Chinese training Mexican army to disrupt US border?

[croyance]

seeker_two:
Putting words in people's mouths is a funny strategy. Do much political work?
1.) I never assumed that illegal immigrants have nothing but good intentions. By your own words you assumed that they have bad intentions. I know this is not universally true. Can you convince enlisted men that it is true and further can you recruit more soldiers if they know that they will be shooting illegal immigrants regularly?
2.) So lets see. Illegal immigrants take jobs that are off the books, taxwise. So why don't I hear about people on welfare taking these sub-minimum wage jobs that illegal immigrants are doing? They already get a check from the government, along with food stamps and medical care. The cash from this work is all extra, no taxes. Yet none do.
Americans also would not want to pay the higher prices in food. The extra cost of labor would be passed down in prices. Foreign imports would get more market share.

LAK, why would they stop at policing the boarders? Once you blur the distinction between civil and military, why not use military units? Just because you think martial law is bad doesn't mean a "law and order" politician won't market it right. You may not want or need it, but in a crime-ridden neighborhood the population may disagree.
Nice history on the Home Guard units. If by availible manpower you mean the current military, then the you mean the recall of our military from distant places. For instance, Germany isn't looking at the Soviets marching across their country anymore. And even if they are, I don't really care. Or do you mean raising seperate units from those no longer fit for overseas service? What availible manpower are you refering to?

 

[LAK]

[Croyance]"why would they stop at policing the boarders? Once you blur the distinction between civil and military, why not use military units?"

..... The Coast Guard is an arm of the military. They already patrol the coasts. Again, patrolling the borders under the current threat has nothing to do with the notion of the military being involved in regular police work. We certainly had no effective resistance to invading, destroying the infrastructure of and killing several thousand people in two sovereign nations addressing the same threat.

[Croyance]"Just because you think martial law is bad doesn't mean a "law and order" politician won't market it right. You may not want or need it, but in a crime-ridden neighborhood the population may disagree."

..... This is not about "marketing" anything by politicians, it is about what is vital to minimize what we are told is an immediate threat. When the inevitable happens (which is what they keep saying), there will be an imposition of a state of martial law. What they are currently not doing amounts to paving the way for it to occur.

[Croyance]"Nice history on the Home Guard units. If by availible manpower you mean the current military, then the you mean the recall of our military from distant places. For instance, Germany isn't looking at the Soviets marching across their country anymore. And even if they are, I don't really care. Or do you mean raising seperate units from those no longer fit for overseas service? What availible manpower are you refering to?"

..... Well there is our military currently in about 90 countries for one reason or another. But it is the main body in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia - as well as other parts of europe - that need to be here. There is also the untapped resource referred to as the unorganized militia in title 10 section 311 of the USC. Plenty of manpower there. If the British had no trouble raising a million and a half we ought to be at least able to match that without a problem.

 

[seeker_two]

I never assumed that illegal immigrants have nothing but good intentions. By your own words you assumed that they have bad intentions.

Reading my posts before responding to them is always a good idea. If you can show me where I said this, that might help your case....

Actually, I'll help you a little here. If an illegal alien is willing to...

a.) cross the border to enter the United States in violation of US laws,
b.) obtain forged documents (i.e. drivers' license, Social Security cards, etc.) in violation of US laws, and
c.) obtain employment w/o a valid "green card" in violation of US laws...

...what motivates that illegal alien to respect any of the OTHER laws of this nation?...

Can you convince enlisted men that it is true and further can you recruit more soldiers if they know that they will be shooting illegal immigrants regularly?

That falls under the clause "enemies, foreign & domestic" which every soldier takes in his/her oath. And I believe that you'd find more willing to do so than not.

So lets see. Illegal immigrants take jobs that are off the books, taxwise. So why don't I hear about people on welfare taking these sub-minimum wage jobs that illegal immigrants are doing? They already get a check from the government, along with food stamps and medical care. The cash from this work is all extra, no taxes. Yet none do.

A few do. But many would rather take jobs that pay enough to get them OFF welfare--and many just don't care to work even if you offered them ANY salary. But, w/ illegals taking jobs for wages far below minimum, not paying taxes, & still living off of welfare, you get the triple-whammy. Respond to THAT, please....

Americans also would not want to pay the higher prices in food. The extra cost of labor would be passed down in prices. Foreign imports would get more market share.

Foreign imports already do. And the prices paid at the grocery store would be more than offset by the savings on taxes & welfare spending.

But, if you prefer the paradise of open borders, go right ahead. I dare you to live on the border where these "peaceful immigrants" cut fences, destroy property, and rob homes along the trail to "the promised land." And, when the next terror attack is traced back to someone who strolled across our border, you can just remind me that they're just here for the "American Dream"...

 

[ahenry]

Lak,

There is not much to be gained in adding a mere token number to the BP.

And you would know this based on what knowledge and experience? Trust me when I say that improving the enforcement side of the equation wouldn’t require as lage a manpower increase as you suggest.

If you take the southern border region alone it covers an enormous amount of ground. And it needs to be covered in depth rather than trying to hold a purely linear frontier.

I am quite familiar with the region and the myriad of obstacles it presents the Border Patrol. Moreover, the region is being covered “in depth”, not linearly. This “in depth” coverage has lots of room for improvement, but it does exist.

Although there have been some improvements in the activity of the BP it is not really even making a minor dent in the traffic.

Again, you would know this how? Just what is the traffic across the southern border? Perhaps you could tell us by sector, and then enlighten us with the “improvements” in BP activity that still isn’t really making a dent.

And there is zero activity in most states in purging out those who are already on the inside.

I couldn’t agree with you more here. This is a real failure of the Border Patrol. I have hopes that with the new division of labor in the Department of Homeland Security (CBP, BICE, BCIS) this failure will be rectified. There are very good indications that this will in fact be the case.

 

[LAK]

AHenry,

I live in Texas as well as it happens. The number of people that have been active in reporting on this issue in other states are numerous. Rep. Tom Tancredo of Arizina has been very active on this subject. The trouble with the government's treatment of this problem starts with information - or rather a lack of it. The government, conveniently, is not publishing estimated totals for those getting through. But there are all indications that the numbers crossing outside of regular points of controlled entry run well into the thousands per day along the southern states. I recall one report in particular speaking of Organ Pipe Cactus national park - the place where Border patrolman Eggle was killed - was running about 800 a day along a stretch of just so many miles.

The expulsion of those already insde the country is not really a BP application. Rather it is the realm of the INS. There has been no concerted effort by the Federal branch to engage police agencies on state level to detain all such persons so they can be deported by the INS.

 

[ahenry]

Lak,

Living in Texas doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about (although it’s a good start ). You make these claims that “a few thousand” increase in the Border Patrol would not do much, then that the border is only patrolled “linearly”, and finally that the BP isn’t even making a dent in illegal alien traffic. All of these claims might very well be true but I’d like to see what you are basing them on. So far it sounds as if its nothing but a personal feeling grounded in nothing but air.

But there are all indications that the numbers crossing outside of regular points of controlled entry run well into the thousands per day along the southern states.

Again, you provide nothing to substantiate that number but even if we accept it as true, without providing the number of apprehensions it is a meaningless number. Suppose its true that ten thousand aliens cross illegally every day. If only a couple hundred are caught then you’d be right, not even a minor dent is being made in traffic. Of course, if say nine thousand of those are caught then it is an entirely different picture.

The expulsion of those already insde the country is not really a BP application. Rather it is the realm of the INS.

Until very recently it was indeed the role of the Border Patrol. Again, under the new DHS that appears to have changed and while I think that is a good thing it will take some time to fully evaluate the effectiveness of it.

There has been no concerted effort by the Federal branch to engage police agencies on state level to detain all such persons so they can be deported by the INS.

That is flat out wrong. The fact of the matter is that right now the fed gov’t is trying to get various state agencies to enforce immigration laws through basic training courses and Memorandums Of Understanding.

 

[croyance]

we can assume that one type of criminal invader is intent on doing harm while another type of criminal invader has nothing but good intentions.... You know what happens when you assume, don't you?...

There, the implication that illegal immigrants (the topic of that posts) are here for the purpose of creating crime. I admit, it was saying it without directly saying it.

Taking an other to fight "enemies both foreign and domestic" doesn't mean a guy will kill women crossing the border.

Somehow, illegal immigrants find enough money to live on. So people on welfare can do the same. The fact that courts have ruled that illegal immigrants are eligible for government charity is not my fault, nor a part in my beliefs. That is a hole that need to be sealed.

What savings on taxes? Since when does the government cut back on budgets over a long term period.

And I never said that open borders were the way to go, I said that the military is not the way to patrol the southern border. Killing people out of hand was another thing I was against. I never said that we shouldn't if reason is there. We just disagreed on the fact that merely trying to get here was a reason to kill.

Funny thing about breaking laws. Nobody follows absolutely all of them and in spite of breaking some, not all decide to break more.

LAK - I agree that the military should be pulled back from around the world. I believe that there are 30,000 in South Korea that could be home.
It is a marketing issue. If the threat to the US is current and existing, why not use the military to patrol US cities? Many mayors are complaining that they do not have the budget and manpower to effectively patrol there most vulnerable sites everytime the threat level goes up.
Of course if something happens there will be martial law. Because it is not seen as normal, there will be some pressure to make it as short as possible. If people get used to seeing soldiers around patroling sites and maintaining order, then they get used to the idea of martial law.
If people see soldiers patroling bad neighborhoods and crime goes down, much of the population may not see it as a bad thing. Initially it won't get in the way of soccor moms and those in bad neighborhoods will have a moment of peace.

 

[wingman]

"Living in Texas doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about (although it’s a good start "

I would also say working management in th BP does not mean your right, actually some jobs will give you a poor view.

My view as someone who has lived in the southwest over 30 years tells me
we are in deep trouble with uncontrolled immigration of all forms. We no longer
live in the 1800's when ma and pa could arrive grab there 40 acres and live
without a burden on society. Those of you who don't want troops on the border would you rather have them in malls and airports.?? Make no mistake
if we continue with our present rate of un-checked immigration there will be
very little freedom remaining in 20 years.

The cost to the American taxpayer is effecting our lives, medical, schools,
the rich in this country want a slave labor pool, for them it does not matter
who or where, it's the bottom line and again we pay in tax dollars and freedom.

If you live in the mountains of tenn. it may not affect you now(other then
money) but trust me it's coming.

Could have 9/11 been stopped with proper controlled immigration, I believe it
could have, but we seem to wait until the fox is in the hen house and then
we make new laws add more FBI, etc to "monitor" folks in country. Please
don't tell me they cannot be stopped at the border, we may not get all but
we can do a better job then what we are doing now.

 

[LAK]

AHenry,

This has been well written about by many sources over recent years. I do not maintain a library on it - you'll have to go look for yourself. The estimates of illegals in this country run from something like 10 million on up depending on the source - depending on which organization is doing the estimating. I work in the private sector these days, but have regular contact with local police, some personally; and I see the results of this firsthand a long way from the border itself.

What the government is doing now with "training and memorandum" etc is not nearly enough, and about 3 years too late. When we get hit the next time on the inside, there can be no saying "we just didn't know". It's been three and a half years - and virtually nothing to stop it has been done in this regard. That simple. No sane man would allow it of his own household, and no government can be excused on parallel principles of duty and responsibility. These people - regardless what country they originate from - need rounding up and shipping out right now, and the border shut down outside the controlled points of entry. We have plenty of people and resources to do it.

But the real problem isn't any other than the current two parties' joint goal of an open Pan-America. That is why this is going so slow, and it has left us wide open as an immediate consequence - as well as the economic, health and cultural factors.

Croyance,

We do not want the regular army - or reserves - patrolling cities. Our regular police agencies work fine if they are not tied up doing social work and other nonsense.

The Bush administration should scrap the Americorp etc nonsense and utilize a volunteer militia under Title 10 Section 311 USC to augment the military regulars and reserves though. That is one reason why we have a 2nd Amendment, and it is high time it was put to good use. And it would serve to lessen the anxiety many people have of martial law, were it needed, by utilizing people who live in their own communities.
---------------------------

"Our common border is no longer a line that divides us, but a region that unites our nations, reflecting our common aspirations, value and culture." - Secretary Colin L. Powell, Washington, DC - January 30, 2001

 

[ahenry]

wingman,

"Living in Texas doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about (although it’s a good start "

I would also say working management in th BP does not mean your right, actually some jobs will give you a poor view.

I am not Border Patrol management. Did you think I was?

 

[croyance]

LAK, you don't want the military patrolling our cities. I don't want it. But once you open the door, where does it stop?
My point to you is that the public could be convinced that it is the right thing and good thing to do.
Look how quickly people lined up to give up rights for the Patriot Act. It just takes the right incident. The younger generation now is willing to give up things from the BOR, because they don't see it as necessary. It just takes time.

 

[faraway]

Not likely, sounds a bit out there-recycled version of the "Zimmerman telegraph" . As already noted, the Mexican Army, is busy keeping a relative, albiet resented quiet, down with the residual Zapatista's in the southern states. And they have taken US equipment 'donations', including fast light armoured trucks, for that involvement. So not too likely there.
China, would likely want Mexican oil and Mexican Markets, more than a military interdiction. And anyway, a proxy war with the US, would be detrimental to Walmart. And what's good for Walmart, is good for China.
Illegals, good luck, and no you can't proactively shoot people, who in most cases are looking for work. All the recent 9/11 focus on the border has done, is move the traffic into areas where the country is lethal in and of itself. And still they come, without enough water.
Appalling, but Mexico encourages illegal immigration as a safety valve. If the US did succede in closing that border, the stresses could tear Mexico apart. And a destabilized Mexico, would be worse than anything the Mexican army could engineer. So US and Mexican immigration applications (despite all the posturing), in some ways are a acknowledgement of pragmatic necessities. The border is regulated (a little) but neither will close it.
And the north, much easier to bring in real nasty stuff. Despite all the press, the only change up here on the other (even more isolated border), due to 9-11, has been a few more INS trucks, and some aircraft every now and again. And a schoolkid whose farm sat on the border, who was locked out of coming back home. And more vexations at the official ports of entry, mainly on the US side.
And anyway, whatcha gonna do?. Back home (Colorado), there have always been a lot of 'unofficial' ties to Mexico, it was there before 1846 (then it was Mexican's in illegal (to the Mexican Gov'ment) settlements like Greenhorn, and US people trading in the same. Now, same song, different tune.
And I'll be invading North Dakota this weekend...they have a Walmart there...

 

[LAK]

Actually, China is getting oil from us - as is Japan.

Croyance,

Putting them on the borders - strictly on the borders - has nothing to due with the cities, towns and other interior of the United States. If the Bush administration was not pushing the new Pan-America they could have done this three and a half years ago, and kept it strictly on that basis until the "crisis" was over, the INS had swept the nation thoroughly, and the BP properly beefed up. George Bush could have done this with a stroke of the pen.

 

[faraway]

Anyway, about the oil element, whether it's a multi-national, OPEC, or a nationalized company (like the old Pemex), LAK has hit the nail...national boundaries and oil distribution (who sells, ships and buys oil, sometimes by proxy) aren't that easily defined.
As for Bush, waving a pen and making it so...despite all the posturing, as noted probably not.
And maybe a good thing it might not happen, in an oblique way. Too much has already been ripped from basic liberties due to the Homeland Security situation. Any serious attempt to seal borders, in a manner that really works, also entails some very intrusive tactics away from the line. So, how many random stops, high tech watching, and general "papers please" does one want in their little baliwick?. Or for that matter, revenue stops to pay for all the neat stuff when initial government grants for 'security and interdiction' have run out?. That situation is already arising, even here in the far prairie hinterlands.
Given the choices, mayhaps a few extra muchachos running around is preferable to another step along the concrete path to complete security. Barbed wire confines in more than one way.

 

[Any .45]

I don't see why, but this sounds like some kinda of crazy Hoaks.

 

[ahenry]

My view as someone who has lived in the southwest over 30 years tells me we are in deep trouble with uncontrolled immigration of all forms. We no longer live in the 1800's when ma and pa could arrive grab there 40 acres and live without a burden on society….Please don't tell me they cannot be stopped at the border, we may not get all but we can do a better job then what we are doing now.

Well my view as someone that has spent his entire live in the southwest and whose family has spent many generations in the southwest is that I couldn’t agree with you more in this regard. There is much more that can be done to deal with this issue and as a matter of fact, much more is being done. All you have to do is look carefully at things and try talking to some people that actually know what they are talking about rather than those that wish they did (I'll avoid saying names here); what you will find might surprise you.

 

[ahenry]

I am well aware of the nature of things so far as illegal immigration is concerned, even to the extent of belonging to several immigration related organizations. However, I didn’t come into this conversation making allegations, you did. Therefore I have no burden of proof to verify those statements, you do. The fact that I happen to know that some of what you are claiming is incorrect only causes me to ask you to substantiate your claims. Everybody gets fed bad information from time to time. Happens to me all the time, which is why when somebody questions my “facts” I use it as an opportunity to re-verify them…

What the government is doing now with "training and memorandum" etc is not nearly enough, and about 3 years too late…These people - regardless what country they originate from - need rounding up and shipping out right now, and the border shut down outside the controlled points of entry. We have plenty of people and resources to do it.

Since you are so sure that what is being done and how things are being changed is nowhere near enough, lets try getting at this a different way; What would you suggest be done to remove the 10-15 million illegal aliens currently in America? Keep in mind several factors. Under the current legal understanding (IOW, without a Supreme Court ruling changing things, current views regarding illegal aliens have to be complied with), illegals retain all the civil rights a U.S. citizen does, including a fair trial. A United States citizen is not required to prove citizenship in order to stay in America. The burden of proof once an individual is in America is on the fed gov’t, therefore baring a confession of illegal alienage, a case has to be developed in order to actually deport an individual (generally speaking). This requires substantial “leg-work” and manpower. Additionally, please also explain how you would approach the issue of detention space for the aliens until their trial, the docket load of both the judges and the prosecutors, translators for non English speaking aliens, more detention space until actual deportation, and lastly additional Deportation Officers to escort deported aliens back to their country. These are only a few of the highlights of what is facing the gov’t regarding illegal immigrants, and I think that most people have no idea what is involved with this issue. For most, it seems like a simple thing; “the dude is here illegally, put him on a boat home”. America being what she is, such is not the case, and until courts change we are stuck with the way things are now. Once you can give me some sort of an answer on this aspect of illegal immigration we can tackle the "shut down the border right now" issue. That one is even more difficult.

 

[LAK]

AHenry,

The suggestion that illegal immigrants - insurgents - have the same rights to a trial is lunacy. But those Supreme Court judges ought to have been impeached for this and other reasons some time ago. At a time like this it amounts to treason. Those in Congress need to decide which country they hold allegence to - and come out and say it, then act. While George Bush and the Executive Branch do not have powers of impeachment - they could open their mouths and speak.

If we can not get 10 to 15 million illegals out of this country and stop the flow of more, this country as we know it is finished, and we can look forward to far worse than "your papers!".

Shutting down the borders involves manpower; which we have. It requires equipment which we have. It involves spending, which we are already doing; the army and air force are already on the payroll. We are already spending money moving them around the world and back, feeding and equipping them, maintaining hundreds of bases and smaller operations overseas. The only additional measure needed is for our government to decide with which country their loyalty lies.

The root of the problem is the question of loyalty of those in Congress and the Executive Branch to the United States over the new Pan-American State.

 

[faraway]

Maybe so, but to imply that many of the illegals, are insurgents seems to be stretching the analogy. In most cases (at least with those I've known), their main interest is sending money home, buying a big pick-up to show off in, and maybe figuring out a way to get their family here. Maybe not the way to go about the matter, but scarcely on the same level as running about with a AK, blowing up dams and actually trying to take over the guv'ment.
And what exactly will the response be, by the legal immigrants, and multi-generational American's, be to locking up, in constitutionally questionable detention camps, 15 million or so people to whom they might have substantial cultural or even family ties?. Many don't want the illegals here either, but the methods being advocated, would sure polarize people against the whole concept. And if the US, did actually take this approach, there are many otherwise very patriotic citizens who would have some difficulty retaining their respect and loyalty to this system. Including the writer of this trivial little missive.
The drug dealers/smugglers and coyotes, could be dealt with better by application of the relevant sections of the criminal code. And anyway, in the US when immigrants come in a large numbers, the predators follow. Happened in the Bowery,in the Barrios, and with other groups. And often it was the civilian police, who came out of these same groups, who were the best at handling the trouble.
Military interdiction of immigrant related issues, has a very questionable history in the US, and one better not repeated. Events like the New York draft riots, the RR strike of 1877, Ludlow, Leadville, the WW-2 internment camps, and the like, aren't an encouraging precedent.
Pan American state....not likely. Too much independant cultural history there to be worrying about that possibility. More or less a mirror analog to the fantasies of the Atzlan contingent. Although the countries involved have substantial cultural and economic ties, neither will be taking over the other in an insurgent sense. Their bigger concern would be in international/regional marketing- the recent goings on with the EU have raised the economic ante considerably for the US, Mexico, and Canada, along with the smaller players in this hemisphere. More than likely it will be Pepsi-Co, and other corporations trying their best to get the money from the invaders, before it gets sent home. Or from their kids...So if you really want to forestall the problem, better do something about the local Taco Bell, if that kind of thing spreads, it will never be the same here in the good ole' USA. Oopsie, never mind...too late.

 

[croyance]

LAK, never confuse your intentions with others, especially politicians.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.