This immigration poll...is it multiple choice?

[Ajnin]

I would like to see those that favor putting the military on the border explain exactly how the military is going to make a difference. Both the military and the INS are controlled by the federal government. The military will not be shooting people. They will not be deploying landmines. They will be operating in the same politically correct manner that the INS/Border Patrol does. So far, I have not seen one person that has any idea how the military would be effective in deterring illegal immigrants.

[4Freedom]

Another 'sealed and militarized' BUMP to the big cat.

[madfly]

Which poll are you talking about? There is a poll in the sidebar, before the topics. It replaces the poll about the flat tax that ran there for sometime. It's a FREEREPUBLIC POLL.

[madfly]

Here's a link to your poll, grania, as you requested. I thought this was posted in "General Interest". I wonder how it got back to "News"? hmmm

LINK

FREEPER POLL: CLOSE THE BORDERS?

Posted on 12/06/2002 6:50 PM MST by grania

OK...we've been reading a lot of opinion about the borders and we've been responding to a lot of polls at other sources. So, let's see how we stand at FR. Answer yes or no for each question A,B,C,D. At the end, write no more than two sentences which summarize your opinion about this issue.

A. The borders of the US should be carefully monitored to eliminate illegal entry into the country as much as possible.

B. Those who are here illegally should be sent home.

C. Legal entry into the country should be severely curtailed, or eliminated.

D. None of the above. We should support our elected officials policies and goals with regard to the borders.

Respond like this:

A. Yes or No

B. Yes or No

C. Yes or No

D. Yes or No

My opinion about this issue is: (two sentence maximum answer)

Have your friends freep our unscientific poll if you want, since we'll know if anyone posts twice.

[Sabertooth]

I would like to see those that favor putting the military on the border explain exactly how the military is going to make a difference. Both the military and the INS are controlled by the federal government. The military will not be shooting people. They will not be deploying landmines. They will be operating in the same politically correct manner that the INS/Border Patrol does. So far, I have not seen one person that has any idea how the military would be effective in deterring illegal immigrants.

I heard it was all a big bluff to show the Illegals we are serious.

[exhaustedmomma]

I wonder if those who voted "borders should be sealed and militarized" realize they're advocating spending tens of billions of ineffective dollars on a great leap toward a police state.

hmmmmmm... what about Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution for the united States of America which states calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions??? Sounds sealed and militarized enough for my vote.

[Sabertooth]

hmmmmmm... what about Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution for the united States of America which states calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions??? Sounds sealed and militarized enough for my vote.

Article I, Section 8 is understood to refer to military invasions.

The Posse Comitatus Act prevents the military from being used to enforce US Law, unless Congress enacts specific exemptions. Drug interdiction was a recent exception, and a mistake, in my opinion. The Homeland Security Act made terrorism an exception, which I think is right, since terrorists have committed acts of war against us.

However, There is no exception for Illegal Aliens to Posse Comitatus.

[WRhine]

I don't know what happened to the poll but seems to have been taken down very quickly...Maybe it was going in the wrong direction???

I'm trying to remember what I voted for, oh yeah, that’s right, I voted for militarizing the borders. But I also wanted to vote for “reduced immigration” (presumably this pertained to LEGAL as well as ILLEGAL immigration but WHO KNOWS?) and was also tempted to vote that Illegal Immigration is the only immigration problem that concerns me.

So my thinking was that if I just voted on the illegal immigration choice I would be overlooking the serious crisis of legal immigration...which is every bit as bad and arguably worse than illegal immigration. I thus came to the conclusion that this poll was OBVIOUSLY designed to splinter up the votes of those of us who want Immigration Reform into tiny little boxes (like the open crowd likes to do) based on the old divide and conquer strategy. I figured that if this is the game on FR then the word "militarized" was a pretty good word to sum up my feelings on the subject of the IMMIGRATION CRISIS in this country.

[WRhine]

I would like to see those that favor putting the military on the border explain exactly how the military is going to make a difference.

How does our military make a difference in Korea, in Bosnia, in Haiti, in Japan, in German? You tell me? Do we have a shoot to kill policy for the slightest border infraction in all those countries too? I don't think so. We seem to be very competent in protecting the borders of every country our military is in EXCEPT our own.

[WRhine]

here's the problem i see with the poll as stated:

some of the choices define the problems i.e. illegal
immigration; and

some of the choices define the solutions i.e. close the
borders.

that's why there can be multiple good choices, and that's
where the confusion lies.

the survey should be asking one or the other question.

Bump. That's the way I saw it too.

[Madcelt]

the survey should be asking one or the other question.

Yup. I think ya got it.

[exhaustedmomma]

The purpose of the militia as defined by the Constitution is to

1.Enforce the laws of the Union (the Constitution)
2.Suppress insurrections
3.Repel invasions

These provisions affirm the right of the People to defend themselves and their republican form of government from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

When a country tells their people to go into another country illegally and dares that other country to enforce their laws inspite of the havoc the invasion causes, that seems to be a military move... especially considering the world we live in. Besides, what about the Mexican army shooting at border patrol? I just think it is wise and right for citizens on the borders to protect their land, homes, families and communities. I don't see how this will cost billions.

[Calpublican]

Me too.

[Sabertooth]

When a country tells their people to go into another country illegally and dares that other country to enforce their laws inspite of the havoc the invasion causes, that seems to be a military move... especially considering the world we live in.

Sounds like a good argument take before the Supreme Court.

Besides, what about the Mexican army shooting at border patrol?

At most, that puts our troops against their troops.

And frankly, our BP is more than capable of handling their troops, of the pols would let them.

I just think it is wise and right for citizens on the borders to protect their land, homes, families and communities.

I don't disagree. But troops aren't the best way to go about it.

I don't see how this will cost billions.

How many troops would you suggest we staion per mile of border?

[4Freedom]

"So far, I have not seen one person that has any idea how the military would be effective in deterring illegal immigrants."

Now, you both know that's not true.

[4Freedom]

"How many troops would you suggest we station per mile of border?"

We should station 5 troops per mile along a 30-foot-tall wall until a sufficient number of 'Special Border Patrol' can be hired to replace them.

The idea is to keep the illegal aliens, drug smugglers, Mexican military, terrorists, etc. from ever crossing the borders in the first place.

That's how our military does it everywhere else in the world.

As WRhine has also asked you, why not here in our own country?

When I've discussed this with Ajnin in the past, he agreed that a wall would make his job easier.

Turn the screaming hoards back. They'll stop coming.

Inspect everything and everybody trying to cross at the legal border checkpoints.

Do the same thing at the harbors.

Before you start roaring about the cost, what do you agree that illegal aliens, smuggled narcotics and the criminal element that cross the borders unhindered cost us annually in this country, all tolled? Incarceration, drug rehabilitation, lost productivity, loss of life, crippling injuries, damage to property i.e. cars, homes, stolen property all has to be figured into this.

[RonDog]

How many troops would you suggest we station per mile of border?

Here is a thread that might help:

One Reporter's Opinion: Citizen Militia on the Border (George Putnam)
NewsMax.com ^ | 12/13/2002 | George Putnam
Posted on 12/13/2002 3:34 PM PST by SteveH

One Reporter's Opinion: Citizen Militia on the Border

George Putnam
Friday, Dec. 13, 2002

It is this reporter's opinion that I found it the height of hypocrisy when I read the headline "U.S. Plans to Seal Afghans' Porous Border." The plan is to slow the flow of illegals, illicit drugs, terrorists and contraband into and out of Afghanistan. The United States will finance the construction and maintenance of 177 checkpoints, staffed by 12,000 border police in that far-off land.

The cost is staggering – each checkpoint and its facilities to cost an average of $300,000. It is to include offices, sleeping quarters and, in some cases, clinics – this staggering expenditure to guarantee the sovereignty of Afghanistan.

Contrast this with the fact that our country cannot and will not control the flow of illegal aliens across our own porous borders – 15 million illegals that have poured into the United States, violating our sovereignty!

Where our government has failed us, several groups of patriotic citizens are taking up arms along the Arizona border with Mexico. One of these is Chris Simcox, a teacher-turned-newspaper-owner, who has formed the Tombstone, Ariz., militia called Civil Homeland Defense.

Chris says:

We will no longer tolerate the ineptness of our government in dealing with these criminals and drug dealers. It is a monumental disgrace that our government is letting the American people down, turning us into expendable casualties of the war on terrorism.

These armed civilian groups along our borders, providing civil homeland defense, are experiencing constant confrontations with illegals. There have been moments that bordered on extreme violence. It's bound to become more dangerous and, as one observer puts it, somebody is going to get killed.

Simcox, in a moment of frustration, told this reporter:

I defy our president to arrest any of us for doing what the government refuses to do to protect the sovereignty of our beloved country. This land belongs to every citizen; it's OUR land. I challenge my government to come and arrest me. We are not "crazies," we are concerned citizens, we are responsible people.

The groups are growing. There are now more than a dozen known militia organizations – armed civilian groups – on the border. It's time Congress and the president become involved.

Simcox says:

I am trying to force the president of the United States to do his job. He took an oath to protect us from enemies. He has no business sending troops to foreign countries when he has not sealed our own borders.

If we can protect the porous border of Afghanistan, with 177 checkpoints and 12,000 border police, surely we can protect the border of the United States of America.

I invite you to read on:

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/local/12_9_02armed.html

http://www.azstarnet.com/border/21206TOMBSTONEMILITIA.html

http://www.projectusa.org/Ezine/02-07-02-12.html

* * * * * *

The legendary George Putnam is 88 years young and a veteran of 68 years as a reporter, broadcaster and commentator ... and is still going strong. George is part of the all-star line-up of Southern California's KPLS Radio - Hot Talk AM 830.

Click here for George's complete bio

... and check out a new feature article in Insight magazine on George

CLICK HERE for the REST of the thread

[RonDog]

Do any of the AZ FReepers know this guy?

From http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/local/12_9_02armed_side.html:

Border group's founder sees paper grow

The Tombstone Tumbleweed last month announces the creation of the Civil Homeland Defense.
'Look what I've done with nothing but words, I'm patting myself on the back.' -
Chris Simcox, Tombstone Tumbleweed owner, below
GARY GAYNOR/Tucson CitizenFRANCISCO MEDINA/Tucson Citizen

LUKE TURF
Tucson Citizen
Dec. 9, 2002
As word grows about the new armed Civil Homeland Defense patrol, so does the popularity of its founder's newspaper.
Tombstone Tumbleweed Publisher Chris Simcox said last week his paper's Web page has had more than 10,000 hits since his national radio interview with Matt Drudge three weeks ago.

[www.TombstoneTumbleweed.com]

Circulation, about 900 when Simcox bought the paper in May, he said, has grown to more than 1,300.
Simcox said he is accomplishing his goal of focusing a national spotlight on illegal immigration.
"People are reading and they're learning about the problem," he said.
"Look what I've done with nothing but words. I'm patting myself on the back."
Simcox was especially pleased that four members of Arizona's congressional delegation - Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, Rep. Jim Kolbe and Rep.-elect Raúl Grijalva - discussed illegal immigration during a tour of the border last week.
"Look what happened today," he said. "We got all our elected public servants doing their job and paying attention to the people."

[4Freedom]

Nice post, Rondog. Lucky I had eaten my breakfast awhile back or I would have done more than just dry-heave.

Our RINO/Liberal Democrat government can find $53 billion-$100 million, U.S. Taxpayer's dollars to secure Afghanistan's freakin' borders, but not a damn penny to secure our own.

I'll just bet this balloons to $100 billion before it's done, too.

C'mon Saber, Ajnin, Marine Inspector, where's your outrage?

[4Freedom]

Looks like I inadvertantly added a decimal point.

177 checkpoints at $300,000 each is a mere $53 million-$100,000 U.S. Taxpayer's dollars. That's chickenfeed. Never mind. /sarcasm