials are globalists. The issue of border security is a watershed issue. Any elected official that will not strongly support border security, and put the "boots on the ground" to enforce it, is someone that has sold out America to a globalist agenda. The agenda has been around a long time. But, it has never been so close to success as it is right now. What will we do about it?

If the answer is "nothing," then enjoy watching, and dancing, the side-step ... all the way to the sheep pen. And, if you don't have a dance partner, then there are tens of millions of illegal aliens that will be happy to escort you.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Ronald Reagan is not the issue right now. Pleeze post #38 for explanation of what's at stake.

[democrats_nightmare]

Screaming louder does not change the facts. You act just like a Democrat Activist in your postings. See no reason to think you are anything but another Moveon.org activist. Surprise us, be FOR something once instead of mindlessly vomiting Hate GOP talking points 100% of the time. Anyone with any brain at all understands why Conservatives want Republicans in charge. Judges, Judges, Judges. Anyone, such as yourself, who spends all their time screaming to replace a glass 60% full of Conservative Values with a glass 100% full of Leftist political poison is either a spoiled brat child throwing a temper tantrum because they do not get 100% of only what THEY want or a DNC activist pretending to be a "Betrayed Conservative" in the hopes it will give their talking points credibility. NO ONE ever gets 100% of what they want out of politics. Spending all your time screaming for it, as you do, is either the behavior of a petulant child totally without a clue about how Politics actually works in a Constitutional Republic or the behavior of an activist lying about their real political agenda. So which is it, political fool or political fraud?

Johnnie boy it would be great if the Free Republic Forum could gain more conservatives members participating with excellent posts as by Ferdie. You are a hazard and a liability for if any new potential members try to get involved your psychotic ramblings are going to scare them off.

Go home Johnnie take a break from the keyboard get some rest and pray for yourself to evolve. I hate to break it to you but you are not an asset but a liability to this excellent forum

[Trteamer]

Thanks for the great thread. BTTT!

[MNJohnnie]

Interesting that the same crowd that bitch endlessly about Federal Spending now scream for the Feds to come fix their Imigration problems. The only difference between the "Real" Conservatives and the Leftist is what they want Big Goverment to DO for them. 4 States have the massive share of the problem, what are the State Rights crowd NO sitting on their buts demanding the other 46 states shell to fix THEIR problems?

Funny how Federal Spending is this terribable end all be all crises to the "Real Conservatives" right up to the point certain people want something from the Feds then it price is no object.

[kabar]

Bush at the May 4 Cinco de Mayo celebration in the WH

"Our nation does not have to choose between being a compassionate society and a lawful society," he said. "A lawful society is one that enforces its laws and enforces its border."

Bush generally favors plans to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at U.S. citizenship without leaving the country, but he has tempered his support because of opposition from conservative House Republicans. He supports strengthening U.S. borders, but also wants a guest worker program to let immigrants work for American businesses

"I think we need to create a secure and legal channel for people to come to this country to work," he said. "It'll reduce the number of people trying to sneak across our border. It'll treat people humanely. It'll get rid of the coyotes and the document forgers."

I don't think his position will change much from what he said ten days ago. Bush wants comprehensive immigration reform (McCain-Kennedy) but is willing to secure the border (for how long) with NG troops and a virtual fence. Why virtual? It is easier and faster to take down.

[deport]

Ol' Tom ran in 94 and 04, don't know which party. Reckon he'll fair any better in 06 on the CP ticket?

[kabar]

The States are not responsible for protecting our international borders.

[hosepipe]

[ and if I see the danger that allowing 20 million foreign nationals to break into this country illegally steal welfare benefits and SSI and demonstrate on MY streets is wrong I am the bad guy?? ]

AND by the way VOTE.. illegal and legal aliens WILL VOTE and vote as democrats.. Whose to stop them?.. Its very easy to get registered to vote(most places).. The democrat party is NOW in overdrive to make that happen.. thats in addition to the normal democrat voter fraud.. You can bet democrat operatives are advising most of the alien groups.. if not all.. Voting demographics are changing as we speak..

[OkieDoke]

The point now isn't illegal immigration or federal spending.
It's you, MNJohnnie.
It's nearly impossible to hear the pros and cons of this immigration debate without some turkey, usually a die-hard supporter of the president, starting with the name-calling.
About the worst I've seen from the enforcement side is to call the president's supporters 'Bushbots'.
So I'm tired of being reasonable while trying to argue with conservatives who act like the liberals the thin blonde describes as "like arguing with third graders: 'You're stupid! and that's their argument."
So quit yer whining you puling racist, sexist, xenophobic, gold-plated Bush-robot.

[MamaTexan]

new legislation would be necessary to "allow" troops to be stationed along the borders. Hello?! Doesn't anyone read the Constitution anymore?
Reading would indicate a brain and a brain would indicate some human thinking organ and that would just be amazing.

Uh, guys... the 'repel invasion' in the federal Constitution is for the federal aspect of the US government, and I believe that posse comitatus prevents the military on the border. Congress would need special legislation to get around it.

HOWEVER

ALL the States have this type of provision, just like the federal government has it's own-

The Texas Constitution
Article 4 - EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 7 - COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF MILITARY FORCES; CALLING FORTH MILITIA
He shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State, except when they are called into actual service of the United States. He shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions.

--------

Governors have the authority to repel an invasion of their respective states.

Now all we have to do is get them to get up off their collective arses and DO something.

[TLI]

the Bush administration has recently "leaked" the idea that perhaps the president would consider putting the military along our borders. Oddly, both the news media and even members of Congress have echoed the mantra that it is "currently illegal" to put the military along the borders.

Here is what they want to do and guess what. It will not do squat in it's current form. Reasons?

(d) Conditions of Use- (1) Whenever a member who is assigned under subsection (a) to assist the Bureau of Border Security or the United States Customs Service is performing duties at a border location pursuant to the assignment, a civilian law enforcement officer from the agency concerned shall accompany the member.”

and...

“(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to–

(A) authorize a member assigned under subsection (a) to conduct a search, seizure, or other similar law enforcement activity or to make an arrest;”

“(h) Termination of Authority- No assignment may be made or continued under subsection (a) after September 30, 2007.’.”

Here you go. The actual Bill.

http://www.txminuteman.org/mambo/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=234&Itemid=26

Just a little more smoke and mirrors folks. But hey, it will get enough NG troops to the border to make some great photo ops!

[Casekirchen]

"Do they think GW can just snap his fingers and it is solved?"


--- Actually in this case he can.

He can order the Federal Govt to obey & enforce the existing immigration laws.

He can order the immediate start of construction of a border wall

He can order the immediate real arrest of any captured illegal (as opposed to the current "catch, release, 'pretty please show up for your hearing'" program)

He can order the immediate arrest of any employer violating the existing laws requiring legal documentation

He can order the immedate arrest of any lawyer, judge standing in the way of enforcement of current law as an accessory


Shall I go on?

[axes_of_weezles]

[George W. Bush]

Just don't go postal on us.

[HiJinx]

Conservatism Ping!

MNJohnnie: "Funny how Federal Spending is this terribable end all be all crises to the "Real Conservatives" right up to the point certain people want something from the Feds then it price is no object."

Certain things are squarely within the responsibility of the Federal government, and have been since its inception. The National Defense is one such. And that is a primary tenet of Conservatism. Pretty snarky of you to say otherwise, sir.

[NRA2BFree]

Sorry Ferdie, this is a Conservative Website.

Is President Bush a Conservative?

[NRA2BFree]

Why are you harassing him? I see you attacking his posts, but not addressing what you think it wrong and why. Just go away, you aren't the posting police. better on your raising.

He's one of the self appointed "thread nannies."

[NRA2BFree]

Please tell little Johnny to quit using foul language. He/she used the "b" word at least 8 times in post #39. We are adults, and should be able to have a discussion without this kind of behavior, and NON STOP harassment. It really gets old. Thank you very much!

[FerdieMurphy]

So which is it, political fool or political fraud?

"Your honor I am finished with this witless."

"The witless may step down."

[FerdieMurphy]

Now all we have to do is get them to get up off their collective arses and DO something.

In a nutshell.

With Napolitano in Arizona and Richardson in New Mexico there may be a problem.